Quote:

Declassified CIA Documents Show American Support for Ukrainian Terrorists

Posted on February 2, 2017by yalensis
Dear Readers:
This piece is from a week ago, January 24, but it somehow slipped past me. But that matters little the theme is timeless. Well, actually there is a timeline. On January 18 the CIA published online nearly 12 million pages of previously declassified documents which concern the activities of the CIA since the time of its creation in 1947 and up through the 1990's. The documents cover the period of the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and lots more. Previously, these archives were only available, as CNN notes, from four computer terminals at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. Visitors had to use the CIA's standalone search tool called CIA Records Search Tool (CREST). Now the documents are online and anybody can read them. This is a good thing, it allows historians to really sink their teeth into primary documents. "None of this is cherry-picked," stated CIA spokesperson Heather Fritz Horniak. "It's the full history. It's good and bads."

Students at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland

Making the documents available on the internet entailed a huge, labor-intensive project of manually scanning, redacting, and publishing the archives into a format (such as PDF) where more standardized search engines can be used. This project was supposed to be completed no earlier than the end of 2017; however, advances in library science and computer technology allowed the project to be completed well ahead of schedule. Here is the CIA websitewhich explains all of this. Instead of the 4 terminals, users can now read the documents from anywhere in the world on the CIA's Electronic Reading Room. I tried it myself, punching in a couple of search terms and accessing some very interesting PDF documents. Couldn't quite get the hang of it, but it's there for people with better research skills than I possess.

"Stefan" Bandera

Anyhow, now that we have authenticated the source of information, we can proceed to the topic of this post, namely, the relationship between the CIA and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), led by Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan (who in the CIA archives, is typically spelled as "Stefan") Bandera.
Readers will be surprised and shocked to learn that the American CIA fostered and assisted the OUN even though the former regarded the latter as a purely terrorist organization. But then, the CIA has never been particularly squeamish about working with terrorists.

Polish official Bronisław Pieracki

Among the documents is one from 4 February 1948, in which Bandera is dubbed a terrorist, tied to the assassination of Polish Minister of Internal Affairs Bronisław Pieracki in 1934. Disclaimer: I didn't read this document with my own eyeballs, it's in there somewhere, but I can't quite figure out how to get to it. I'm used to easy search engines like Google and Wikipedia, so even this online CREST seems quite cumbersome, at least to me. Hence, I am just relying on the accuracy of the Russian reporter who wrote the piece, which I linked above, for Ria Novosti. I am assuming that the Russian government and press are all over these CIA archives, like metallic bears attracted to a giant magnetic honeycomb. As well they should be, since so many of the nefarious deeds recounted, were directed precisely against their country, i.e., the Soviet Union, and then Russia.
For example, the archives detail how, after the end of World War II, the CIA directly financed the activities of the Banderite marauders. The exact dollar sums and names of the banks involved in this financing were, however, redacted out of the documents and unavailable to curious eyes. God forbid some ordinary American citizen would go to cash their paycheck at the local bank branch, knowing that this same bank financed terror squads who literally burned people alive in the marshes of Western Ukraine.

Aerodynamic

A series of documents concern the CIA's "Operation Aerodynamic". Somebody over at Global Research did their homework on this, which means I don't have to. "Aerodynamic" started in 1953 and involved covert support of Nazi "entities". Well, Global calls them "Neo-Nazis", but there was actually nothing "Neo" about these folks. They were the real Adolph McCoy. According to the document:

George Soros helped Banderites too.

«The purpose of Project AERODYNAMIC is to provide for the exploitation and expansion of the anti-Soviet Ukrainian resistance for cold war and hot war purposes. Such groups as the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (UHVR) and its Ukrainian Insurgent Army (OUN), the Foreign Representation of the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (ZPUHVR) in Western Europe and the United States, and other organizations such as the OUN/B will be utilized».
The kicker here is that the CIA was supporting two rival groups who hated each others guts: the OUN and the ZPUHVR. The latter was directly controlled by the CIA and British MI-6, whereas the classic Banderites of OUN had a tendency to go maverick from time to time. Even the German Nazis got so sick of Bandera's antics that they threw him in the pokey for a while, until he could cool off his temper.

Did Dudley help the neo-Nazis?

Meanwhile, along with the Americans, the Brits, the Italians, and even the "good Germans" of West Germany, the Canadian intelligence services also got involved in these covert de-stabilizing activities tell me it ain't so, Dudley Do-Right! they had their own version of AERODYNAMIC, which they codenamed REDSKIN. Both subversive AND politically incorrect at the same time! And eventually, guess who else became involved in all these wacky anti-Communist schemes? George Soros! This "hedge-fund" tycoon was probably the guy who taught the CIA how to hedge their bets. By hiring different sets of people at odds with each other, and spending umpteem millions on all kinds of farcical projects, ranging from smuggling Banderite propaganda into the Ukraine, all the way to arming vicious terrorists for guerrilla war. It all sounds a lot like the Syrian so-called "Moderate Opposition" no?

Need an Asshole? Hire A Butcher!

During those Glory Days, the Banderite main liaison to the CIA was a man named Mykola Lebed, the OUN's Head of Security. Lebed (Russian for "Swan") had been convicted of Pieracki's assassination in 1934. This violent man was let out of jail when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939. Lebed is considered directly responsible for the Volhynia Massacres of 1943, a planned genocide directed primarily against ethnic Poles and also secondarily against Jews. As wiki notes:

Polish children massacred on Lebed's orders.

The peak of the massacres took place in July and August 1943. Most of the victims were women and children. UPA's methods were particularly savage, and resulted in 35,00060,000 Polish deaths in Volhynia and 25,00040,000 in Eastern Galicia, for the total of between 76,000 and 106,000 casualties.
With these credentials under his belt, Lebed seemed like a good fit for a position in the CIA. When his side lost World War II, he was whisked out of the Ukraine and smuggled into the U.S. The CIA-funded guerrilla war against the Soviet government continued for almost a decade but, inevitably, the Ukrainian nationalists lost. Like they always do in the end.

Mykola Lebed

Lebed's consolation prize was a cushy job in the glamorous publishing world of New York City. Now settled securely in Gotham, Lebed ran the so-called Prolog Publishing House, an anti-Communist propaganda outlet funded by the CIA, as revealed in the now-public archives. According to Lebed's wiki: "In 1991, the CIA still considered him a valuable asset. Federal investigators would consider Lebed a possible war criminal but did not pursue prosecution. He died in 1998."
Died peacefully in his bed, unlike those innocent angelic children who perished in Volhynia and Galicia. For no other reason than they didn't quite fit into Bandera's vision of a Ukrainian-speaking genetically pure fascist dictatorship led by the great and glorious Leader you guessed it! Stefan Bandera himself!

Quote:The glorification of Stepan Bandera and other Nazi collaborators will prevent Ukraine's integration with the European Union, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of Poland's ruling Law and Justice Party, warned.
In his interview with weekly Do Rzeczy, cited by Polish media, Kaczynski said that he had already shared his thoughts with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

"I plainly told President Poroshenko that they won't make it to Europe with Bandera. It's absolutely clear to me. We've already shown great patience, but everything has its limits," he said.

"It's the case of Ukraine's specific choice," the politician said of Kiev's attempts to whitewash Bandera and other Ukrainian far-right radicals, who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.

Bandera was leader of the militant arm of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) during the beginning of World War II, but was later arrested by the Germans and spent years in a concentration camp.

OUN cooperated with the Nazis, urging the Ukrainian people to aid the invading forces in destroying the Soviet Union.

After being released, Bandera became the leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that was created in 1942, which mostly fought against the Armia Krajowa of Poland and the Red Army in Western Ukraine.

According to Kaczynski, the Ukrainian nationalists "surpassed the Germans in their brutality against the Poles."

It's estimated that between 76,000 and 106,000 Poles, mainly women and children, were killed in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia during the campaign of ethnic cleansing carried out by Bandera's UPA in 1943-44.

"For many years there's a cult of people who committed genocide against the Polish people," the former Polish PM said.

The 108th anniversary since Bandera's birth in early January was marked by torch rallies, which went on unhampered by the authorities and gathered thousands of people in Ukrainian capital Kiev and the port city of Odessa.

The majority of demonstrators were members of the Right Sector and other far-right groups, which played a key role in the 2014 coup that brought the current Ukrainian leadership to power.

READ MORE: Spanish team refuse Ukrainian footballer loan after fans protest 'neo-Nazi links'

In 2010, the nationalist icon was even honored with the title of "Hero of Ukraine," but the decision was later outlawed by a court.

Ralf Anders Wrote:Perhaps this fits here (I will have to be brief, and English is my second language): The movie was produced by Oliver Stone. The English version does not seem to be available anywhere: https://off-guardian.org/2017/02/16/oliver-stones-ukraine-on-fire-will-we-ever-see-it/ James DiEugenio has a very good review up at Consortium News: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/13/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see/ DiEugenio mentions Andriy Parubiy, currently speaker of parliament. For me, Parubiy is the most important parapolitical operator of our times. Parubiy and Tyahnybok founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine, the predecessor of Svoboda, with the Wolfsangel as its emblem. Parubiy was a leader of the neo-Nazi militia "Patriot of Ukraine". He then changed parties and later became "commander" of the Maidan in 2004 and 2013/2014. He has been linked convincingly to the sniper massacre on Maidan and to the Odessa atrocity. He ordered the ATO in East-Ukraine. He was the NATO liaison of Ukraine. He stepped back from his post as Secretary of the National Security Council shortly after MH-17 and a visit from Anders "Fog of War" Rasmussen. In the final days of Maidan he was in constant contact with the US embassy (source: "Der Spiegel"). Without Parubiy, IMO, there would have been no coup and no new Cold War. People Parubiy has met with in the last years include Martin Schulz, Justin Trudeau and, of course, John McCain. The German Federal President remembered the Nazi victims of Babyn Jar shoulder to shoulder with Parubiy (a huge, huge scandal, except nobody important in Germany writes about it -- or Parubiy for that matter). The historical background for this is well laid out by Mr. DiEugenio. Ralf

Quote:If the US State Department's Victoria Nuland had not said "Fuck the EU," few outsiders at the time would have heard of Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, the man on the other end of her famously bugged telephone call. But now Washington's man in Kiev is gaining fame as the face of the CIA-style "destabilization campaign" that brought down Ukraine's monumentally corrupt but legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

"Geoffrey Pyatt is one of these State Department high officials who does what he's told and fancies himself as a kind of a CIA operator," laughs Ray McGovern, who worked for 27 years as an intelligence analyst for the agency. "It used to be the CIA doing these things," he tells Democracy Now. "I know that for a fact." Now it's the State Department, with its coat-and-tie diplomats, twitter and facebook accounts, and a trick bag of goodies to build support for American policy.

A retired apparatchik, the now repentant McGovern was debating Yale historian Timothy Snyder, a self-described left-winger and the author of two recent essays in The New York Review of Books "The Haze of Propaganda" and "Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine." Both men speak Russian, but they come from different planets.

On Planet McGovern or my personal take on it realpolitik rules. The State Department controls the prime funding sources for non-military intervention, including the controversial National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which Washington created to fund covert and clandestine action after Ramparts magazine and others exposed how the CIA channeled money through private foundations, including the Ford Foundation. State also controls the far-better-funded Agency for International Development (USAID), along with a growing network of front groups, cut-outs, and private contractors. State coordinates with like-minded governments and their parallel institutions, mostly in Canada and Western Europe. State's "democracy bureaucracy" oversees nominally private but largely government funded groups like Freedom House. And through Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, State had Geoff Pyatt coordinate the coup in Kiev.

The CIA, NSA, and Pentagon likely provided their specialized services, while some of the private contractors exhibited shadowy skill sets. But if McGovern knows the score, as he should, diplomats ran the campaign to destabilize Ukraine and did the hands-on dirty work.

Harder for some people to grasp, Ambassador Pyatt and his team did not create the foreign policy, which was and is only minimally about overthrowing Ukraine's duly elected government to "promote democracy." Ever since Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office, Washington and its European allies have worked openly and covertly to extend NATO to the Russian border and Black Sea Fleet, provoking a badly wounded Russian bear. They have also worked to bring Ukraine and its Eastern European neighbors into the neoliberal economy of the West, isolating the Russians rather than trying to bring them into the fold. Except for sporadic resets, anti-Russian has become the new anti-Soviet, and "strategic containment" has been the wonky word for encircling Russia with our military and economic power.

Nor did neoconservatives create the policy, no matter how many progressive pundits blame them for it. NED provides cushy jobs for old social democrats born again as neocons. Pyatt's boss, Victoria Nuland, is the wife and fellow-traveler of historian Robert Kagan, one of the movement's leading lights. And neocons are currently beating the war drums against Russia, as much to scupper any agreements on Syria and Iran as to encourage more Pentagon contracts for their friends and financial backers. But, encircling Russia has never been just a neocon thing. The policy has bi-partisan and trans-Atlantic support, including the backing of America's old-school nationalists, Cold War liberals, Hillary hawks, and much of Obama's national security team.

No matter that the policy doesn't pass the giggle test. Extending NATO and Western economic institutions into all of a very divided Ukraine had less chance of working than did hopes in 2008 of bringing Georgia into NATO, which could have given the gung-ho Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvilli the treaty right to drag us all into World War III. To me, that seemed like giving a ten-year-old the keys to the family Humvee.

Western provocations in Ukraine proved more immediately counterproductive. They gave Vladimir Putin the perfect opportunity for a pro-Russian putsch in Crimea, which he had certainly thought of before, but never as a priority. The provocations encouraged him to stand up as a true Russian nationalist, which will only make him more difficult to deal with. And they gave him cover to get away with that age-old tool of tyrants, a quickie plebiscite with an unnecessary return to Joseph Stalin's old dictum once popular in my homestate of Florida: "It's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes."

Small "d" democrats should shun such pretense. Still, most journalists and pollsters on the scene report that with the exception of the historic Tatar community the majority of Crimeans want to join the Russian Federation, where they seem likely to stay.

Tensions will also grow as the US-picked interim prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk our man "Yats" joins with the IMF to impose a Greek, Spanish, or Italian style austerity. Hard-pressed Ukranians will undoubtedly fight back, especially in the predominantly Russian-speaking east. According to Der Spiegel, a whopping three quarters of the people there do not support the coup or government. What a tar patch! A domestic conflict that could split Ukraine in two will inevitably become even further embroiled in the geo-strategic struggle between Russia and the West.

On Planet Snyder, as in most Western media, these realistic considerations make absolutely no difference. Ideology rules, masked as idealism. Fine sounding abstractions fill the air. Ukrainians are making their own history. They are acting with great courage. They are seeking the rule of law and their rightful place in "European Civilization." They are defending "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity." Russians remain vicious. Big bad Vlad is the new Hitler. He is seeking his own Eurasian empire (as opposed to NATO's), which could soon include parts of Moldova, Belarus, and Kazakhstan that the West needs like a "lok in kop," a hole in the head. And those watching in the West must abandon what Snyder calls "our slightly self-obsessed notions of how we control or don't control everything."

"It was a classic popular revolution," proclaims the professor. An undeniably popular uprising against "an unmistakably reactionary regime."

Writing in The Nation, Professor Stephen Cohen shreds Snyder's argument. My concern is more pointed. Popular uprisings deserve our support or opposition depending on who comes to control them and to what ends. As McGovern puts it, "The question is: Who took them over? Who spurred them? Who provoked them for their own particular strategic interests?"

Detailed evidence provides the answers. For all the courage of the Ukrainian minority who took to the barricades, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and his team spurred the protests in Kiev and exercised extensive though never complete control over them. Tactically, Pyatt and his fellow diplomats showed unexpected skill. Strategically, they should have stayed home.

Revolution on Demand

Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3, Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych. The grant was only $43,737, with an additional $4,796 by November 13. Just enough to buy the modest equipment the project needed.

Many of Hromadske's journalists had worked in the past with American benefactors. Editor-in-chief Roman Skrypin was a frequent contributor to Washington's Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and the US-funded Ukrayinska Pravda. In 2004, he had helped create Channel 5 television, which played a major role in the Orange Revolution that the US and its European allies masterminded in 2004.

Skrypin had already gotten $10,560 from George Soros's International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), which came as a recommendation to Pyatt. Sometime between December and the following April, IRF would give Hromadske another $19,183.

Hromadske's biggest funding in that period came from the Embassy of the Netherlands, which gave a generous $95,168. As a departing US envoy to the Hague said in a secret cable that Wikileaks later made public, "Dutch pragmatism and our similar world-views make the Netherlands fertile ground for initiatives others in Europe might be reluctant, at least initially, to embrace."

For Pyatt, the payoff came on November 21, when President Yanukovych pulled back from an Association Agreement with the European Union. Within hours Hromadske.TV went online and one of its journalists set the spark that brought Yanukovych down.

"Enter a lonely, courageous Ukrainian rebel, a leading investigative journalist," writes Snyder. "A dark-skinned journalist who gets racially profiled by the regime. And a Muslim. And an Afghan. This is Mustafa Nayem, the man who started the revolution. Using social media, he called students and other young people to rally on the main square of Kiev in support of a European choice for Ukraine."

All credit to Nayem for his undeniable courage. But bad, bad history. Snyder fails to mention that Pyatt, Soros, and the Dutch had put Web TV at the uprising's disposal. Without their joint funding of Hromadske and its streaming video from the Euromaidan, the revolution might never have been televised and Yanukovych might have crushed the entire effort before it gained traction.

For better or for worse, popular uprisings have changed history long before radio, television, or the Internet. The new technologies only speed up the game. Pyatt and his team understood that and masterfully turned soft power and the exercise of free speech, press, and assembly into a televised revolution on demand, complete with an instant overdub in English. Soros then funded a Ukrainian Crisis Media Center "to inform the international community about events in Ukraine," and I'm still trying to track down who paid for Euromaidan PR, the website of the Official Public Relations Secretariat for the Headquarters of the National Resistance.

Orange Revolution II

Preparing the uprising started long before Pyatt arrived in country, and much of it revolved around a talented and multi-lingual Ukrainian named Oleh Rybachuk, who had played several key roles in the Orange Revolution of 2004. Strangely enough, he recently drew attention when Pando, Silicon Valley's online news site, attacked journalist Glenn Greenwald and the investor behind his new First Look Media, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Trading brickbats over journalistic integrity, both Pando and Greenwald missed the gist of the bigger story.

In 2004, Rybachuk headed the staff and political campaign of the US-backed presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko. As the generally pro-American Kyiv Post tells it, the shadowy Rybachuk was Yushchenko's "alter ego" and "the conduit" to the State Security Service, which "was supplying the Yushchenko team with useful information about Yanukovych's actions." Rybachuk went on to serve under Yushchenko and Tymoshenko as deputy prime minister in charge of integrating Ukraine into NATO and the European Union. In line with US policy, he also pushed for privatization of Ukraine's remaining state-owned industries.

Despite US and Western European backing, the government proved disastrous, enabling its old rival Yanukovych to win the presidency in the 2010 election. Western monitors generally found the election "free and fair," but no matter. The Americans had already sowed the seeds either to win Yanukovych over or to throw him over, whichever way Washington and its allies decided to go. As early as October 2008, USAID funded one of its many private contractors a non-profit called Pact Inc. to run the "Ukraine National Initiatives to Enhance Reforms" (UNITER). Active in Africa and Central Asia, Pact had worked in Ukraine since 2005 in campaigns against HIV/AIDS. Its new five-year project traded in bureaucratic buzzwords like civil society, democracy, and good governance, which on the public record State and USAID were spending many millions of dollars a year to promote in Ukraine.

Pact would build the base for either reform or regime change. Only this time the spin-masters would frame their efforts as independent of Ukraine's politicians and political parties, whom most Ukrainians correctly saw as hopelessly corrupt. The new hope was "to partner with civil society, young people, and international organizations" as Canada's prestigious Financial Post later paraphrased no less an authority than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

By 2009, Pact had rebranded the pliable Rybachuk as "a civil society activist," complete with his own NGO, Center UA (variously spelled Centre UA, Tsenter UA, or United Actions Center UA). Pact then helped Rybachuk use his new base to bring together as many as 60 local and national NGOs with activists and leaders of public opinion. This was New Citizen, a non-political "civic platform" that became a major political player. At the time, Pact and Soros's IRF were working in a joint effort to provide small grants to some 80 local NGOs. This continued the following year with additional money from the East Europe Foundation.

"Ukraine has been united by common disillusionment," Rybachuk explained to the Kyiv Post. "The country needs a more responsible citizenry to make the political elite more responsible."

Who could argue? Certainly not Rybachuk's Western backers. New Citizen consistently framed its democracy agenda as part of a greater integration within NATO, Europe, and the trans-Atlantic world. Rybachuk himself would head the "Civil Expert Council" associated with the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Committee.

Continuing to advise on "strategic planning," in May 2010 Pact encouraged New Citizen "to take Access to Public Information as the focus of their work for the next year." The coalition campaigned for a new Freedom of Information law, which passed. Pact then showed New Citizen how to use the law to boost itself as a major player, organize and train new activists, and work more closely with compliant journalists, all of which would seriously weaken the just-elected Yanukovych government. Part of their destabilization included otherwise praiseworthy efforts, none more so than the movement to "Stop Censorship."

"Censorship is re-emerging, and the opposition is not getting covered as much," Rybachuk told the Kyiv Post in May 2010. He was now "a media expert" as well as civic activist. "There are some similarities to what Vladimir Putin did in Russia when he started his seizure of power by first muzzling criticism in the media."

One of Rybachuk's main allies in "Stop Censorship" was the journalist Sergii Leshchenko, who had long worked with Mustafa Nayem at Ukrayinska Pravda, the online newsletter that NED publicly took credit for supporting. NED gave Leshchenko its Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellowship, while New Citizen spread his brilliant exposés of Yanukovych's shameless corruption, focusing primarily on his luxurious mansion at Mezhyhirya. Rybachuk's Center UA also produced a documentary film featuring Mustafa Nayem daring to ask Yanukovych about Mezhyhirya at a press conference. Nothing turned Ukrainians or the world more against Yanukovych than the concerted exposure of his massive corruption. This was realpolitik at its most sophisticated, since the US and its allies funded few, if any, similar campaigns against the many Ukrainian kleptocrats who favored Western policy.

Under the watchful eye of Pact, Rybachuk's New Citizen developed a project to identify the promises of Ukrainian politicians and monitor their implementation. They called it a "Powermeter" (Vladometer), an idea they took from the American website "Obamameter." Funding came from the US Embassy, through its Media Development Fund, which falls under the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Other money came from the Internews Network, which receives its funding from the State Department, USAID, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and a wide variety of other government agencies, international organizations, and private donors. Still other money came from Soros's IRF.

New Citizen and its constituent organizations then brought together 150 NGOs from over 35 cities, along with activists and journalists like Sergii Leschchenko, to create yet another campaign in 2011. They called it the Chesno Movement, from the Ukrainian word for "honestly. " Its logo was a garlic bulb, a traditional disinfectant widely believed to ward off evil. The movement's purpose was "to monitor the political integrity of the parliamentary candidates running in the 2012 elections."

This was a mammoth project with the most sophisticated sociology. As expected, the Chesno monitoring found few honest politicians. But it succeeded in raising the issue of public integrity to new heights in a country of traditionally low standards and in building political interest in new areas of the country and among the young. The legislative elections themselves proved grim, with President Yanukovych's Party of the Regions taking control of parliament.

What then of all New Citizen's activism, monitoring, campaigning, movement-building, and support for selective investigative journalism? Where was all this heading? Rybachuk answered the question in May 2012, several months before the election.

"The Orange Revolution was a miracle, a massive peaceful protest that worked," he told Canada's Financial Post. "We want to do that again and we think we will."

He Who Pays the Piper

Rybachuk had good reason for his revolutionary optimism. His Western donors were upping the ante. Pact Inc. commissioned a financial audit for the Chesno campaign, covering from October 2011 to December 2012. It showed that donors gave Rybachuk's Center UA and six associated groups some $800,000 for Chesno. PACT, which regularly got its money from USAID, contributed the lion's share, $632,813, though part of that came from the Omidyar Network, a foundation set up by Pierre and his wife.

In a March 12th press release, the network tried to explain its contributions to Rybachuk's Center UA, New Citizen, and the Chesno Movement. These included a two-year grant of $335,000, announced in September 2011, and another $769,000, committed in July 2013. Some of the money went to expand Rybachuk's technology platforms, as New Citizen explained.

"New Citizen provides Ukrainians with an online platform to cooperatively advocate for social change. On the site, users can collectively lobby state officials to release of public information, participate in video-advocacy campaigns, and contribute to a diverse set of community initiatives," they wrote. "As a hub of social justice advocates in Kiev, the organization hopes to define the nation's 'New Citizen' through digital media."

Omidyar's recent press release listed several other donors, including the USAID-funded Pact, the Swiss and British embassies, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the National Endowment for Democracy, and Soros's International Renaissance Foundation. The Chesno Movement also received money from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Figures for fiscal year 2013 are more difficult to track. Washington's foreignassistance.gov shows USAID paying PACT in Ukraine over $7 million under the general category of "Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance." The data does not indicate what part of this went to Center UA, New Citizen, or any of their projects.

What should we make of all this funding? Some of it looks like private philanthropy, as back in the days when the CIA channeled its money through foundations. Was the Soros and Omidyar money truly private or government money camouflaged to look private? That has to remain an open question. But, with Rybachuk's campaigns, it makes little difference. USAID and other government funding dominated. The US Embassy, through Pact, coordinated most of what Rybachuk did. And, to my knowledge, neither Soros nor Omidyar ever broke from the State Department's central direction.

Strategic Containment, OK?

When Ambassador Pyatt arrived in Kiev, he inherited Pact and its Rybachuk network well on its way to a second Orange Revolution, but only if they thought they needed it to win integration into Europe. That was always the big issue for the State Department and the Ukrainian movement they built, far more telling than censorship, corruption, democracy, or good governance. As late as November 14, Rybachuk saw no reason to take to the streets, fully expecting Yanukovych to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union at a November 28-29 summit in Vilnius. On November 21, Yanukovych pulled back, which Rybachuk saw as a betrayal of government promises. That is what "brought people to the streets," he told Kyiv Post. "It needed to come to this."

Euromaidan would become a "massive watchdog," putting pressure on the government to sign the association and free trade deal with the EU, he said. "We'll be watching what the Ukrainian government does, and making sure it does what it has to do."

That is where the State Department's second Orange Revolution started. In my next article, I'll show where it went from there and why.

Quote:Ryan Dawson: This is Ryan Dawson of the ANC Report. With me today is Doug Valentine. I'm going to be asking him tonight about the CIA's role in Ukraine and in infiltrating the media. Mr. Valentine, it's a pleasure to have you back on the show.
Douglas Valentine: It's my pleasure, thank you.

RD: I want to ask you about this organization working with NGOs in the Ukraine. It's called United Action Centre. I want to read something short from their page and get your thoughts. It says:

The NGO Centre UA has a strong professional human potential. The team has experience running projects in the sphere of European and EuroAtlantic integration. At the same time, the Centre UA consists of experts and activists who have experience in journalism, public service, PR, public activities, et cetera. Also, the Centre UA has an extensive database of contacts with international experts, politicians, and journalists. At the moment, The Centre UA is the coordinator of the New Citizen's Public Campaign which brings together around 40 NGOs.

We know from the Carl Bernstein report on the media how much the CIA has infiltrated the media. Could you give your thoughts about Centre UA and what they're doing there with 40 NGOs, supposedly to promote democracy and have activists and experienced journalists working together?

DV: The Centre UA is the organization that Pierre Omidyar co-funded two years ago. Center UA is an umbrella organization that is linked to various activist projects and NGOs,1 one of which is the New Citizen campaign which, according to the Financial Times, "played a big role in getting the protest up and running."2

In fact, according to the Kyivpost, the "Center UA received more than $500,000 in 2012,… 54 percent of which came from Pact Inc., a project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Nearly 36 percent came from Omidyar Network, a foundation established by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife. Other donors include the International Renaissance Foundation, whose key funder is billionaire George Soros, and the National Endowment for Democracy, funded largely by the U.S. Congress."1

Why did Omidyar prove willing to come on board with such known regime-change sponsors as USAID and NED to say nothing of Soros? Where else is he [co]operating? It should never be forgotten that this is the kind of company he keeps. Why?

While Omidyar was born in Paris and his parents moved to Maryland when he was young, he appears to be of Iranian descent. His mother was a Farsi linguist and as of 2016, was president of the Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute. As bizarre as it may seem, little information is publicly available about his father, including his name. He apparently was a urologist or surgeon at John Hopkins, and if that was the case, his name should be available. The secrecy suggests some sort of intelligence connection, perhaps to the type of upper class émigré circles the CIA cultivates in America. It is a fact that the CIA station in Iran served as one of the Agency's main bases for agent operations against the Soviets. The CIA and MOSSAD created SAVAK, the Shah's notorious internal political security service, and the Shah in turn gave the CIA a free hand to run operations against the Soviets.

Maybe Pierre Omidyar is accessible to US foreign policy agencies due to some prior family connections. Maybe that accounts for why he spent a few hundred thousand dollars (a paltry sum for a billionaire) to help put the Centre UA in place in the Ukraine: so the CIA could run operations against the Russians, like it did out of Iran. I've never heard any explanation from inquisitive Glenn Greenwald. When it comes to his sugar daddy's monkey business, Greenwald's policy is "see no, hear no, speak no evil." Why? Is that the quid pro quo for the handout?

What I do know is that billionaires like Omidyar and Soros and the Rockefellers to say nothing of USAID and NED aren't funding political action out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it to advance their interests. That's why an organization like Centre UA is created: to advance the interests of its financial backers. To me it looks like a CIA-facilitated mechanism to create a crisis in Ukraine and exploit it. The 40 NGOs it coordinates are perfectly placed to provide cover for covert CIA political action.

The Centre UA must have a tech team. Let's say, hypothetically, this tech team is a CIA proprietary which, for purposes of plausible deniability, the CIA staffed with consultants (as opposed to on-the-books employees) from a third country. Maybe the consultants are professional underworld Guccifer-style hackers, and the CIA has provided them with fully back-stopped fake identities. Maybe the hackers subvert governments for hire. Given its cutting-edge technology, the CIA's new Digital Directorate could easily run such a mercenary tech team without ever being discovered. Maybe the team organizes color revolutions and resistance movements in nations like Ukraine, using CIA-supplied intelligence to expose official corruption, infiltrate and subvert security forces, and even deploy and direct private militias in a national emergency in places like Donetsk. Maybe it's the CIA's equivalent of Mr. Robot's Dark Army.

Given the CIA's history of placing its officers under commercial cover, one might plausibly wonder if this applies to members of Omidyar's private tech security team as well. His enterprise reportedly invested in InnoCentive, a company that markets crowd sourcing technology. The CIA's venture capital firm, IN-Q-TEL, also invested in InnoCentive. So a business connection may already be there too.

All that is speculation, of course, but the Centre UA does, in fact, coordinate politicians and journalists with experts on international affairs and public relations. It says so on its website. All these people are involved in managing information; maybe they're linked on a private server like Hillary Clinton used while secretary of state. It will have occurred to the political and psywar experts in the CIA's digital Dark Army that they could easily garner public support for their color revolutions by creating websites that unite and direct people; that they could manipulate potential rebels using the same, albeit updated "motivational indoctrination" methods people like (US Information Service officer) Frank Scotton pioneered in Vietnam.3

The Centre UA's public relations experts certainly guide pro-American candidates in Kiev the same way American PR people manipulated Boris Yeltsin in Moscow. As is well known, Yeltsin gave away the store after he became President of the Russian Federation. In the same way the CIA promoted Yeltsin, Centre UA journalists certainly make sure that pro-American politicians get favorable press. They spin the facts in such a way that Omidyar, who has made their operation possible, will be happy.

The Centre UA's stated purpose was to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit and deliver it to Western corporations. And that's what happened, along with the obligatory political payoffs. Indeed, a few short years after Centre UA was established, Vice President Joe Biden's son joined the board of directors of the largest Ukraine gas producer Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden heads Burisma's legal department and liaises with international organizations.

The book Flashpoint in Ukraine4 provides ample evidence that the Obama regime and its privateering corporate partners overthrew the pro-Russian Ukraine government and installed a government packed with neo-Nazis and American elites. They did this for their own enrichment, and yet the US media never made it an issue. It's business as usual. The average Ukrainian citizen doesn't benefit; just the "super-predator" American elite who organized the coup. It's amazing to behold.

Biden's smash and grab operation occurred in 2014. In 2016, another super-predator, Natalie Jaresko, took control of Datagroup, the company that controls Ukraine's telecom market. Jaresko at one time held a top job at the State Department coordinating trade and commerce agencies that dealt with the former Soviet Union, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Check her out on Wikipedia. She's a part of the global elite: the IMF/World Bank /European Bank for Reconstruction and Development network. In the Clinton Administration she served as Chief of the Economics Section of the US Embassy in Ukraine, and helped paved the way for the coup d'état that occurred there 20 years later. These coups take years to organize. Many more are planned.

Jaresko acquired Ukrainian citizenship on the same day as her appointment as Minister of Finance of Ukraine in 2014, at which point she squeezed her competitor, the owner of Datagroup, out of business using the kind of foreign currency loan debt scam favored by Mafia hoods and economic hitmen. That's how freewheeling capitalists work: they overload targeted nations and business people with debt and then clean them out. Again, not a word of protest from the mainstream media: it's non-political "free trade" in action.

The CIA plays a central but secret role in these schemes, doing the illegal but plausibly deniable things that require high tech espionage and underworld assets reaching into a nation's secret police files or using private investigators to get dirt on people, then setting them up and blackmailing them. These kinds of subversion operations can't be done publicly by the likes of Biden or Jaresko or their PR people. Foreign shakedowns have to be done secretly through the criminal underworld, and that's where the CIA comes into play.

Other times the media plays the central role. In the US, for example, people win elections through negative campaigning. The Democratic Party hires investigators to get dirt on Republican candidates. Republicans do the same thing. The truth doesn't matter because events are happening instantaneously. Hyperbole becomes fact before anyone can respond. Senator Elizabeth Warren reportedly claimed to be part Native American in her application to Harvard, and once she started campaigning for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump called her "Pocahontas" every chance he got. There are all sorts of ways, within the eternal present of spectacular domination, of influencing events through manufactured scandals and misrepresentations without it being illegal or secret. It just requires celebrity status, a Twitter account, and the attention of the networks of information control.

As Guy Debord said long before the internet in his book Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, "One aspect of the disappearance of all objective historical knowledge can be seen in the way that individual reputations have become malleable and alterable at will by those who control all information: information which is gathered and also an entirely different matter information which is broadcast. Their ability to falsify is thus unlimited."

Anyone can be smeared, and apart from the unknown Protected Few in the CIA and National Security Establishment, there's no defense. Overseas, the CIA is perpetually collecting information on adversaries like Vladimir Putin and passing it along to the Western media, which rejoices in spinning it a million different ways.

What is less well known is the CIA is engaged in tipping the balance in the domestic as well as international contests. That's why it's secret, and why all the corporate privateers protect it. They share the same business ideology. CIA officers, PR people, journalists, politicians, and academics who get paid to give "expert" testimony on Fox or MSNBC, are knowingly manipulating social and political movements here in the US, just like they do for the Ukrainian opposition or the Venezuelan opposition.

The CIA sets up Twitter accounts and Facebook pages and social websites to move people into mass organizations to achieve its secret ends. In May 2016 Twitter "cut off U.S. intelligence agencies from a service that sifts through the entire output of Twitter's social media postings."5 The guilty party was the CIA's Open Source Enterprise, which contracted with a private contractor, Dataminr, through the CIA's ubiquitous venture capital fund In-Q-Tel, to spy on American citizens. Such super-secret "intelligence" operations are frequently used as cover for highly illegal "offensive counterintelligence" operations.

RD: We saw the National Endowment for Democracy, which is totally CIA, at the forefront in the Ukraine. But why does the CIA need so many NGOs as middlemen? What is their purpose for having 40 different non-governmental organizations?

DV: I'll give you an example. When the CIA moved into Vietnam, which had a culture the US hadn't dealt with before, the first thing it did was buy a lot of property. This was during the First Indochina War and they did this clandestinely, through cut-outs, so they'd have safe houses to set up organizations later on. It's always best for them to buy real estate during times of crisis when prices are down. Like Trump always says, "Buy low." And when are prices lowest? As Baron Rothschild famously said, "When there's blood in the streets."

The CIA bought huge tracts of property in Saigon in between 1952 and 1955, during the First Indochina War, when there was blood on the streets. The CIA bought prime property at ten percent of its value. That's the first step get your nose in the tent. These buildings served as places where CIA officers could meet their agents and plot dirty deeds. They passed some to NGOs and civil organizations to operate.

William Colby introduced me to one of his cohorts, Clyde Bauer, the CIA officer who ran Air America in Vietnam in the early days. Bauer told me he set up South Vietnam's Foreign Relations Council, Chamber of Commerce and Lions Club, "to create a strong civil base." That's what the CIA is doing in Ukraine through the Centre UA. It's creating a pro-American civil base, from which political candidates emerge.

The CIA influences politics in foreign nations in many ways. CIA officers are constantly funneling money to all political parties, right and left, and establishing long-range agents to monitor and manipulate political developments. That's standard operating procedure.

The next thing the CIA does is seize control of a nation's secret services. That's what they did in Vietnam, and in Ukraine. As I've explained elsewhere, they offer training and high tech gadgetry to people in the secret services; they corrupt them and use them for their own purposes, like they used SAVAK in Iran. It's highly illegal to suborn officials in foreign nations. We don't like it when it's done to us, and it's not something even an influential billionaire like Omidyar is trained to do (although his private security force is probably staffed by former CIA officers or FBI agents who do know how to do it).

The CIA infiltrates all the political parties and as soon as a politician they own is in place, right or left, they can elevate him or her to Defense Minister or Interior Minister. These ministers are on the CIA payroll and appoint military, security and police officials who do the CIA's bidding. The CIA tries to place its people throughout the captive nation's government and civil society. In South America they recruit junior military officers via the School of the Americas (now innocuously renamed) and when the time is right, have them stage a coup with the support of all the other people they're been cultivating for years, sometimes decades.6

US corporations need the CIA to help put these parallel governments in place. The CIA penetrates the military and security services, and simultaneously creates a civil base through deniable organizations like Centre for UA. This is how societies are ruled when there's no overwhelming popular support: through the ownership of property and by having the proper people in government and civic institutions. The CIA recruits people in place, someone like union leader Lech Walesa in Poland.

Often the people running the unions are on the CIA payroll; people running the education system too, someone like preacher Fethullah Gülen in Turkey. The CIA can recruit these people because it has so much money. The Russians can't compete, when billionaires like Soros are sprinkling a million here and five million there money that goes into building civic institutions that are ideologically attuned. Whether people do it for love or money, or belief of a brighter future, the CIA is manipulating the social and political processes. Its officers and their agents are recruiting people and putting them in place, having them sign contracts that effectively say, "In exchange for working for us in advancing our interests here in Kiev you will get $100,000 in a Swiss bank account and your life will be rosy."

It's illegal. It's treasonous. You can't take money from a foreign intelligence agency and work against your own country, but that is what the CIA is doing in the Ukraine right now and around the world on a massive scale.

1. As cited in Chris dePloeg, Ukraine in the Crossfire, Clarity Press, Inc., 2017. [↩] [↩]
   
2. R. Olearchyk, (2013, December 14). Ukraine: Inside the pro-EU protest camp. Cited in dePloeg, Ukraine in the Crossfire. [↩]
   
3. Scotton's psychological operations are described in detail elsewhere in the book. [↩]
   
4. Stephen Lendman, ed., Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks World War III, Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2014. [↩]
   
5. Eamon Javers, "Why Twitter chose to do battle with the CIA", CNBC, 13 May 2016. [↩]
   
6. See Chapter 4 of CIA as Organized Crime: The Systematic Gathering of Intelligence. [↩]
   

Quote:Parubiy's important, though a strong case could be made for this chap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko

Ralf Anders Wrote:

Quote:Parubiy's important, though a strong case could be made for this chap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentyn_Nalyvaichenko

Thanks for this, and the excerpts. Would you be prepared to outline the case against Nalyvaichenko? As I see it, Parubyi is one of the rare guys who do both the hands-on dirty work on the ground AND operate on the political level.

Quote:1a. Pravy Sektor associate Valentyn Nalyvaichenko had been the head of the SBU (Ukrainian intelligence service) since the Maidan Coup, up until his ouster in June of 2015. Not surprisingly, he had operated the organization along the lines of the OUN/B.

Previously, he had served in that same capacity under Viktor Yuschenko, seeing the outfit as a vehicle for rewriting Ukraine's history in accordance with the historical revisionism favored by the OUN/B.

Very close to Pravy Sektor head Dymitro Yarosh, Nalyvaichenko employed Yarosh while serving in the Ukrainian parliament. Yarosh claims that the two collaborated on "anti-terrorist" operations conducted against ethnic Russians.

Bear in mind that the SBU has been the "cognitive window" through which the events in Ukraine have been processed.

"The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right: The Case of VO Svoboda," by Per Anders Rudling; Analyzing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text edited by Ruth Wodak and John E. Richardson; Routledge [London and New York] 2013; pp. 228-255, more.

. . . A reconstructed historical memory is created as true memory' and then contrasted with false Soviet history' "(Jilge, 2007:104105). Thus, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, SBU director under Yushchenko, described the task of his agency as being to disseminate "the historical truth of the past of the Ukrainian people," to "liberate Ukrainian history from lies and falsifications and to work with truthful documents only" (Jilge, 2008:179). Ignoring the OUN's antisemitism, denying its participation in anti- Jewish violence, and overlooking its fascist ideology, Nalyvaichenko and his agency presented the OUN as democrats, pluralists, even righteous rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. . . .

1b. Nalyvaichenko ran the SBU along the lines of the methodology advocated by the OUN/B, to the surprise of no one.

"Poland Stretches Out Its Hands to the Freedom Fighters" by Rob Slane; The Blogmire; 4/11/2015.

. . . . Unfortunately, the Ukrainian authorities show no signs whatsoever that they are about to abandon their admiration of those responsible for these horrific crimes. To the contrary, they seem to be intent on admiring them all the more, as the SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaichenko's recent words indicate: "SBU does not need to invent anything extra it is important to build on the traditions and approaches of the OUN-UPA security service. It [the OUN-UPA security service] worked against the aggressor during the temporary occupation of the territory, it had a patriotic upbringing, used a counterintelligence unit, and had relied on the peaceful Ukrainian population using its support." . . . .

1c. According to Pravy Sektor chief Dymtro Yarosh, Nalyvaichenko had collaborated with his organization on "anti-terrorist" matters. This may well have been the precipitating dynamic in the burnings of anti-government demonstrators in Odessa and elsewhere. It may well account for the lack of investigation of those incidents (discussed below.)

"Yarosh Comments on Dismissal of His Friend' Nalyvaichenko;" EurAsia Daily; 6/25/2015.

The leader of the Right Sector extremist group Dmytro Yarosh believes that the dismissal of Chief of the Security Service Valentyn Nalyvaichenko was illogical and untimely. He writes in Facebook that Nalyvaichenko is his friend, who has raised the Security Service from zero and has neutralized lots of terrorist threats all over the country. "I know what I am talking about as my Right Sector was involved in many of his special operations against Russian terrorists," Yarosh said. . . . . . In the past Yarosh was Nalyvaichenko's advisor.

1d. When Nalyvaichenko was a member of the Ukrainian parliament, Yarosh worked as an aide and advisor.

"Switching Spymasters Amid War Is Risky" by Brian Mefford; Atlantic Council; 6/18/2015.

Valentin Nalyvaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), is in trouble again. On June 15, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he was "unsatisfied" with Nalyvaichenko's work. Three days later, Ukraine's parliament dismissed him. . . . . . . . Poroshenko Bloc MP Serhiy Leshchenko released a document confirming old rumors that Right Sector's Dmitro Yarosh worked for Nalyvaichenko when he was a member of parliament from 2012 to 2014. While the connection between the two raises some questions about the events of Euromaidan and the origins of Right Sector, this attack alone wasn't enough to discredit Nalyvychenko. Yarosh is now a member of parliament and an advisor to the chief of general staff of the Ukrainian army. In other words, Yarosh has been legitimized by the political establishment. . . .

2. A new book was just pub*lished exam*in*ing the life of Stepan Ban*dera, the Ukrainian fascist and Third Reich ally whose political heirs ascended to power in Ukraine through the Maidan coup.

We have repeatedly made the point that the dimensions of official lying in the West were of truly Orwellian proportionsdocumented World War II history was being dismissed as "Russian propaganda" or "Kremlin propaganda."

" . . . But thanks to Grze*gorz Rossolinski-Liebe's Stepan Ban*dera: The Life and After*life of a Ukrain*ian Nation*al*ist, it now seems clear: those ter*ri*ble Rus*sians were right. . . Although Ban*dera and his fol*low*ers would later try to paint the alliance with the Third Reich as no more than "tac*ti*cal," an attempt to pit one total*i*tar*ian state against another, it was in fact deep-rooted and ide*o*log*i*cal. Ban*dera envi*sioned the Ukraine as a clas*sic one-party state with him*self in the role of führer, or provid*nyk, and expected that a new Ukraine would take its place under the Nazi umbrella, much as Jozef Tiso's new fas*cist regime had in Slo*va*kia or Ante Pavelic's in Croatia. . . ."