US/NATO War on Russia

[Paul Rigby]

Jim Willie Swiss De peg Triggers Massive Derivative Crisis, Potential END OF THE EURO!

This is fascinating and relevant, both indirectly and, in places, very obviously:

[video=youtube_share;9BoZgGR7qy4]http://youtu.be/9BoZgGR7qy4[/video]

[Paul Rigby]

US increasingly concerned that Russia is intent on partitioning Ukraine
With rebels having seized extra 200 square miles of territory, US's leaking of talks about sending weapons to Kiev may be Obama's way of warning Putin to back off

Simon Tisdall
Monday 2 February 2015 14.55 GMT

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/fe...kiev-putin

The public disclosure that the US is considering supplying lethal weaponry to Ukraine in its battle with Russian-backed separatists, reflects heightened American concern that Moscow is intent on carving out an expanded, economically viable enclave in eastern Ukraine that could in time declare itself an independent state.

Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, pursued this policy in Georgia after the 2008 war, when he encouraged separatists in the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to proclaim their independence from Tbilisi. Pro-Moscow forces in Transnistria, legally part of Moldova, have taken a similar path.

US concern that Putin, despite previous assurances to the contrary, is now seeking effectively to partition Ukraine has been fuelled by rebel territorial gains. Nato estimates that the separatists, backed by Russian reinforcements including T-80 tanks, have seized control of an additional 200 square miles in the past four months.

"The assessment of some senior western officials is that the Kremlin's goal is to replace the Minsk agreement [the September pact that proposed a ceasefire and territorial guarantees] with an accord that... would leave the separatists with a more economically viable enclave," the New York Times reported.

Resumed peace talks in Minsk at the weekend collapsed within hours after rebel representatives sought to redraw the proposed demarcation line between the two sides to include their recent territorial gains. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe said the rebels "were not even prepared to discuss implementation of a ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy weapons".

By leaking internal discussions about supplying lethal weapons to Kiev, the Obama administration may be warning Putin to back off. US and EU sanctions, renewed last week, have failed to stop him. Diplomatic interventions by Germany's Angela Merkel and France's François Hollande have also proven ineffective. Instead, US officials say Putin has deployed new heavy weapons and 1,000 specialist military and intelligence personnel, and the fighting has intensified. About 5,000 people have died since last April, with more than 1 million displaced.

The US secretary of state, John Kerry, is due in Kiev on Thursday and will use the visit to take the temperature in the Ukrainian capital as the US administration weighs its options.

Lt Col Vanessa Hillman, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the administration's focus "remains on pursuing a solution through diplomatic means," but added, "we are always evaluating other options that will help create space for a negotiated solution to the crisis."

But Washington's threat risks turning what is currently a largely contained, internal insurrection into an international proxy war, pitting the US and Nato against Russia. In prospect now is the killing or maiming of Russians by American anti-tank missiles, a scenario not seen since the cold war-era occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet forces. The impact on wider European security could be deeply destabilising.

Tensions are already running high, not least with the increase in air and sea incidents involving the Russian military, such as last week's provocative over-flight of the English channel. Nato's decision to set up permanent military command centres in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and its creation of a 5,000-strong rapid response force are characterised by Putin as an attempt by the west to contain Russia.Last week, he ridiculed Ukraine's army as Nato's "foreign legion".

Such an American escalation would probably deepen European divisions over Ukraine. Greece, heavily indebted, and Hungary, which has close economic links to Russia, take a very different line, for example, from that of the UK, which American reports suggest could follow any US lead in supplying weapons.

Uncertainty about Russian intentions has already caused a bad case of the jitters in Finland, Sweden and the Baltic republics. In the Czech Republic, the army chief of staff, General Petr Pavel, was quoted last week as predicting that an escalation in Ukraine would lead to the biggest military manoeuvres since 9/11, with troops being posted to the borders and to guard strategic plants. There are also wider European fears of mass refugee movements and manufactured unrest among expatriate ethnic Russian and Ukrainian minorities.

Judging by past performance, Putin is more likely to up the ante than back down if the US goes ahead. Retaliatory Russian escalation, which could include wider military intervention in Ukraine, renewed interference in Moldova, Georgia and the Baltic region or, for example, stepped-up deployment and testing of Iskander-M nuclear-capable cruise missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania.

Putin may calculate that, as with Georgia in 2008 and Crimea last year, the US and Nato will not move militarily to thwart him in the end. He would use any Ukraine escalation to boost his narrative to the Russian people that the Fatherland is under siege by the west. But the obvious danger is that he may over-play his hand and, in his hubris and arrogance, provoke a wider calamity.

[Peter Lemkin]

Is Ukraine a Proxy Western-Russia War? U.S. Weighs Arming Kiev as Violence Soars

The United Nations has raised the death toll from fighting in eastern Ukraine to more than 5,300 people since last April following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych one year ago this month. Another 1.5 million people have been displaced. As fighting intensifies, the Obama administration is now considering directly arming Ukrainian forces against Russian-backed rebels. Washington already supplies nonlethal military equipment to Ukraine, but top officials are reportedly leaning toward sending arms, from rifles to anti-tank weapons. The role of the U.S. and European allies in Ukraine has prompted former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to accuse the West of dragging Russia into a new Cold War. We are joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.




AARON MATÉ: The U.N. has raised the death toll from fighting in eastern Ukraine to over 5,300 people since last April, following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych one year ago this month. Another 1.5 million people have been displaced. According to Russian-backed rebels in Donetsk, shelling in eastern Ukraine has killed at least eight people and wounded 22 others in the past day. Ukraine says five more of its soldiers have died.
This comes as the White House now considers arming Ukraine in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. Washington already supplies nonlethal military equipment to Ukraine, but there is a growing push to send arms, from rifles to anti-tank weapons. On Monday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked about U.S. policy.

MATTHEW LEE: There are a whole plethora of reports out this morning that the administration is reconsidering providing lethal assistance to the Ukrainian government. Would you care to address those?

JEN PSAKI: Well, Matt, we are constantly assessing our policies on Ukraine to ensure they're responsive, appropriated and calibrated to achieve our objectives. We are particularly concerned about recent escalating separatist violence and separatist attempts to expand the territory they currently control further, beyond the ceasefire line agreed to in Minsk, as well as the increasing toll of civilian and military casualties.

MATTHEW LEE: OK, so it sounds like you're not saying, no, that these reports are wrong. Is it accurate then to say that this kind of assistance is now part of the conversation?

JEN PSAKI: Well, we haven't taken options on or off the table, Matt. It's an ongoing discussion. Obviously we have take into account events on the ground. But I don't have anything to lay out for you in terms of internal deliberations.

REPORTER: Why would the president want to get into a proxy war with Russia?

JEN PSAKI: Well, I don't think anybody wants to get into a proxy war with Russia. And that is not the objective. Our objective here is to change the behavior of Russia. That's the reason that we've put the sanctions in place. We certainly want to help Ukraine, a sovereign government, thrive and go through this transition period. No decisions have been made. I'm talking about the fact that we of course preserve the right to consider a range of options.

AARON MATÉ: That's State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Kiev to meet with Ukrainian leaders.
AMY GOODMAN: Last week, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accused the West of dragging Russia into a new Cold War. He said, quote, "If we call a spade a spade, America has pulled us into a new Cold War, trying to openly implement its general idea of triumphalism. Where will it take us all? The Cold War is already on. What's next? Unfortunately, I cannot say firmly that the Cold War will not lead to the hot one. I'm afraid that they might take the risk," he said.
On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the conflict cannot be solved militarily.

CHANCELLOR ANGELA MERKEL: [translated] Germany will not support Ukraine with weapons. I am firmly convinced that this conflict cannot be solved militarily, and therefore we insist that, on the one hand, we will impose sanctions, if necessarywe have done that jointly in Europeand, on the other hand, we will use all diplomatic means to resolve this conflict through talks, or at least alleviate it.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine, we're joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is out in paperback.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Cohen.
STEPHEN COHEN: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: What's happening in Ukraine?
STEPHEN COHEN: What's happening in Ukraine? Gorbachev had it right. We're in a new Cold War with Russia. The epicenter of the new Cold War is not in Berlin, like the last one, but it's right on Russia's borders, so it's much more dangerous. You and I have talked about this since February, I think. What I foresaw in February has played out, I regret to say: A political dispute in Ukraine became a Ukrainian civil war. Russia backed one side; the United States and NATO, the other. So it's not only a new Cold War, it's a proxy war. We're arming Kiev. Russians are arming the eastern fighters. And I think, though I don't want to spoil anybody's dayI said to you in February this had the potential to become a new Cuban missile-style confrontation with the risk of war. That's where we are now. And I think Gorbachev was right.
AARON MATÉ: There was a ceasefire reached in September. What's happened since then?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, it was never honored in full. And the primary problem wasI mean, there were many provisions of the ceasefire, which was supposed to stop the fighting in the east and lead to direct negotiations between the rebel government, or fighterswe call them "separatists." They weren't separatists when all this began, but now they're separatists: They don't want to live with Kiev any longer. But it was supposed to lead to negotiations. The main thing that happened was, is it required both sides to pull back their artillery, primarily Kiev, because Kiev was bombarding the capital cities of eastern UkraineLuhansk and Donetsk. That artillery was never pulled back. It was supposed to be 30 kilometers. How far back they pulled them, I don't know. But as you know, in the last week, those cities have been bombarded again. So the ceasefire was honored kind of marginally in the breach for a couple months, but about a week ago, 10 days ago, the fighting escalated.
Now, there is a dispute, because it eliminated the possibility of negotiations again: Who began the escalation? The State Department, you heard Psaki say it was Russia and Russian agents. Russia and the rebels say it was Kiev. But we're in a fog of war. That expression comes from World War I, I think, when there was so much misinformationwe didn't have email then, and it traveled more slowlythat the perception of what was going on was distorted, corrupted by news. And it led to war. The fog of war today derives from this, and it's worse because it moves so fast, on social media news, is that you've got all this misinformation coming out of Kiev, out of Moscow, out of Washington. And for the three of us to sit here and say who threw the first punch 10 days ago is almost impossible.
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, three prominent U.S. think tanksthe Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council and the Chicago Council on Global Affairsissued a joint report urging the United States to provide Ukraine $3 billion in military assistance over the next three years. Former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott co-wrote the report. He's now president of Brookings.

STROBE TALBOTT: In the context of what is happening in Ukraine today, the right way to characterize it is an act of war on the part of the Russian Federation. This means that there is going on in Ukraine today a literal invasion, not byit's not a proxy war. It's a literal invasion by the Russian armed forces. It's a literal occupation of large parts, well beyond Crimea, of eastern Ukraine. And it is a virtual annexation of a lot of territory other than just the Crimea. And in that respect, this is a major threat to the peace of Europe, to the peace of Eurasia, and therefore a threat to the interests of the United States and, I would say, a threat to the chances of a peaceful 21st century.

AMY GOODMAN: That's former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, now president of Brookings. Your response?
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, he's much more than that. People need to drop their masks and say what their personal stake in this is. Strobe Talbott, whom I've known for years, was the architect of the American policy that led to this crisis. He was "the Russia hand," as he called his memoir, under President Clinton, when the expansion of NATO toward Russia began.
Understand what he saidand the rollout of this report has been coming. And if you look at the signatures, these are the leaders of the American war party, the people who literally want a military showdown with Russia. Stop and think what that means. Stop and think what that means, as though Russia is going to back off. But the people who signed this reportand they've been bringing it out for daysare saying that thehe literally just said thisthe future of the 21st century is at stake in Ukraine. Stop and think what that means. Then he went on to say things that are fundamentally untrue, that Russia has invaded and annexed eastern Ukraine. I mean, when the State Department was asked a few weeks ago, "Can you confirm the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine?" the State Department, which misleads about this story all the time, said, "No, we cannot." So what arethis is what I'm talking about the fog of war, where we're being told Russia has annexed eastern Ukraine, the stake of the world is atthe future of the world is at stake here, and basically they're calling for war with Russia.
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to continue this discussion in a minute. We're talking with Professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. We'll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, Stephen Cohen. His latest book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War. Aaron?
AARON MATÉ: Yes, so, on this issue of Russian involvement in Ukraine, and NATO's expansion, I presume you acknowledge that Putin is destabilizing Ukrainehe sent in weapons, he sent in tanks, he sent in some troops in some form. Is the point then that he's acting not to revive the Soviet empire, but to stop NATO encroachment? Is that your point?
STEPHEN COHEN: That's my short point. But let me ask you a question. Five million people, approximately, live in this area of eastern Ukraine. They've lived there for centuries. Their grandfathers, their parents are buried there. Their children go to school there. That is their home. Do they have no humanity or agency? We've takennot I, but the main press in this country is referring to them as "Putin's thugs." Where is the humanity of these people who are dying, now nearly 6,000 of them? A million have been turned into refugees. These are people there.
Who's doing the fighting? Primarily, the folks, the adults, of these people. Have they had Russian assistance? Absolutely. Has Kiev had Western assistance? Billions of dollars. General HodgesI don't know exactly what he does, but he's an American NATO officerpublicly announces he's in Ukraine to train the National Guard. Both sides are involved militarily. But make no mistake: If there was not an indigenous rebellion in eastern Ukraine, there would not be a Ukrainian civil war. Is Putin abetting the east? Yes. Are we abetting the west and Kiev? Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's go to Hodges for a minute. Last month, U.S. soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry traveled to the Soviet state of Latvia for a military exercise, dubbed Atlantic Resolve, to train soldiers from Latvia, other Baltic countries and Poland. In addition, the U.S. brought more than 50 units of military equipment, including 17 armored vehicles, Stryker, that will stay in Europe. Ben Hodges, who you're referring to, is the commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe.

GEN. BEN HODGES: The decision was made last year to leave the equipment to stay in Europe. So, more than 200 tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, the decision has not been made yet where they will stay. For sure, some will stay in Germany at an American base, but we are looking at options to put some of them in Latvia or Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria.

AMY GOODMAN: That's Ben Hodges, the commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe. So, bringing in former Soviet state Latvia and the others, what does this mean?
STEPHEN COHEN: What? His presence in Latvia? Well, he's in Ukraine now. What it means is we're on the move militarily"we," I mean NATO, but the United States runs NATO. You heard what Strobe Talbott said: We've got to do everything now to defend Ukraine. By the way, he doesn't mention there are two Ukraines. What about the people in the east I just mentioned? Have they no humanity? But we are on the verge of war with Russia.
Now, you referred to me as emeritus. That means old. That means I remember things. And I remember that when we hit these kind of Cold War extremes back during the last Cold War, people spoke out in opposition in this country, not only folks like the three of us, ordinary folks, but I'm talking about senators, members of Congresseven the administration was dividedThe New York Times, The Washington Post. We have the silence of the hawks now. The American war party is on the march. You can see how close we are to, literally, a military confrontation with Russia. And there is not one word of establishment, mainstream opposition in this country.
So, is this good or bad? Do we go to war? Did we have a debate before we invaded Iraq? We did. And those of us who opposed it lost the debate. But we had a debate. That "democracy now," not today, not in the United States. There is no debate whatsoever. So, the danger is great. There is no opposition. All these people you're showingStrobe Talbott, General Hodges, anybody else you put on the screen, because only they speak to the American peoplethey're on the march.
AARON MATÉ: What is driving this policy on the part of the U.S.? Many people who took part in the Cold War are no longer in power. Are they seeking to revive that era? Is it a matter of expanding NATO, or confronting Putin because they don't like him? What is the driving force here?
STEPHEN COHEN: All of the above, I think. I don't know. I'm not smart enough to tell you. Historians will look backassuming there are historians to look back, because both sides are now mobilizing their nuclear weapons, as well. Russia has already said that if it is faced with overwhelming force on its borders, it will use tactical nuclear weapons. They're nuclear small, but they're nuclear weapons. When is the last time you heard a great power say that? We sayObama, our president, says, "We're modernizing our nuclear weapons." What does that mean? We're redeploying them, pointing them even more at Russia. Why is this happening in the United States? I don't know. I think there's a lot of factors mixed in, a kind of ideological hangover from the old Cold War. But the demonization of Putin has become so extreme in this country, I do not recalland I entered this field back in the '60sthe United States ever demonizing a Soviet communist leader the way our leaders doObama, Mrs. Clinton referring to him as a Hitler. Look, if Putin is Hitler, clearly we have to go to war. That's the logic, is it not? Is it not? And where are the voices that say this is crazy? He may be a Russian nationalist. He may be threatening. But Hitler?
AMY GOODMAN: During an interview on CNN that aired Sunday, President Obama acknowledged the United States played a role in the ouster of Ukraine's elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, last February.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine, not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama's comments made headlines in Russia. This is Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

SERGEY LAVROV: [translated] I have two comments which are important. There has been confirmation that the United States was directly involved, from the very beginning, in this anti-government coup d'état. And President Obama literally called it "the transition of power." Secondly, I would like to note that Obama's rhetoric shows Washington's intention to continue doing everything possible to unconditionally support Ukraine's authorities, who have apparently taken a course toward a military solution to the conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: That's the Russian foreign minister and, before that, President Obama.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, President Obama said something that undoubtably he was later told he shouldn't have said, because he wasn't clear what he was referring to. Many people have argued that the United States organized a coup in February to overthrow the president of Ukraine and bring to power of this new pro-American, pro-Western government. I do not know if that's true. But what Obama said leads people to think that's what he was acknowledging. He wasn't.
Here's what happened. And he's right about Crimea. He just let the cat out of the bag here. An agreement was brokered in February. Everybody think back. It's only one year ago. Foreign ministers of Europe, as violence raged in the streets of Kiev, rushed to Kiev and brokered a deal between the sitting president and the opposition leadersYanukovychthat he would form a coalition government and call new elections in December. And everybody thought, "Wow, violence averted. We're back on a democratic track." And what happened? The next day, mobs took to the streets, stormed the presidential palace; Yanukovych, the president, fled to Russia.
But we now know that when that deal was struck by the European ministers, Putin and Obama spoke on the phone, and Putin said to Obama, "Are you behind this?" And Obama says, "I am. Let's get back on peaceful track." And then he asks Putin, "Are you behind it?" And Putin said, "A hundred percent." And the next day, this happened. So, something happened overnight. Obama lost control of the situation. He didn't know what was going on. But when he says that they negotiated a peaceful transition to power, he's not referring to the overthrow of Yanukovych; he's referring to the deal he signed onto to keep the Ukrainian president in office for another eight or nine months until national elections.
So, he has now confirmed the Russia dark suspicions that the CIA or somebody carried out a coup. I'm sure he regrets having said that. But it is completely unclear to meI voted for him twicewhether President Obama understands what's going on in Ukraine, because he said a number of things that are so divergent from the historical record that either he's getting bad advice or he's not paying attention. I don't know which.
AARON MATÉ: Can you sketch out for us the fighting that has taken place since April? The U.N. now says the death toll is over 5,300. Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., has praised Kiev's response and said that they practiced "remarkable, almost unimaginable, restraint" in their attacks on the separatists.
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, it makes me ashamed to be an American citizen. Let's remember that when Ambassador Power was not Ambassador Power, she was the great architect and ideologue of the responsibility to protect civilians. Correct? Everybody is familiar with that.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain it briefly.
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, you explain it.
AMY GOODMAN: You explain it.
STEPHEN COHEN: You've done it on your show. Well, it means the United States is obliged to do everything it can to prevent a humanitarian disaster resulting either from natural or warlike measures. And that's been American official policy since Clinton. Now, whether it's a wise policy or not, I don't know. But the architect of it now says what's going on in eastern Ukraineand there are a lot more than 5,000 dead; even the U.N. has said we really don't know, but let's say 5,300. There's also a million and a half refugees, most of them to Russia, but some to other parts of Ukraine. And the United States is sayingand the State Department and the White House and in the U.N., with Samantha PowerKiev has been restrained.
All right, back up. What has Kiev called since April its military operation in the east? An anti-terrorist operation. Literally, those are the words. If I declare that you are a terroristnot a rebel, not a political opponent, but you are a terroristI don't talk to you, I kill you. And that is what Kiev has been doing, with American support. It's been destroying the civilian centers of eastern Ukraine. Have the rebels fought back? Have they killed Ukrainian army members? Absolutely. But what in the world are we doing supporting a government that's bombing civilians? And, by the way, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, many other organizations have now said these are war crimes. And yet, the American government sees no evil.
AMY GOODMAN: So we just played Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, earlier. She said Germany will not support Ukraine with weapons. She supports sanctions. She says there's only a diplomatic answer. What is the solution? And what do you feel about sanctions, as the front page of The New York Times talks about the arming ofU.S. arming Ukraine?
STEPHEN COHEN: Amy, what are you doing to me? You're trotting out every person who has behaved unwisely in a role of leadership and asked me what I think of them.
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah. What I think of them, we need some leaders. Now, I thought, when I first visited you in February or January, that the solution was the chancellor of Germany, Merkel. Why? Because Germany is the powerhouse of Europe. Because Merkel speaks Russian and German, and Putin speaks Russian and German. They can talk, like you and I talk, and they understand nuances. Merkel has said, all along, this cannot be resolved by military means, there must be negotiations. And yet, politically, she supported every escalation of the crisis. Why has she done that? Because she was, and maybe she still could be, the key figure here.
AMY GOODMAN: And she's coming to the White House Monday.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yeah, but she's been in Ukraine. She's been everywhere. She moves. There's distance between the White House and Berlin, no question. Merkel could end of this, or she could go a long way. She could put her foot down: no more sanctions, no more NATO involvement. Stop and think who she is. The only solvent country in Europe. And look what's going on in Greece. I mean, they may leave the EU. By the way, if the U.K. leaves the EU in May, when there's the referendum, who will run Europe? Germany. And Germany's attitudes toward Russia and China are fundamentally different than Washington's attitude. So we may be observing here, below the radar, not only the split of Europe, but the drift of Germany, and the part of Europe that follows Germany, away from the United States. Everything is at stake in this civil war.
How to get out of it? It's the same solution we talked about here on this broadcast months ago: a ceasefire; withdrawal of artillery so the cities of Donetsk, where the rebels are, are not being bombarded; Kiev's willingness to sit down, at a table about this size, under the auspices of the great powers, and talk to the rebels. What home rule will they be given? Some kind of federalism, some kind of devolution of authority. The governors of the regions of Ukraine are appointed in Kiev. Our governors aren't appointed in Washington; we elect them. There's no federalism there. Everybody says federalism means a Russian takeover. But Germany has a federal system, Canada has a federal system, we have a federal system. They are hard, but it can be done.
But you know how you get this? You get it through leadership. Where's the leadership? Where's President Obama? Where's Chancellor Merkel? And the leadership in UkraineI mean, Poroshenko, he's the president of the country. He has no power. He has no power. He's not the leader. The power is with the people in Ukraine who control the fighting battalions and what's left of the army. So, we don't even know what kind of regime or leadership is possible in Kiev now.

[Paul Rigby]

February coup - an old Ukrainian tradition

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/f...ition.html

February 3, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus

Three posts by blogger Da Dzi translated below

#1
Da Dzi (Dmitry Dzygovbrodky)
Published January 16, 2015

"Poroshenko, you are toppled!" A Kiev coup possible at the end of February

"It will happen in the best democratic traditions: in Kiev will gather the People's Veche (Assembly) at the initiative of the Council of Maidan. The Council of Maidan will announce the "people's impeachment of the traitor Poroshenko for failure of the operation in Donbass, Crimea, and cooperation with the Russian regime."

http://antifashist.com/item/gosperevorot...ertvy.html

What was said over the weekend [see below!] about Turchynov's plans seems to be confirmed.Now pastor Turchynov looks at Petro Poroshenko, as the next sacrifice, and at the same time a scapegoat for the collapse of the economy and a loss of the war.

After the murder... or flight of Poroshenko, Ukraine will receive chaos and total war, which will be waged by the possessed pastor Turchynov [Turchinov is a baptist pastor]. Apparently, this is his "mission".

It seems that at the end of February there will be another provocation on Maidan during the Assembly, and then a military coup.

P.S. If Poroshenko will have time to escape, he will most likely run to Batka [Lukashenko, the President of Belorus]. And then Alexander Grigorievich will also have his own handy Ukrainian President. As Vladimir Putin.


#2
Published January 15, 2015
Da Dzi (Dmitry Dzygovbrodsky)

Alexander Turchinov, the "Saint" killer of Nigoyan and Odessa

The closer to the finale of the tragic play "Ukraine is not yet dead ..." [The first words of the Ukrainian national anthem], the more people from the political elites of Kiev share information about the events of Euromaidan and spring of 2014. The instinct of self-preservation - not more. They are already themselves afraid of those monsters, who ended up in power.

Especially afraid of Alexander Turchynov - his power and influence is growing every day. And he would do anything to accomplish "his mission". Yes, this is not a joke. He absolutely believes that he has a special mission - and for this mission he is ready for any sacrifice. Of course, he plans to sacrifice other people. "Wrong," as he calls them in personal conversations. Such as Sergei Nigoyan. Such as those burnt in Odessa.

Back in July I talked about the oddities of Turchinov:

"Turchynov regularly talks to God. He could even retreat from a meeting with the American Ambassador, in order to "communicate" with the heavens. The Lord, according to Turchynov, always responds to his requests."

Now these oddities have become the basis of Turchinov's personality. Every action, every word of Turchynov is "suggested and dictated by the Lord" - Turchynov is not ashamed to say that when dealing with political colleagues.

Turchynov played a key role in many of the events of the first half of last year. Turchynov was responsible for "sacrificial victims" of Maidan: he selected the candidates, suggested scenarios, instructed the trusted Kiev journalists.

Remember Sergei Nigoyan? And remember this video?

[video=youtube_share;CyFqqstK7e0]http://youtu.be/CyFqqstK7e0[/video]

When picking the first sacrificial victims of the "bloody tyrant" Yanukovych, Turchinov was showed pictures of the participants of the Maidan, the reports of journalists, videos from Maidan. As soon as Turchynov saw this video with Nigoyan, he immediately pointed at him. The casting was over. Less than a week later Nigoyan was killed.

It was Turchynov who wrote the script of Odessa for May 2. Kolomoisky provided the man power support. But all the events were planned out exactly by Aleksander Turchynov. In conversations he called the upcoming events "Strange Fire". And on May 5, at the meeting on the results of Odessa, he quoted these words:

"And brought strange fire before the Lord, which He did not order them; and the fire left from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord."

In his private circle Turchynov does not hide his pride of this event.

He usually gives very great importance to blood and fire. Believes that they will save Ukraine. He is now planning an act of purification, but in Kiev. According to Turchynov, the President Poroshenko is leading Ukraine in the wrong direction.

If I was not sure that Petro Poroshenko has already earned the highest measure of social protection, I would feel sorry for him. He has almost no time left.

Alexander Turchynov: "The Man who believes in God, does not fear death. As death for us Christians, is the gate to meet our Creator. When there is faith, fear disappears. Go forward together and win."


And, the latest:

#3
Da Dzi (Dmitry Dzygovbrodsky)
Published February 3, 2015

Siege of the Presidential Administration in Kiev: Political cauldron in Kiev, special "cauldron" in Debaltsevo

And here is the continuation of the play. Everything is slowly moving towards the next coup. Just two and a half weeks left until the anniversary.

As they say, I've seen this before...

"The police and soldiers of the national guard of Ukraine managed to push back the protesters who tried to forcibly capture the building of the presidential administration of Ukraine."

http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1742319

"Protesters require access to the conference hall of the APU (Administration of the President of Ukraine) and access to the journalists to broadcast their demands live on TV. Earlier the protesters broke through the first line of national guard. Police was called to the building. Protesters demanded to declare a martial law, and a resignation of all the leaders of the security forces - from the Minister of Defense Poltorak to the Prosecutor General Yarema."

The shaking of the boat has begun. Just like a year ago. Short attacks, strike-retreat, active work of the media. I see a hand of the same script writer. Very likely soon we will have more sacrificial victims of the bloody government. Pastor Turchinov will not change scenarios - he enjoys too much being the Director of Maidan.

Poroshenko is in a political einkеssеlung. [cauldron]

Note:

- The militants, who tried to siege the administration, demand the resignation of all the people of Poroshenko. For some reason I never saw among the demands of the militants a resignation of Yatsenyuk and Avakov. So, who ordered this attack, is clear.

- The adinistration was defended by the soldiers of the national guard of Ukraine. Therefore, Poroshenko through Poltorak has retained control of the NG.

- In the end, we see that Poroshenko among his assets has UAF and part of national guard. But UAF is at the front. Except that it is necessary to carefully examine which parts of UAF are on rotation in the Kiev region.

The plot becomes more and more interesting every day. The activity of the "protesters" will increase with the approaching anniversary of the coup. And with the increased pressure of NAF on the Debaltsevo "cauldron".

I deliberately put the "cauldron" in quotation marks. This is not a simple cauldron. Not a classic military kеssеl. The goal of the Debaltsevo cauldron is not the destruction of the encircled UAF troops. The goal is the internal political and social upheaval in Kiev. Or capitulation of Poroshenko before the Kremlin and consent to all the conditions of Russia and Novorossia - then Poroshenko will be saved from his own Ukrainian patriots.

Kristina Rus:

Da Dzi is one of the top few bloggers on Ukraine. He is a Russian-Ukrainian and is famous for financing NAF for several months with the money from the Ukrainian patriots, by setting up a blue and yellow paint business in major Ukrainian cities, along with Ukrainian patriotic memorabilia.

Turchinov is generally connected to Yulia Timoshenko.

One may wonder if the Debaltsevo cauldron was the plan all along, playing into Kiev's desire to cut off Donetsk and Lugansk Republics, and luring them into a trap ...

[Paul Rigby]

Joaquin Flores

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...=1&fref=nf

Mandatory Reading on Novorossiya and Ukraine: The following 33 articles by various experts, thinkers and writers, written after my original theses on the subject of the a.) Ukraine Failed State and b.) Pravy Sektor Coup, and the c.) US aims to embroil the whole region, along with d.) Russia's aims to stabilize Ukraine, help to explain the down-ward spiral of events in Ukraine and Novorossiya which are unfortunately confirming the theses.
-
These are articles which began to appear many months after I first published, relevant portions of my work having been translated into Russian by supporters of Colonel Cassad.
-

12/17/14 - NATO Begins a Soft Invasion of Donbass http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/nat...nbass.html
-
12/18/14 - Ukraine Begins to "Turchinovize" its Army http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/ukr...-army.html
-
12/19/14 - Oleg Tsarev: We Are Not Opposed to the Idea of Ukraine Joining Novorossia
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/hea...-oleg.html
-
12/25/14 - U.S. War Against Russia Is Now Against Hungary Too
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/us-...ainst.html
-
12/27/14 - Is the New Deal Russian Coal for Ukraine Really the Donbass Coal!? http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/is-...raine.html
-
12/27/14 - Russia Saves Ukraine From Freezing and Dark Winter http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/rus...g-and.html
-
12/28/14 - Putin Decides to Donate 50,000 Tons of Russia's Coal Daily to Ukraine for Heat
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/put...ns-of.html
-
12/30/14 - Ukraine's War is a Prelude to World War III' Says Former Ukrainian U.S. Ambassador
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/ukr...d-war.html
-
1/6/15 - Will there be a "Night of Long Knives" in Ukraine? http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/wil...es-in.html
-
1/6/15 - Why Putin Will Not Dump Novorossia: Moscow's and Kiev's Models of "United Ukraine" are Mutually Exclusive
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/why...ossia.html
-
1/9/15 - Will Poroshenko be toppled by Kolomoisky's Right Sector?
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/wil...ed-by.html
-
1/15/15 - The Right Sector Refuses to Submit to Ukrainian Ministry of Defense
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/the...it-to.html
-
1/15/15 - Head of Donetsk Republic interview: We had to buy time to adequately prepare for war (Part One)
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/hea...ew-we.html
-
1/18/15 - "Ukraine No Longer Exists As A State"--DPR Ministry of Ukraine
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/ukr...e-dpr.html
-
1/20/15 - Kiev Throws Its (Last?) Reserves into Battle
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/kie...-into.html
-
1/20/15 - Oleg Tsarev: Deputies are evacuating families ahead of the upcoming coup in Kiev
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/ole...ating.html
-
1/21/15 - Tsarev: Poroshenko will be overthrown in February -
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/tsa...wn-in.html
-
1/22/15 - Kolomoisky is preparing a massive private army for a coup in Kiev
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/kol...ivate.html
-
1/23/15 - Is America taking over the military operation in Ukraine and why did Poroshenko leave Davos early
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-...itary.html
-
1/26/15 - Right Sector prepares to seize power in Kiev
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/126...se-en.html
-
1/26/15 - Azov Commander Freaks Out, Calls the War "Lost", Blames Everybody
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/azo...s-war.html
-
1/29/15 - Yarosh to launch a Waffen-SS-style military organization
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/yar...style.html
-
1/29/15 - Nationalist Radicals Storm Krivoy Rog City Government
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/nat...y-rog.html
-
1/30/15 - South Front News: Betrayal of General Staff of Ukraine http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/sou...neral.html
-
1/30/15 - The Non-Dissoluble 'Aidar'
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/nor...ne_30.html
-
1/30/15 - "Kiev has no good way out of its predicament"--Analysis
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/kie...f-its.html
-
1/30/15 - "Yatsenyuk and Turchinov started the war!"--Poroshenko Block Deputy
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/yat...d-war.html
-
1/31/15 - "Regions will start to separate"--Ukrainian nationalist condemns the regime
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/reg...arate.html
-
1/31/15 - Ukraine After Poroshenko--Analysis by Aleksandr Rodzhers
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/ukr...is-by.html
-
1/31/15 - Kolomoisky camp accuses Poroshenko of understating the colossal losses at the front
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/01/kol...ko-of.html
-
2/1/15 - The Bird's Eye View on the Donbass. January 2015
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/the...nuary.html
-
2/1/15 - Panic in Debaltsevo; National Guard flees; Poroshenko accused of treason
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/nor...-none.html
-
2/2/15 - Yarosh explains his "Parallel General Staff" idea
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/02/nor...one_2.html

The original Flores piece:

Pravy Sektor Coup as ISIS Scenario: NATO to Feign a Unilateral' Alliance With Russia
Posted on September 15, 2014

http://syncreticstudies.com/2014/09/15/p...th-russia/

[Lauren Johnson]

Background to Nuland's "Fuck the EU" comment from Fort Rus:

Eric Zuesse, 3 Feb. 2015


Here is a complete transcript of the extraordinarily revealing phone conversation, that occurred on 26 February 2014, in which the foreign-affairs chief of the European Union, Catherine Ashton, was informed by her investigator, Urmas Paet, into his findings regarding what had been the cause of the violence that brought down the Ukrainian Government of President Viktor Yanukovych whether it was Yanukovych himself, or the people who had opposed Yanukovych and who had supported Ukraine's joining the EU (which Yanukovych had finally decided not to do).


This conversation makes absolutely clear that the EU had not participated in bringing down Yanukovych and was shocked to learn that Yanukovych had not been behind the violence on that historic occasion, which had occurred only days prior.


This conversation goes by so fast so that a transcript of it is really necessary, in order for one to be able to absorb the full import of what's happening and being revealed in it. Consequently, what now follows will be the transcript of this entire astounding phone call, with explanatory notes added in brackets by myself, for the reader's comprehension of what was being referred to by these officials, in this phone-call that shows the truly astonishing extent of U.S. President Barack Obama's depravity a depravity that clearly shocked these EU officials, even while they seemed to have been resigned to it. (Subsequently, they went along with it, with only weak ongoing resistance to it.)


Estonia's Foreign Minister Urmas Paet phones the EU's foreign-affairs chief Catherine Ashton, to report on the findings of his February 25th inquiry for the EU, into the situation in Ukraine right after the coup that had just overthrown Ukraine's democratically elected (in 2010) President Viktor Yanukovych:





buzz
buzz
hello
good afternoon madame.
this is again the center action service …
should we go, do you think it is going to be possible straight away?
to connect Mr. Katz … yes sir.
so please go on, I'm connecting with the Lady Ashton cabinet.
yes thank you.
you're welcome.
buzz
yes hello this is Mian speaking.
yes it is for the conference with the Estonian foreign minister, they are online.
hello.
yes hello can you put me through please?
yes i'll connect you to Mr. Katz, one moment.
thank you.
hello minister.
hello.
hi I'll put you through, thank you very much.
thank you.
buzz
hello.
buzz
hello.
hello.
hello how are you?
I am fine.
good. I'm good.
and you?
good. I just wanted to catch up with you on what you thought when you were there.
yes, I returned last night already, so that I was one day.
yes. Impressions?
Impressions are sad. I met with representatives of Regions Party [the Party of the just-ousted President Yanukovych], also new coalition representatives, and also civilian society, there is this lady called Olga, who is head of the doctors, yes, you know her.
yes, I do,
so that yes, whew, my impression in this is sad, that there is, well, no trust, that there was the sense that there was those politicians who will return now to the coalition, well, people from Maidan [the anti-Yanukovych demonstrators] and from civilian society [non-governmental leaders in Ukraine], they say they know everybody who will be in your [whatever the Maidaners install as constituting the new] government, and all these guys have dirty past [i.e., even the Maidan leaders know that everyone who stands even a chance to be installed into the new government has a "dirty past"]
yes,
so that they, well, they made some proposals to this same Olga and to others from civilian society, that they join new government, but this Olga, for example, says directly that she's ready to go [in]to the government only in the case if she can take with her her team, call in experts to start real healthcare reforms, so that, oh, basically that the trust level is absolutely low; on the other hand all the security problems, the (inaudible) problems, Crimea, all this stuff, Regions Party was absolutely upset, they say that well they accept this now, that there will be new government and there will be external [for-Yanukovych's-replacement] elections, but there is enormous pressure against the members of parliament [from his Regions Party], that there are uninvited visitors [Ukrainian nazis] during the night, to [Regions] Party members, well, journalists, some journalists who were with me, they saw during the day that one member of parliament was just beaten in front of the parliament building, by these guys with the guns on the streets [the highly organized Ukrainian nazis, beating those Parliamentarians, to terrorize them into not resisting the coup],
yeah,
so that all these messages is still there, and of course this Olga and others from civilian society, they were absolutely sure that people will not leave the streets before they see that the real reforms will start, so that it is not enough that there is just change of government. [He now changes totally to what the EU's and his own country's leaders care the most about, which isn't at all "she can take with her her team, call in experts to start real healthcare reforms," but instead:] There is the main impression, so that from EU's and from Estonia's perspective of course, they should be ready to put this financial package together [for their aristocrats' Ukrainian bondholders], also together with others, this very clear message is needed that it's not enough that there is a change of government, that the same real reforms, re. an election, to increase the level of trust [is needed], otherwise it will end badly [those loans won't be repaid]. Because the Regions Party [the people now afraid] also said that then you will see that if the people from the eastern part of Ukraine [which they represent] will really wake up, and start to demand their rights [as the Maidaners in the west had been demanding theirs], some people with me were in Donetsk [in the east] their people said, well we can't wait, how long still the occupation of [by] Ukraine lasts in Donetsk [i.e., they were already so alienated by rule from the west so that, even under Yanukovych, they considered it to be "occupation"], that it is real Russian ship city and we'd like now to see that Russia will take over [and any such breakaway would remove from Ukraine assets that otherwise could be available to pay back EU loans]. So that those are [my] short impressions.
Now very very interesting. I've just had a big meeting here with Olli Rehn and the other [EU] commissioners. We are working on financial packages, short, medium, long term, everything from how we get money in quickly, to how we can support the IMF [guarantor of international loans], and how we can get the kind of investment packages and business leaders, and so on. On the political side, we've worked out resources we've got and I offered to civil society and to Yatsenyuk [the banker whom Obama's agent was now actually choosing to run the country] and Klitchko and everybody I met yesterday, we can offer you people who know how to do political and economic reform [i.e., to make whole the bond-bets of Europe's aristocracy]. the countries that are closest to Ukraine have themselves been through dramatic changes, and have done big political and economic reform, so we've got loads of experience to give you, which we have to give. I said to the people in Maidan, yes, you want real reform, but you've got to get through the short term first, so you need to find ways in which you can establish a process that will have anti-corruption at its heart [this need reflecting the interests of both Europe's aristocrats who have loaned money to Ukraine, plus of the Ukrainian public, so that Ukrainians won't continue to be robbed blind by Ukraine's own oligarchs benefiting both the EU's aristocracies plus the Ukrainian public], that will have people working alongside until the elections, and that you can be confident in the process. I said to Olga, you may not be health minister now, but you need to think about becoming health minister in the future, because people like you are going to be needed to be able to get to make sure that things will happen. But I also said to them, if you simply barricade the buildings now, and the government doesn't function, we can't get money in, because we need a partner to partner with [in order to get those European loans paid back]; and I said to the opposition leaders, shortly to become government, you need to reach out to Maidan, you need to be, you know, engaging with them; you also need to get ordinary people back on the streets under a new sense of their role, so that people feel safe. I said to the Party of Regions [Yanukovych's] people, you have to go and lay flowers where the people died, you have to show that you understand what has happened here, because what you are experiencing was anger, of people who have seen the way that Yanukovych lived and the corruption, and they [Ukrainians] assume you're all the same; and those are the people who've lost people, and who feel that he [Yanukovych] ordered that to happen; there's quite a lot of shock, I think, in the city, a lot of sadness and shock, and that's going to come out in some very strange ways if we're not careful. I think all of this we're going to have to work on. We've done a big meeting here today, to try to get this in place. But yes, it's very interesting, your observations.
It is, and actually the only politician the people from civilian society mentioned positively was Poroshenko [who was soon to become the ultimate winner in the May 25th Presidential "election," which was held only in Ukraine's northwest, because by then the regime's massacres of people in the southeast had already begun and so the residents there knew that they didn't want to be ruled any longer from Kiev], so that he had some so to say trust among all these Maidan people and civilian society; and [NOW COMES THE BOMBSHELL] second, what was quite disturbing, the same oligarch [Poroshenko and so when he became President he already knew this] told that well, all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, [this will shock Ashton, who had just said that Yanukovych had masterminded the killings] that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides [so, Poroshenko himself knows that his regime is based on a false-flag U.S.-controlled coup d'etat against his predecessor]
Well, that's yes, …
So that and then she [Dr. Olga Bolgomets] also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can, you know, say that it's the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition that they don't want to investigate, what exactly happened; so that now there is stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition. [Notice here that Paet had tactfully avoided saying that Ashton's assumption that it had been Yanukovych was false; instead, he totally ignored her having said that, and he here simply said that the evidence went totally the opposite direction, the direction that Poroshenko himself knew to be true.]
I think that we do want to investigate. [That sentiment on her part lasted about one second.] I mean I didn't pick that up, that's interesting. Gosh? [Ashton here seemed to have felt embarrassed, and she thus ended in a "Gosh" that was almost inaudible, as if a question, and then she proceeded simply to ignore this crucial matter entirely. All of the evidence suggests that she was exceedingly reluctant to believe that the bad guys here had actually been on the anti-Yanukovych side. She didn't want to believe that, perhaps because her supreme priority was getting Europe's loans paid back.]
So that it was in this instance disturbing that if it's us now to live its own life very powerfully, then it already discreditates from the very beginning also this new coalition.
[At this point, Ashton noticeably jerks the topic back to the needs of her own sponsors, Europe's lenders to Ukraine, who want to be paid back; and she suddenly sours on Olga, as being "not a politician."]
I mean this is what we've got to be very careful of as well, that they need to demand great change, but they've got to let the Rada [Parliament] function. If the Rada doesn't function, then we'll have complete chaos. [Ashton clearly wants now to sweep those bullets and blood under the rug.] So, being an activist and a doctor is very important, but it means you're not a politician, and somehow they've got to come to a kind of accommodation for the next few weeks, as to how the country's actually going to run, and then we get the elections and things can change. And that's, I think, going to be quite pop[ular]. I'm planning to go back early next week, hoping on Monday [and the end of the conversation discusses the big EU names who will be coming to Ukraine the next week].



The remainder of the call consists of pleasantries.

This phone-conversation reveals that:

1: Ashton was authentically ignorant of the long-organized Obama operation, which had been prepared in conjunction with far-rightwing and rabidly anti-Russian politicians in other countries, especially in Poland, to plan this coup (and the secret training in Poland of Ukrainian nazis was intensive and was perfectly designed for the coup that unfolded just five months later in Kiev; so, this was, indeed, a very skillful operation), and also with the cooperation of Israel's far-right. This international operation was organized by the CIA, so skillfully that even Cathy Ashton and Urmas Paet knew nothing of it in advance.

2: As the numerous videos, of the coup itself, document, it was a brilliant "false flag" operation, which fooled even Ashton and Paet as to who was "behind the snipers." This was international intrigue of the very highest order.

3: Even after Ashton learned that she had been fooled, she continued unwaveringly on, promoting the interests of her bondholders, even though she now knew (or had been authoritatively informed by Paet) that the entire operation was profoundly corrupt, and even though she had earlier prettified her concerns as urging "a process that will have anti-corruption at its heart." (And note also that she said this after Paet had already informed that "all these people have dirty past.") Although (unlike Obama) she didn't want to continue (if not indeed to intensify) Ukraine's legendary corruption, she chose to do that when she felt that it would be necessary in order for her bondholders (basically via the IMF) to get paid back. It would now be a battle over Ukraine's assets, between Europe's aristocrats, versus Russia's aristocrats: an international bankruptcy-proceeding, to be determined militarily between NATO versus Russia, not by any international bankruptcy court of law. This is a bare-knuckle international battle between aristocracies: that's what this is really all about.

4: Now we know what Victoria Nuland was referring to when she said "Fk the EU!" Ashton and Paet are more concerned about the interests of their mega-investors than about the lives of any Ukrainians, but aren't (as Nuland was) eager for Ukraine's nazis to run that country and to become the people who would bring Ukraine into the EU. They don't want that (they had had enough of Hitler, and also of Mussolini). Obama clearly does: he craves Ukraine in NATO; that's why he installed this government. And all of this happened barely two months after Nuland had told a group of extremist right-wingers, with proud satisfaction, that, "We have invested more than five billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals," which she euphemistically called "democracy" (which Ukraine actually already had, before the U.S. Government took them over and placed nazis and other fascists in charge there, but which democracy Obama didn't like there; so, he ended it and started his ethnic cleansing to get rid of the voters he didn't want to be there; he used the local nazis to do precisely that; that's why he chose them to rule there).

The United States Government wants control of the land there, not of the people there; but, in order to do that, and to "make it stick" (so that no other Ukrainian leader like Yanukovych, who was not controlled from Washington, would be elected to lead Ukraine) the people in the region that had voted 90% for Yanukovych need first to be eliminated: either by killing them, or else by causing millions of them to flee into adjoining Russia both of which are happening.



Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

[Paul Rigby]

Published on 4 Feb 2015

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said that he 'felt helpless during the coup' that took place in Ukraine in early 2014 while speaking to the media at the launch of his book Ukraine at a Crossroads in Moscow, Wednesday. He compared the removal of Viktor Yanukovych to the "Libyan model," going on to say that "he was supposed to die like Gaddafi did."

[video=youtube_share;WReGvenRwqU]http://youtu.be/WReGvenRwqU[/video]

[R.K. Locke]

Zero Hedge on the oil collapse:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03...ing-russia

[David Guyatt]

Yes, it always looked like the whole thing was aimed at Russia.

I'm copying the whole article below:

Another Conspiracy Theory Becomes Fact: The Entire Oil Collapse Is All About Crushing Russian Control Over Syria

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/04/2015 10:45 -0500

• Crude
  
• HFT
  
• Iran
  
• Iraq
  
• Middle East
  
• Natural Gas
  
• Obama Administration
  
• Recession
  
• Saudi Arabia
  
• Ukraine
  
• White House
  

While the markets are still debating whether the price of oil is more impacted by the excess pumping of crude here, or the lack of demand there, or if it is all just a mechanical squeeze by momentum-chasing HFT algos who also know to buy in the milliseconds before 2:30pm, we bring readers' attention back to what several months ago was debunked as a deep conspiracy theory.
Back then we wrote about a certain visit by John Kerry to Saudi Arabia, on September 11 of all days,to negotiate a secret deal with the now late King Abdullah so as to get a "green light" in order "to launch its airstrikes against ISIS, or rather, parts of Iraq and Syria. And, not surprising, it is once again Assad whose fate was the bargaining chip to get the Saudis on the US' side, because in order to launch the incursion into Syrian sovereign territory, it "took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority."


We concluded:

Said otherwise, the pound of flesh demanded by Saudi Arabia to "bless" US airstrikes and make them appear as an act of some coalition, is the removal of the Assad regime. Why? So that, as we also explained last year, the holdings of the great Qatar natural gas fields can finally make their way onward to Europe, which incidentally is also America's desire - what better way to punish Putin for his recent actions than by crushing the main leverage the Kremlin has over Europe?

Because at the end of the day it is all about energy. We made as much very clear one month later when in mid-October we said "If The Oil Plunge Continues, "Now May Be A Time To Panic" For US Shale Companies." The panic time has long since come, but only after we laid out the problem clearly enough for all to grasp:

... while we understand if Saudi Arabia is employing a dumping strategy to punish the Kremlin as per the "deal" with Obama's White House, very soon there will be a very vocal, very insolvent and very domestic shale community demanding answers from the Obama administration, as once again the "costs" meant to punish Russia end up crippling the only truly viable industry under the current presidency.

As a reminder, the last time Obama threatened Russia with "costs", he sent Europe into a triple-dip recession.

It would truly be the crowning achievement of Obama's career if, amazingly, he manages to bankrupt the US shale "miracle" next.

Of course, all of the above was purely in the realm of the conspiratorial, because the last thing the administration would admit is that the tradeoff to its bargain with Saudi Arabia to implement a (largely failed) foreign policy regarding ISIS (which has grown in size since the coalition campaign) was to put at risk the entire US shale miracle, a miracle which is evaporating in front of everyone's eyes. And all thanks to that "closest" of US allies in the middle east: Saudi Arabia.
It was conspiratorial, that is, until today, when thanks to the far less "tinfoil" NYT one more conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact, following a report that "Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices."
From the NYT:

Saudi Arabia and Russia have had numerous discussions over the past several months that have yet to produce a significant breakthrough, according to American and Saudi officials. It is unclear how explicitly Saudi officials have linked oil to the issue of Syria during the talks, but Saudi officials say and they have told the United States that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices."

As we predicted, correctly, in September: it was all about Syria:

"If oil can serve to bring peace in Syria, I don't see how Saudi Arabia would back away from trying to reach a deal," a Saudi diplomat said. An array of diplomatic, intelligence and political officials from the United States and Middle East spoke on the condition of anonymity to adhere to protocols of diplomacy.

So what would it take for the price of oil to finally jump? Not much: Putin's announcement that Syria's leader Bashar is no longer a strategic ally of Russia.

Any weakening of Russian support for Mr. Assad could be one of the first signs that the recent tumult in the oil market is having an impact on global statecraft. Saudi officials have said publicly that the price of oil reflects only global supply and demand, and they have insisted that Saudi Arabia will not let geopolitics drive its economic agenda. But they believe that there could be ancillary diplomatic benefits to the country's current strategy of allowing oil prices to stay low including a chance to negotiate an exit for Mr. Assad.
...
"Russia has been one of the Syrian president's most steadfast supporters, selling military equipment to the government for years to bolster Mr. Assad's forces in their battle against rebel groups, including the Islamic State, and supplying everything from spare parts and specialty fuels to sniper training and helicopter maintenance."

Will Putin relent?

"Mr. Putin, however, has frequently demonstrated that he would rather accept economic hardship than buckle to outside pressures to change his policies. Sanctions imposed by the United States and European countries have not prompted Moscow to end its military involvement in Ukraine, and Mr. Putin has remained steadfast in his support for Mr. Assad, whom he sees as a bulwark in a region made increasingly volatile by Islamic extremism."

Actually that's not it: Syria, as we have been explaining for nearly two years is the critical transit zone of a proposed natural gas pipeline, originating in Qatar, and one which would terminate somewhere in central Europe. The same Qatar which was the "mystery sponsor of weapons and money to Syrian mercenary rebels" who eventually became ISIS. The same Qatar which is now directly funding ISIS. Of course, if Putin were to handover Syria to the Saudi princes (and to Qatar), he would effectively shoot himself in the foot by ending any leverage Gazprom has over Europe.
This too is very well known to Putin. For now he has shown that he has no intention of abdicating Syria, and losing critical leverage when it comes to being the provider of last resort of European gas:

The Saudis have offered economic enticements to Russian leaders in return for concessions on regional issues like Syria before, but never with oil prices so low. It is unclear what effect, if any, the discussions are having. While the United States would support initiatives to end Russian backing for Mr. Assad, any success by the Saudis to cut production and raise global oil prices could hurt many parts of the American economy.

After the meeting in Moscow in November between Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, and Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov rejected the idea that international politics should play a role in setting oil prices.

"We see eye to eye with our Saudi colleagues in that we believe the oil market should be based on the balance of supply and demand," Mr. Lavrov said, "and that it should be free of any attempts to influence it for political or geopolitical purposes."

Which, in retrospect puts the Ukraine conflict, and the western isolation of Russia in a very simple spotlight - the whole point is to inflict as much pain as possible, so Putin has no choice but to hand over Syria.

Russia is feeling financial pain and diplomatic isolation because of international sanctions stemming from its incursion into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, American officials said. But Mr. Putin still wants to be viewed as a pivotal player in the Middle East. The Russians hosted a conference last week in Moscow between the Assad government and some of Syria's opposition groups, though few analysts believe the talks will amount to much, especially since many of the opposition groups boycotted them. Some Russia experts expressed skepticism that Mr. Putin would be amenable to any deal that involved removing support for Mr. Assad.

Saudi Arabia's leverage depends on how seriously Moscow views its declining oil revenues. "If they are hurting so bad that they need the oil deal right away, the Saudis are in a good position to make them pay a geopolitical price as well," said F. Gregory Gause III, a Middle East specialist at Texas A&M's Bush School of Government and Public Service.

As for Assad, the Syrian president "has shown no inclination to step aside. He said in a recent interview with Foreign Affairs magazine that the true threat in Syria comes from the Islamic State and Qaeda-affiliated groups that, in his words, make up the "majority" of rebellion. American and Arab officials said that even if Russia were to abandon Mr. Assad, the Syrian president would still have his most generous benefactor, Iran.Iranian aid to the Syrian government has been one of the principal reasons that Mr. Assad has been able to hold power as other autocrats in the Middle East have been deposed.

And as a major oil producer, Iran would benefit if Saudi Arabia helped push up oil prices as part of a bargain with Russia.

"You are going to strengthen your enemy whether you like it or not, and the Iranians are not showing any flexibility here," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center who is close to the Saudi royal family.

But the military aid that Russia provides to Syria is different enough from what Damascus receives from Iran, its other major supplier, that if "Russia withdrew all military support, I don't think the Syrian Army could function," a senior Obama administration official said.

The conclusion:

A number of Arab nations have been pushing for the Saudis and Russians polar extremes in their positions toward Mr. Assad to find common ground on the matter as a step toward ending the carnage of Syria's civil war, now almost four years old. But, as one Arab diplomat put it, "This decision is ultimately in Putin's hands."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the great oil collapse of 2014/2015 is all about. For those who want to know when to buy oil, the answer is simple: just after (or ideally before) Putin announces he will no longer support the Assad regime. If, that is, he ever does because that act will effectively destroy all leverage Putin may ever have over Europe, and in the process, also end - quite prematurely - his career.
Until then, every single HFT-induced spike in oil is one to be ultimately faded, because as the past few months have shown, it is the Saudis who set the price, and they will not take no for an answer, even if it means crippling the entire US shale, and energy, industry in the process.

[David Guyatt]

I'm so very sick of the lies about who started this whole war. It's sickening to see the media belching up this pap day after day.

5 February 2015 Last updated at 02:18

Share this page

• Email
  
• Print
  

123

• Share
  
• Facebook
  
• Twitter
  

Nato readjusts as Ukraine crisis looms

By Jonathan MarcusBBC diplomatic correspondentMany in Washington are arguing for significant US military assistance for Ukraine
Continue reading the main story

Ukraine crisis

• Why is east hit by conflict?
  
• Shattered lives
  
• 'Shooting all day long'
  
• Is Russia stoking war?
  

On Thursday Nato will set out the details of what the Alliance's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has described as "the biggest reinforcement" of its "collective defence since the end of the Cold War".
It's all about reassuring Nato countries in eastern Europe and deterring what is perceived as a potential Russian threat to the Baltic Republics or other Nato members.
The force that will be announced on Thursday should bolster Nato's ability to respond swiftly to a military threat.
But it is also a signal that the Alliance's political leaders and military planners now see Russia's seizure of the Crimea and military forays into eastern Ukraine as much more than just a temporary crisis between Moscow and the West.
Nato's Deputy Secretary General, Alexander Vershbow - a seasoned US diplomat - set out this view most clearly in a speech earlier this week.
"Russia's aggression against Ukraine", he said, "is not an isolated incident but a game-changer in European security. It reflects an evolving pattern of behaviour that has been emerging for several years."
Worse still - as far as Nato insiders are concerned - there is simply no telling how the Ukraine crisis will evolve.
The hope was that sanctions against Russia (now bolstered by falling oil prices) would make President Vladimir Putin think again, though many experts believe that this is to understate the domestic political aspects of the Russian adventure in Ukraine.
Rapid responseA routine level of fighting could become the norm in Ukraine, with sporadic surges interspersed with lulls when talks occur.
Continue reading the main story

"Start Quote

Nato's defences are now firmly looking eastwards"

But nobody at Nato rules out a major escalation, for example a Russian push westwards through Mariupol to open up a corridor to Crimea.
Russia's deployments and pattern of snap exercises suggests that it could mount such an operation at very short notice.
Nato military planners say they believe they could execute such an operation successfully in a matter of days, with the Ukrainian military unable to stop them.
Crisis produces uncertainty and uncertainty leads to an elevated level of risk. That is why Nato's defences are now firmly looking eastwards.
The aim is to overhaul and upgrade all of the Alliance's rapid reaction forces on land, sea and air.
But the most important initial element is what is termed the "spearhead" - a brigade-sized force (say 4,000-5,000 strong), parts of which will be able to deploy at two-days notice. The rest would be able to follow along within the week.
At Thursday's Nato meeting defence ministers will announce how this force will be constituted and who will participate.
Bear in mind that many more than 5,000 troops may be needed as units rotate into this role from other duties.
Nato's military planners no longer see the fighting in Ukraine as just a temporary crisis
Being able to move rapidly is one thing but the facilities have to be in place on Nato's eastern flank to receive, accommodate and support the arriving forces.
To this end command elements are to be set up in six Nato countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
These small headquarters - designated by Nato in another addition to its massive lexicon of military acronyms as NFIUs or Nato Force Integration Units - will each have about 50 personnel. Half will be drawn from the host country and half from other Nato countries.
Their job is to ensure that the arriving "spearhead" units can deploy rapidly to where they are needed, but in normal times they will assist with collective defence planning and mounting multinational exercises.
DeterrenceContinue reading the main story

"Start Quote

Nato's wider actions all ring alarm bells in Moscow"

Such exercises will remain a permanent feature of Nato's activities. A number of countries, not least the United States, are looking again at pre-positioning heavy equipment like tanks and artillery in Europe, not in vast quantities, but sufficient to give credibility to Nato's deterrent posture.
Of course, posture is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Nato sees its actions as entirely defensive but this is not the way they will be seen in Moscow. Indeed their fundamentally different perceptions of the Ukraine crisis is what is driving the wider rift between Russia and the West.
Nato's wider actions - its plans to open a training centre in Georgia and its support for the reform of Ukraine's military - all ring alarm bells in Moscow.
Tensions could get worse still if the US or other Nato allies move to arm the Ukrainian military.
This is not a Nato issue as such but something for national governments, and everyone is watching the course of the evolving debate within the Obama administration.
Opinion shiftingUp to now the US has been reluctant to supply weaponry, preferring non-lethal military assistance like body armour, binoculars, medical equipment and so on.
The US has provided mortar-locating radar but not the more sophisticated systems that would pinpoint the source of fire from longer-range artillery systems.
The mood though in policy-making circles in Washington is changing. Many are now arguing that there should be a significant level of US military assistance to Ukraine, at least in terms of defensive weaponry.
John Kerry will be addressing Ukraine with US allies in Munich
A recent report from the influential Brookings think-tank made just this case. It was a powerful statement not least because it was authored by a number of former administration officials with recent experience of these issues.
Some serving officials are said to be rethinking their opposition to arming the Kiev government. It is an issue that Secretary of State John Kerry will be raising with America's allies in talks over the coming few days in both Brussels and Munich.
However, some experts still warn that this course of action could simply inflame the situation and perhaps provoke the Russians into a larger military adventure.
This one-day Nato ministerial meeting will be followed by the annual security conference in Munich starting on Friday.
Ukraine will figure prominently. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will be there and is expected to meet a number of key players.
It may though be an occasion for more heat rather than light.