Monday, September 29, 2014

Official Reports About Atrocities That Happened Under the Hands of Kiev Punitive Units Occupation

Truth about situation in Ukraine

5 hrs · Edited ·

Official Reports About Atrocities That Happened Under the Hands of Kiev Punitive Units Occupation
A group of international observers of OSCE started its work at the area of ​​a mass grave in Nizhniaia Krynka, Donbass.
The group consists in specialists of Great Britain, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia. They acknowledge that they are shocked by what they see.
The foreign experts made official reports about atrocities had happened here in time when Nizhniaia Krynka had been in Kiev punitive units hand
A Latvian expert said that the atrocities included repeated rapes of juvenile girls of 12-14 years old. Things like that are including in a notion of genocide.
Members of OSCE promised that culpable persons would be punished in full compliance with international humanitarian law.
A half of all houses has been destroyed in a village for the warfare time.There is no electricity and domestic gas.


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Synopsis: in Debalcevo fighting almost without interruption, the enemy is trying to escape from the boiler

Synopsis: in Debalcevo fighting almost without interruption, the enemy is trying to escape from the boiler

Synopsis: in Debalcevo fighting almost without interruption, the enemy is trying to escape from the boiler | Russian spring

Highlights from the 1st Brigade of the Southeast by the end of September 25, 2014

During the last night on the fronts Novorossia militia and junta troops again "truce" with great enthusiasm.

Donetsk People's Republic of

Donetsk - all night punishers from the airport were "harassing fire" of small arms. At midnight the shelling began, then stopped and resumed by 6:00. Happy intensive artillery strikes undergone Kiev and Kuybyshevskiy us.


Makeevka - last night at m / d and the center of the punitive Gvardeyka applied artudar (from positions in the area of ​​the mine "Poltava").

Avdiyivka - Militia produces products ukrovermahta mortar attack in response to the attacks of Donetsk.

Other settlements

Kirov - remains the target of retaliatory artillery (last night fired from the direction of the mine "Poltava"). Killed one and wounded four civilians.

Debalcevo - fighting almost without interruption; mutual artillery and mortar fire. Ukrovermaht trying to escape from the boiler. The situation in general in this area is unchanged, but there is evidence of significant loss of punitive (not specified), and attempts to release the boiler attack on n. n. Mironovoskoe. Natsgady also warn about the detention of a / m «Mersedes» with arms "for the separatists" (withdrawn RPGs, grenades, ammo).

Novoazovs'k area - evening punishers fired n. n. Naberezhnoye (1 civilian wounded). The fire was coming from the direction of n. n. Pavlopol and Zamozhniy (Telmanovskiy district).

Mining District - militia led operations to destroy roadblocks punitive (reportedly at least two shootings in the area n. N. Maloorlovka Redkodub and losses are not specified). Clashes also recorded in the area n. n. Nikishin (there have been attempts to storm the fortified natsgadov). In turn ukrovermaht evening produced fire from mortars and cannon artillery militia positions in the area of ​​n. n. Kumshatskoe (from the direction n. n. Kamenka Yasinovatskiy district), 2 militiamen wounded.

Yasinovatsky region - stationed in the district. n. Kamenka unit natsgadov (punitive battalion "Chernigov-2") had a showdown with each other (2 Avenging injured). Also fun natsgady annealed PGT Sands - DRG "Right Sector" (in unspecified amount), suffering from topographical cretinism, entered the militia checkpoint, where she was detained (Firearms seized). Happy ukrovermahta attacks began in the area n. n. Trinity.

Thus, in the territory of DNR periodically smoldering multiple sources of tension. The front line was largely unchanged, the ceasefire is observed with large disturbances. The discovery of new mass graves civil (up to 40 bodies).

Lugansk People's Republic of Happiness - late in the evening clashes intensified, "Aydar" trying to make the shelling capital LC.Militia is trying to discourage the bridge over the river. Seversky Donets River near the town.

Bryanka - remains restless place; observed again shelling punishers n. n. Vergulevka.

Antratsitovsky area - n. n. Faschevka evening was shelled by tanks and armored personnel carriers (punitive battalion "Ruh-supported", stationed in n. n. Nikishin (Mining Area DNR).

Pervomaysk - again fired from n. n. Popasnaya and Gold (Militia Strikes Back).

Thus, also without significant changes. Slurred situation Antratsitovskogo area where active (and not always agreed) Cossack units.

Mariupol - the situation in this area voltage stability. Periodically punishers provoke militias opening fire with mortars on their positions. Reported daily attacks of militia MLRS "Grad" (from n. N. Sartana) in the fortified area in punitive IHT Talakovka (2 Punisher killed, 2 wounded). Also in the afternoon punishers applied artillery strikes on n. n. Kominternovo and nameless (from m / d East).

Occupied territory

Odessa region - in the region of n. n. Kotovka (Belyaevsky district) from rocket-propelled grenades fired at a checkpoint natsgadov (no casualties, damaged APCs).

Recent Psak

Glavukr never tires to generate ideas: issued a decree "On Urgent Measures for the Protection of Ukraine." Of course, the new sanctions against Russia - because the economy bloody Mordor is almost bent, and millions of hungry Katsapov stand on the Russian-Ukrainian border (that's why ukry wall building - that Muscovites all fat is not devoured!). No less masterpiece - stop skipping and movement of citizens across the border. Interestingly, zrobitchan secretly Ruscha Russian economy from the inside, and with tears in salaried vile rubles, it is assumed here to leave? Probably, yes - they have already been recruited by the FSB. But one Poroshenko rights: the most important point - it is the creation of "air medical unit." Insist that it should be staffed exclusively psychiatrist - psychiatric combat troops from trehvedernymi enemas and huge syringe with haloperidol ready. The first point of landing must be Kiev.

Not far behind, and Yulia Tymoshenko. Authoritative Maruja, however, comes not concepts - worthless administration (even presidential) cooperate. Especially considering that the list of the "Fatherland" is headed aviatrix Savchenko. Generally, Julia needed rebranding - rename a game of "V'yaznitsya" as the anthem - hit "What a fall in the camps." Oh, absolutely fail Square Garnier lads who used diverted energy Julia in civilian! I remember that she had promised to shoot from Russian nuclear weapons - can she marry off Geletey will flash together to work out right?

Mouthpiece Goebbels remains faithful to tradition and states that there are no losses. But does not reduce the heating revelations Russian Stealth-army, secret weapon in the suburbs of Lviv, Kiev honored patient psycho-neurological clinic Dima Tymchuk: "As a result of" friendly fire "from militants destroyed a Russian jammer P-330ZH along with the crew of the servicemen of the Russian Federation" . Dima even viciously trampling feet (on the handle caring nurses put a straitjacket) that convoy from Russia - is the supply of munitions and intervention. Of course, because klyatyh Muscovites totalitarian fed separatists and Colorado scoop tushonkoy. What a difference - the bombing of peaceful democratic Syria, when universal human bomb citadel of democracy and bring good tolerance and humanism.

On losses (that managed to be specified):

Civilians - 1.5

Natsgady - 4.2 (according to the militia)

Militia - 0/2.

Thus, to speak of a substantial change frontline or combat situation is impossible. Endless talk of Kiev on the special status (or lack thereof), the appointment of the prosecutor of the Crimea (some vile a city instead of a charming Natalia Poklonskaya) and EU membership pass Edge of Reason."Armistice" prolonged and turns into a farce. It is clear that until they are eliminated (or left) firing points ukrovermahta at strategic positions, this war will continue. However, we have only to look.

Unfortunately, there is simply no way of stopping the war and preserving Ukraine until Kiev falls to the insurgents.


Is peace in the Ukraine possible?

by M.Khazin

translation by "G' of М.Хазин, "Может ли быть мир на Украине?" 

The devaluation of the Ruble and the Yevtushenkov affair have so saturated our mass media that it would seem desirable to stand aside and address a more substantial theme. Namely; under what conditions can the Ukraine know peace? Not just any ‘peace’ but a peace without wholesale disintegration of the country into petty fiefdoms, without a bloodstained dictatorship, without ethnic cleansing and without genocide. In order to answer this question, it is necessary, above all, to look at Kiev and Donetsk.

They should be part of one state. However the 10s of thousands killed and the open exhortations to genocide which have been issued by the dominant political forces in Kiev (for example: the phrase ‘Russians, clear off back to Moscovy’, which is directed at people who are not only currently inhabiting Lugansk and Donetsk but who have lived there for centuries, could be considered, formally from the point of view of international legal norms to fit the definition of genocide and, without doubt, that of ethnic cleansing) render such ‘cohabitation’ within the framework of a usual state simply impossible. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk (we include the Odessa massacre, even though it differs, in part from the others ) will never relinquish their right to justice against those who are guilty of the massacre of civilians and, similarly, the Kievan nationalists are unlikely to stop uttering phrases of the sort: ‘ We’ve barbecued that [Colorado Beetle] bitch.’ or other such endearments.

In theory the only way that Kiev can go back to normal would be in the context of sustained economic growth. In that case it might be possible to brush the nationalist slogans back under the carpet and for everyone to benefit from the resultant financial in-flows, but here Kiev has fallen into a trap of its own making. It is a simple fact that economic growth is only possible in collaboration with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. There is simply no other option. There is not even any real perspective for the development of agriculture; one would just need look at the example of Bulgaria, where the climate is noticeably more clement than that in Ukraine. Ukraine finds it impossible to compete with Turkey. Once the European Union association agreement comes into force there will be no means of regulating the influx of Turkish agri-business and the only profitable way to engage in agriculture will be in a vegetable garden. It is sufficient to look at the example set in that neighbouring former Soviet state, Moldova.

Insofar as Kiev has adopted a radically anti-Russian model, the chances of growth in that country are precisely zero. The European Union has no money and judging by the way that the crisis is developing the prognosis is not positive, and even if we were to look, more optimistically, into the medium term at the global economic situation, the European Union is most likely to help out the Eastern European Countries and the Baltic States before it bails out Ukraine. Nothing personal, just business.

And this means that Kievan Nationalism is going nowhere. It has no choice as it will be impossible for it to maintain its grip on power otherwise. Moreover it has achieved some success insofar as the United States has enacted sanctions against Russia and coerced its allies in Europe and the wider world to do likewise. There is only one problem: For how long will they be willing to prosecute these sanctions for the sake of Ukraine? Kiev’s issues will continue to mount, insofar as the only way that it can deal with the growth of democratic sentiment in the South East (it is clear that the struggle is for freedom and democracy, regardless of how discordant that sounds from the point of view of the contemporary Western mass media) is by the use of military force. It is far from certain that this particular problem can be resolved by military force.

In summary we can say that, judging by the development of negative economic trends, the intensity of internal confrontation in Kiev will constantly grow. In turn those wishing to live under their guardianship will become fewer and fewer. The cohesion of the Ukrainian state will melt like snow in the heat of the summer sun. As that happens the state will become more and more aggressive So we expect to see a contradiction in answer to the question that we posed. Is it possible to establish peace in the Ukraine?

I intentionally have not referred in general to Ukrainian nationalists, rather specifically to Kievan Nationalists. The fact is that Galician Nationalists and Kievan Nationalists are not the same. The latter always had significant sources of income (be it the budget of the USSR, Ukraine etc.), however the former have been forced to be much more pragmatic. Furthermore they have been unable to understand that they cannot hold Kiev. This is because any government in Kiev, in correspondence to their stability, will in the first instance, fall not upon the Russians in the Donbass, but rather upon the genuine committed nationalists. Today this is what Poroshenko is doing. This was clear earlier and I wrote about this earlier in the year.

Rather than being an idea (which moreover is distinctly un-appealing to the EU), Nationalism for Kiev is an instrument. There is no requirement for committed nationalists. The requirement is for cynics, who are happy to articulate nationalists’ slogans in order to gain control over the budgetary and gas revenue flows. Thus, regarding the situation in recent months, committed nationalists(which for our purposes we shall name ‘Right Sector’) have come to look more and more seriously at breaking away from Kiev. Moreover, Kiev earlier distributed budgetary money to them (received from Donbass and other regions) and now there is no more budgetary money to distribute.

However Galicia by itself cannot breakaway from Kiev. Kiev, for whom the slogan (‘for the unity of the Ukraine’) has become totemic, will never agree to it. This means that, as well as the rebels in the Donbass, there is also appearing a new force, which is also interested in the collapse of the country. In this way, from the above, we can formulate the picture below of the future Ukraine.

Should the Rebels from the South-East reach an agreement with the Galician nationalists, then they will take power in Kiev. In that case, the insurgents, proponents of the former Soviet Union and the slogan ‘friendship of the Peoples’ will, through the creation of a multi-ethnic ethnic state, put an end to nationalism and re-establish peace in the Ukraine. Galicia, as it were, in gratitude for its assistance, would receive either independence, probably as part of a confederation or quite possibly full independence as a separate state. It is clearly difficult to imagine a state where in some schools they teach that Bandera is a fascist criminal and in others – that he is a hero. But that remaining part of the Ukraine will be a peaceful, unified state, entering, one would imagine the European Economic Area.

Should agreement not be reached and the insurgents not achieve victory (either by circumstance or by result of foreign intervention), then the intensifying confrontation in Kiev will inescapably lead to the break-up of the country into petty fiefdoms with a correspondingly low quality of life and norms of governance. At present we enumerate 5 of these; Novorossiya, Hetmanshina (Cossak, with Kiev as its capital), New Khazaria (under the control of the oligarch Kolomoiski) and Galicia. We also consider one more statelet, Transcarpathia which is likely to be dissected and integrated into neighbouring countries.

But nobody has said that the process of disintegration will stop there. Anyone who doubts it should read Bulgakov. The mentality of the people in the Ukraine has not significantly changed since then. It is difficult to even conceive how a normal man can live in these conditions.

If we believe that the best outcome is a united (that is relatively united, without either the Crimea or Galicia) Ukraine, a Ukraine which is peaceful and prosperous, it is essential that the insurgents take control of Kiev. Until this happens, the war will continue. Unfortunately, there is simply no way of stopping the war and preserving Ukraine until Kiev falls to the insurgents. 

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Germany’s Manuel Ochsenreiter, here’s a truly independent firsthand viewpoint on Crimea, Ukraine and much more.

The Beginning of a New Geopolitical Era: A Talk With Manuel Ochsenreiter

An honest journalist is an increasingly rare thing.  None are more honest than Germany’s Manuel Ochsenreiter.  Forget VICE, here’s a truly independent firsthand viewpoint on Crimea, Ukraine and much more.

Interview by James Porrazzo for Open Revolt.

Manuel you’ve recently traveled and stayed in Crimea just in time for the referendum concerning reuniting with Russia. First, we’re curious how was your reception in Crimea as a German journalist?

Ochsenreiter: It is the same reception you get everywhere “outside the Western sphere”. As soon as the people notice that you are not part of the mainstream media of your country, you are welcomed warmly and in a friendly manner. It is always good not to be part of the corporate lie industry.

What was the scene on the streets like leading up to this historic day? Here in North America the mainstream media painted a picture of Russian troops on the streets holding down dissent at the point of a bayonet.

Ochsenreiter: Not just in the US the mainstream media was broadcasting these fairy tales. In Germany also we “witnessed” a Russian invasion with tanks and lots of war material in Crimea. When I arrived in Simferopol I started searching for the Russian invasion. And I found out it took place but just on our western TV screens. Instead of those depressing “occupation scenes” I saw happy people in “reunification-fever”. Crimeans were looking forward to the referendum day.

It’s clear what the majority of the people of Russian orientations views are. Did you have a chance to speak to any other groups, like the Tartars? Or people who were clearly loyal to the junta in Kyev? Again, our occupied media here claim that they were (or are) facing hardships?

Ochsenreiter: First of all, I wonder where our Western mainstream media found all those anti-Russian Crimeans. Maybe the same place where they found masses of “peaceful protesters” in Syria? Of course I spoke with many people in Crimea and of course some were skeptical towards Moscow. But there were no “anti-Russian” people. I spoke with Tatars who were very angry at their anti-Russian “lobby” which is supported by Western NGOs, Washington, Ankara and Brussels. The point is: Many Tatars and other “Non-Russians” prefer to be part of Russia especially after seeing what is happening in Kiev these days. They choose security, peace and order (Moscow) instead of anarchy, chaos and hooliganism (Kiev).

Your photos with Cossacks and Serbian volunteers are quite moving. Were you able to get a feel for their positions and what inspired them to come to Crimea?

Ochsenreiter: Their motivation was idealistic. They wanted to help their Russian countrymen. Especially during the time before the referendum a lot of rumors about provocations from Kiev were being circulated in Crimea. People expected “Right Sector” hooligans coming to Crimea to disturb the referendum. The Cossacks were guarding public buildings. People were very happy about the Cossack presence in Simferopol. The Serbian Cetnik volunteers were serving at a road block close to Sevastopol.

How were the reactions on the street when the results of the vote were declared?

Ochsenreiter: It was a wave of happiness rolling over Crimea. The people were celebrating in the streets the whole night. It was a great experience especially as a German to witness this unique historical moment because we also had a reunification in 1990…

In addition to being an outstanding journalist, you are also an expert at geopolitics. Where do you see the events in Ukraine leading?

Ochsenreiter: The Crimea reunification with Russia is a geopolitical tsunami. For the first time since 1989/1990 a serious competition against the US hegemonial power has appeared in the horizon. All of a sudden the game has changed. Russia is not willing to tolerate anymore the Western push towards East. The reunification of Crimea with Russia is not the end for sure but the beginning of a new geopolitical era.

In our friendship with you we’ve seen you travel to Syria, then Crimea. What’s next for the truth seeking journalist Manuel Ochsenreiter?

Ochsenreiter: I just came back from Kosovo where I visited the Serbian community currently struggling for their survival. Kosovo is another geopolitical hotspot, forgotten right now but maybe all of a sudden actual in the future. We find there the same frontlines like in other geopolitical conflict areas: The West supporting criminal gangs as “freedom fighters”, spreading war lies and taking control by introducing the so called “open society” which means in reality “open market”.

Any final words for your supporters who read Open Revolt?
Ochsenreiter: Keep calm and trust Eurasianism!


Washington’s harebrained gambit was doomed from the get go.

 Washington’s harebrained gambit was doomed from the get go.

The chances of success of the ceasefire in Ukraine are minimal because Washington needs this war to achieve broader strategic goals, the journalist Mike Whitney is sure. On the pages of CounterPunch, he wrote that the administration of Obama is trying to draw Russia into a costly and prolonged conflict that could escalate into a third world war.

The Minsk ceasefire has a very little chance of success. In fact, the meeting between the warring parties was organized mainly not to stop the violence, but to give the respite and time to retreat and regroup to armed forces of Ukraine, journalist Mike Whitney, one of the authors of the book "The hopelessness. Barack Obama and the politics of illusion", wrote in the pages of CounterPunch.

The chances of success of the ceasefire in Ukraine are minimal because Washington needs this war to achieve broader strategic goals, the journalist Mike Whitney is sure. On the pages of CounterPunch, he wrote that the administration of Obama is trying to draw Russia into a costly and prolonged conflict that could escalate into a third world war. 

Minsk ceasefire very has a little chance of success. In fact, the meeting between the warring parties was organized mainly in order not to stop the violence, but to give the respite and time to retreat and regroup to armed forces of Ukraine, journalist Mike Whitney, one of the authors of the book "The hopelessness. Barack Obama and the politics of illusion", wrote in the pages of CounterPunch.

"According to polls, the majority of Ukrainians are against the so-called "anti-terrorist operation" conducted by Poroshenko. However, according to Whitney, a fratricidal war will continue, because this is part of a large plan of Washington. 

The administration of Obama is trying to draw Russia into a costly and prolonged conflict in Ukraine, trying to prove to its European allies that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a dangerous aggressor and a serious threat to global security. Such excuses are needed for the United States in order to create advanced NATO bases on the western border of Russia, where they will pose a serious threat to the existence of Moscow.

Of course, the author thinks, it could have been expected that NATO and the United States would reduce the intensity of its rhetoric and refuse of further escalation, to show their support for the fragile truce, but this did not happen. On Sunday, two NATO warships entered the Black Sea through the Bosphorus, joining the French and American destroyers that had already been in the region. 

"These exercises have nothing to do with the protection of the civilian population against foreign aggression. This is a clear attempt to intimidate Putin and to show that the Western alliance is ready to take the risk of the outbreak of a third world war in order to achieve their goals in the Ukraine. 

In any case, the overall picture is clear: the escalation, the escalation, the escalation. The United States intend to create in Ukraine a NATO bridgehead in accordance with their plans turn towards Asia. Alarming military build-up in the Balkans and the Black Sea, as well as flashy and relentless anti-Russian propaganda in the media say that Washington has begun a major operation that could escalate into a full-scale war,"- Mike Whitney concludes.

"According to polls, the majority of Ukrainians are against the so-called "anti-terrorist operation" conducted by Poroshenko. However, according to Whitney, a fratricidal war will continue, because this is part of a large plan of Washington.

The administration of Obama is trying to draw Russia into a costly and prolonged conflict in Ukraine, trying to prove to its European allies that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a dangerous aggressor and a serious threat to global security. Such excuses are needed for the United States in order to create advanced NATO bases on the western border of Russia, where they will pose a serious threat to the existence of Moscow.

Of course, the author thinks, it could have been expected that NATO and the United States would reduce the intensity of its rhetoric and refuse of further escalation, to show their support for the fragile truce, but this did not happen. On Sunday, two NATO warships entered the Black Sea through the Bosphorus, joining the French and American destroyers that had already been in the region.

"These exercises have nothing to do with the protection of the civilian population against foreign aggression. This is a clear attempt to intimidate Putin and to show that the Western alliance is ready to take the risk of the outbreak of a third world war in order to achieve their goals in the Ukraine.

In any case, the overall picture is clear: the escalation, escalation, escalation. The United States intends to create in Ukraine a NATO bridgehead in accordance with their plans towards Asia. Alarming military build-up in the Balkans and the Black Sea, as well as flashy,relentless and ridiculous anti-Russian propaganda in the media, say that Washington has begun a major operation that could escalate into a full-scale war,"- Mike Whitney concludes.


 Obama Begs for More War

Did Putin Just Bring Peace to Ukraine?


“In the implementing of their policies, our western partners– the United States first and foremost – prefer to be guided not by international law, but by force. They believe in their own ‘exceptionalism’, that they are allowed to decide on the fate of the world, and that they are always right.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin

 Alexander V. Zakharchenko, Chairman of The Council of Ministers of The Donetsk National Republic,The Vineyard of the Saker 
 “What did we do to deserve this? What did we do to deserve being bombed from planes, shot at from tanks, and have phosphorous bombs dropped on us? ….That we wanted to live the way we want, and speak our own language, and make friends with whom we want?”

There is no way to overstate the significance of what has transpired in Ukraine in the last three weeks. What began as a murderous onslaught on the mainly Russian-speaking population of east Ukraine, has turned into a major triumph against a belligerent and expansionistic empire that has been repulsed by a scrappy, battle-hardened militia engaged in a conventional, land-based war. The conflict in east Ukraine is Obama’s war; launched by Obama’s junta government, executed by Obama’s proxy army, and directed by Obama’s advisors in Kiev.
The driving force behind the war is Washington’s ambitious pivot to Asia, a strategy that pits Russia against Europe to prevent further economic integration and to establish NATO forward-operating bases on Russia’s western border. Despite the overheated rhetoric, the talk of a (NATO) “Rapid Reaction Force”, and additional economic sanctions; the US plan to draw Ukraine into the western sphere of influence and weaken Russia in the process, is in tatters. And the reason it is in tatters is because a highly-motivated and adaptable militia has trounced Obama’s troopers at every turn pushing the Ukrainian army to the brink of collapse.

Check out this frontline update from The Saker:

“The (Ukrainian Army) is not retreating on one, two or even three directions, it is retreating everywhere (except north of Lugansk). Entire battalions are leaving the front under orders of their battalion commanders and without the approval of the Junta leaders. At least one such battalion commander is already being judged for desertion. The entire Ukie leadership seems to be in a panic mode, especially Iatseniuk and Kolomoiski, while the Nazis are mad as hell at the Poroshenko administration. There are constant rumors of an anti-Poroshenko coup by outraged Nazi nationalists…..

The bottom line is this: Poroshenko promised a victory in a matter of weeks and his forces suffered one of the most total defeats in the history of warfare. ….the most likely thing is that this ridiculous “Banderastan” experiment has seriously begun sinking now and that many rats are leaving the ship.

The War in Ukraine“, Vineyard of the Saker

The fact that the demoralized Ukrainian army has been defeated by the superior fighting force is of little importance in the big scheme of things, however, the fact that Washington’s global resource war– which began on 9-11 and has reduced numerous sovereign countries into anarchic, failed states– has been stopped in its tracks, is significant.
The so called War on Terror–which was recently rebranded under the ISIS moniker–has wreaked holy havoc and death on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria. By routing the Ukrainian army the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) has put the kibosh on Obama’s Great Game strategy in Eurasia and torpedoed Washington’s plan to rule the world by force of arms. It could be that the battles of Lugansk and Donetsk are eventually regarded as the turning point, where the lumbering and over-extended empire finally met its match and began its precipitous decline. In any event, there’s no doubt that Friday’s ceasefire agreement is a serious blow to US hegemony.


“The defining factor in relations with NATO remains the unacceptability for Russia of plans to move the military infrastructure of the alliance towards our borders, including via enlargement of the bloc,” said Mikhail Popov, deputy head of Putin’s Security Council.

The issue has always been NATO expansion, not the ridiculous claim that Putin wants to rebuild the Russian Empire. The only one interested in in stitching together a global Caliphate is Barack Hussein Obama and his nutcase neocon advisors. Putin is not interested in an empire. Putin just wants to make money like everyone else. He wants to sell gas to Europe, raise living standards and rebuild the country. What’s wrong with that?

Putin’s not a troublemaker. He’s not sticking a freaking first-strike nuclear missile system in Havana just 60 miles from Miami. But that’s what Obama wants to do. Obama want to establish NATO bases on Russia’s doorstep and deploy his fake-named “missile defense system” a couple hundred miles from Moscow. Putin can’t allow that. No one in their right mind would allow that. It’s a direct threat to national security. Here’s how Putin summed it up in a recent press conference:

“Russia is an independent and active participant of international relations. Just like any nation it has national interests that must be taken into consideration and respected…..We stand against having a military organization meddling in our backyard, next to our homeland or in the territories that are historically ours. I just cannot imagine visiting NATO sailors in Sevastopol,” he stressed. “Most of them are fine lads, but I’d rather they visit us in Sevastopol than the other way around.” (Vladimir Putin)

Washington’s harebrained gambit was doomed from the get go. Who made the decision to topple Yanuchovych, install a US-puppet in Kiev, fill-out the security services with neo Nazis, and wage a bloody ethnic cleansing purge on the Russian-speaking people in the east? Who was it? Isn’t there any accountability among the Obama team or is it all a matter of “failing upwards” like the Bush crowd? Here’s Putin again:

“Our western partners created the ‘Kosovo precedent’ with their own hands. In a situation absolutely the same as the one in Crimea they recognized Kosovo’s secession from Serbia legitimate while arguing that no permission from a country’s central authority for a unilateral declaration of independence is necessary….And the UN International Court of Justice agreed with those arguments. That’s what they said; that’s what they trumpeted all over the world and coerced everyone to accept – and now they are complaining about Crimea. Why is that?”

Doesn’t Putin have a point? Isn’t this what we’ve seen over and over again, that there’s one standard for the US and another for everyone else?

Of course it is. But Putin’s not going to stand for it. In fact, just this week, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expanded on Putin’s comments in an interview that never appeared in the western media. Here’s what he said:

“The current stage of international relations is marked by a transition to a fundamentally new world order – a polycentric model based on due regard for the appearance of new economic and financial centres. And political weight comes with economic and financial influence. Transition to a polycentric world order reflects an objective trend according to which the world order should be based on the world’s cultural and civilizational diversity. This is objective reality, which no one can deny. …

After a long period of dominance in global economy and politics, these countries are trying to keep their positions by artificial means. They know that their economic positions are not as strong as they were after WWII, when America accounted for over half of global GDP, but they are trying to use all available military and political instruments, social media, regime-change technology and other instruments to keep back the objective process of the development of a democratic world order based on the equality of all sides.

Not everyone has realized yet that it is impossible to move contrary to an objective historical process. We strongly hope that this will happen, because otherwise more illegal unilateral sanctions will be approved against Russia, to which we will respond accordingly, as we have already tried to do. But this, I repeat, is not our choice; we don’t want confrontation.” (Press Conference: Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov)

“A new world order based on a polycentric model”? What a great idea. You mean, a world in which other sovereign nations get a say-so in the way the world is run? You mean, a world in which the economic, political, and military decision-making does not emerge from one center of power that is dominated by privately-owned banks, transnational corporations and voracious western elites?

You mean, a world in which international law can be applied evenly so that one country cannot unilaterally create off-shore gulags, or incite color coded revolutions, or carry out extra-legal abductions and killings, or order drone attacks on wedding parties or conduct any of the other heinous violations of human rights which imperial Washington engages in without batting an eye?

The NAF’s victory in east Ukraine brings us all one step closer to actualizing the multi-polar world of which Lavrov and Putin speak so glowingly. In fact, just hours ago Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko capitulated and signed a ceasefire agreement with the leaders of the anti-fascist militia, Igor Plotnitsky and Aleksandr Zakharchenko. (Remember: “We never negotiate with terrorists”?) Ukraine’s National Security Council (SNBO) has reported that its troops have halted all military actions. The government’s public statement reads as follows:

“According to the decision of the President of Ukraine and the order of the chief of the General staff of the military units of Ukraine, troops in the area of anti-terrorist operations ceased fire at 15.00 GMT.”

Peace at last?

It sure looks like it.

So while Obama is busy trying to ramp up the violence by rallying NATO to expand the wars around the world, international peacekeepers will begin the thorny task of implementing a seven-point peace plan put forward by none-other-than Vladimir Putin.

The difference between the peacemakers and the warmongers has rarely been as stark as it is today.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at

Friday, September 19, 2014

Ukraine: Israeli Special Forces Unit under Neo-Nazi Command Involved in Maidan Riots

Originally Published On: Tue, Mar 4th, 2014 
By: nsnbc

Ukraine: Israeli Special Forces Unit under Neo-Nazi Command Involved in Maidan Riots

Re-posted by: @Adam1Baum 19/9/2014 
Michel Chossudovsky (CRG) : Under the title “In Kiev, an Israeli army vet led a street-fighting unit”the Jewish News Agency JTA confirms that soldiers from the IDF were involved in the EuroMaidan protest movement under the direct command of the Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.  The Svoboda Party follows in the footsteps of World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.
Delta, the nom de guerre of the Jewish commander of a Ukrainian street-fighting unit, is pictured in Kiev earlier this month. (Courtesy of ‘Delta’)
Delta, the nom de guerre of the Jewish commander of a Ukrainian street-fighting unit, is pictured in Kiev earlier this month. (Courtesy of ‘Delta’)
The leader of the “Blue Helmets of Maidan” is Delta “the nom de guerre of the commander of a Jewish-led militia force that participated in the Ukrainian revolution”. Delta is a Veteran of the notorious Givati infantry brigade, which was involved in numerous operations directed against Gaza, including Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009.
The Givati brigade was responsible for the massacres in the Tel el-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza. Delta, the leader of the EuroMaidan IDF unit acknowledges that he acquired his urban combat skills in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati brigade.
According to the JTA report, Delta was in command of a force of 40 men and women including several former IDF veterans. In the EuroMaidan, Delta was routinely applying his skills of urban warfare which he had used against the Palestinians in Gaza.
The Maidan “Street fighting unit” under Delta’s command was involved in confronting government forces. It is unclear from the reports whether the EuroMaidan combat unit was in liaison with IDF command headquarters in Israel:
The Blue Helmets comprise 35 men and women who are not Jewish, and who are led by five ex-IDF soldiers, says Delta, an Orthodox Jew in his late 30s
Delta, who immigrated to Israel in the 1990s, moved back to Ukraine several years ago He says he joined the protest movement as a volunteer on Nov. 30, after witnessing violence by government forces against student protesters.
“I saw unarmed civilians with no military background being ground by a well-oiled military machine, and it made my blood boil,” Delta told JTA in Hebrew laced with military jargon. “I joined them then and there, and I started fighting back the way I learned how, through urban warfare maneuvers. People followed, and I found myself heading a platoon of young men. Kids, really.”
The other ex-IDF infantrymen joined the Blue Helmets later, after hearing it was led by a fellow vet, Delta said.
In a bitter irony, Delta, the commander of the IDF militia unit was taking his orders directly from the Neo-Nazi Party Svoboda:
As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist [Neo-Nazi] party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism and whose members have been said to have had key positions in organizing the opposition protests.
“I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders from their team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother,’” he said. “What they’re saying about Svoboda is exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like them because they’re inconsistent, not because of [any] anti-Semitism issue.”
NEO_NAZI_TATTOO_UKRAINENeither the Tel Aviv government nor the Israeli media have expressed concern regarding the fact that the EuroMaidan protests were led by Neo-Nazis.
With the formation of a new government composed of NeoNazis,  the Jewish community in Kiev is threatened.  This community is described as “one of the most vibrant Jewish communities in the world, with dozens of active Jewish organizations and institutions”. A significant part of this community is made up of family members of holocaust survivors. “Three million Ukrainians were murdered by the Nazis during their occupation of Ukraine, including 900,000 Jews.” (, January 29, 2014).
Neo-Nazis Honoring Stepan Bandera
Neo-Nazis Honoring Stepan Bandera
“It’s bullshit. I never saw any expression of anti-Semitism during the protests”
In a bitter twist, the Blue Helmet IDF unit in the EuroMaidan has been the object of praise by the Israeli media. According to Ariel Cohen of the Washington based Heritage Foundation: “The commanding position of Svoboda in the revolution is no secret”. The participation of Israeli soldiers under Neo-Nazi Svoboda command does not seem to be an object of concern:
On Wednesday, Russian State Duma Chairman Sergey Naryshkin said Moscow was concerned about anti-Semitic declarations by radical groups in Ukraine.But Delta says the Kremlin is using the anti-Semitism card falsely to delegitimize the Ukrainian revolution, which is distancing Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence.
“It’s bullshit. I never saw any expression of anti-Semitism during the protests, and the claims to the contrary were part of the reason I joined the movement. We’re trying to show that Jews care,” he said.
See Svoboda and Right Sector militants honoring Stepan Bandera(image below)
Bandera was a Nazi collaborator involved in the Third Reich’s Einsatzgruppen (Task Groups or Deployment Groups) . These “task forces” were paramilitary death squads deployed throughout the Ukraine.

The JTA article can be consulted at
Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization

About the Author

- nsnbc international is a daily, international online newspaper, established on 25 February 2013. nsnbc international is independent from corporate, state or foundation funding and independent with regards to political parties. nsnbc international is free to read and free to subscribe to, because the need for daily news, analysis and opinion, and the need for independent media is universal. The decision to make nsnbc international freely available was made so all, also those in countries with the lowest incomes, and those inflicted by poverty can access our daily newspaper. To keep it this way however, we depend on your donation if you are in a position to donate a modest amount whenever you can or on a regular basis. Besides articles from nsnbc's regular contributors and staff writers, including it's editor and founder, Christof Lehmann, it features selected articles from other contributors through its cooperation with media partners such as Global Research, The 4th Media, Aydinlik Daily, AltThaiNews Network, New Eastern Outlook, The Cairo Post and others.

Monday, September 15, 2014

The US has propped up even the nastiest dictators because it had identified a US interest.

The Global Shame which was Killing Ukraine

3242342Some international relations pundits working for the so called mainstream press continue to suggest that Russia is doing exactly what it did in Georgia in 2008 with Ukraine. The same press was backing down from the Russian invasion headlines in light of facts on the ground that prove otherwise, and at most calling any alleged movement of troops or equipment a limited incursion.
Very few people in Georgia or among those in the know actually believe either the Russian or Georgian official line on the 2008 conflict. It is known that both sides were already preparing for some sort of conflict and that Saakashvili jumped the gun, after his US friends told him not to, to claim all the credit for himself and assist his friend John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Rehashing their tired explanations does not help anyone understand that conflict, so alarm bells should start ringing when exactly the same explanations are given in Ukraine, whose internal situation is very different from Georgia’s.
There are things the usual commentators do not want us to see. What, exactly?
Another scenario
Before Russian troops have had the chance to do anything in Ukraine, assuming the reported troop movements was actually happening, Kiev has attacked itself by creating the effective partition of the country as a diversionary tactic. This is hardly the duty of a government which claims it has been elected to run the whole of Ukraine, but it is exactly what you would expect when the most extreme nationalist elements, which had no electoral credibility prior to this conflict, were inserted into it precisely to alienate the Russian-oriented section of the population.
This partition suits everyone. The east of Ukraine is largely dependent on Russian energy and industrial partners anyway, so creating a separate Russian-oriented state will probably enhance its development. But of course no government will just sign away its territory to the historic enemy, so it has to plead that it is being taken by force, and poor little Ukraine cannot defend itself against the hungry bear.
The west of the country, meanwhile, can proceed in the direction it wants without nasty and inconvenient things like democracy getting in the way. Twice Yanukovych was democratically elected, twice overthrown in so-called revolutions which the ungrateful populace still refuses to support at the ballot box. Now Ukraine can join the EU, the US can have its missile shield and the nationalist section of the population can have something nearer the sort of country it has always wanted, and blamed the Russians for not allowing it to have.
A similar divergence occurred in Czechoslovakia after it overthrew the Communists. The difference is that the Czechs and Slovaks divided into separate countries peacefully because they were both effectively on the same side, both wanting to join the EU and NATO but also wanting to address historic anomalies.
In Ukraine the two halves of the population, which have always been separate communities within one political unit, are caught on either side of a global conflict they did not create. What the West in particular is afraid of is that, if Ukraine is allowed to resolve its own problems, the reason for the global conflicts it has been nurturing so assiduously for a generation might be called into question.
Buzzwords that don’t buzz
Ukraine is now busy using its army against its own citizens in the east of the country. According to learned think tanks and the pundits used by governments, Ukraine is a sovereign country and therefore has the right to restore order on its own territory, despite the fact the present Ukrainian government took power by means of an armed revolt fomented by a foreign power, in this case the US.
It is however obvious that if your own government is using troops against you you need to call on someone else to help you. As the rebel Ukrainian regions have voted to join Russia this is obviously the country they are going to call on. The new Ukrainian government knows this and has every reason to want it.
If, for example, neighbouring Belarus or Moldova tried to intervene to stop the conflict, which would win them considerable international kudos which would help them resolve their own problems, Kiev would not be a victim. Ukraine would be a country with internal problems under international pressure to resolve them. But if mighty Russia moves in, Kiev is automatically right. Everything will be justified if Ukraine is once again a victim of Russia, despite the fact that “everything” is Kiev’s own creation.
Ukraine has seen this before. When Ukrainian nationalist “hero” Stepan Bandera mysteriously emerged from a Polish prison in 1939 he had absolutely nothing to lose. If he freed Ukraine his paymasters would set him up for life. If he failed, he would be a victim and therefore never be held accountable for the war crimes he and many of his friends committed whilst working for the Nazis. To this day even a museum to his memory in London, something that few know about, and this like having one to Hitler in the minds of Jews, Poles and others who were his victims.
There are few Nazi collaborators who are regarded with favour by significant numbers of people, but Bandera is one. It is hardly surprising the new Ukrainian government has proclaimed several times that it wishes to be seen as part of his legacy. Eternal victimhood means bearing no responsibility, and all politicians would be attracted by such a prospect.
The bombs not going off
Many countries are enduring civil war and separatist conflict. For a short period Rwanda and Burundi were in the news, but the conflict between Tutsi and Hutu in these countries has claimed more lives per capita than any other on earth. The fact that it has continued for many generations, each side giving a different starting point for it, demonstrates that it has the potential and actually to create a never-ending cycle of destruction which also affects the states where dispossessed Rwandese and Burundians live.
So there are many countries whose internal problems could prove the basis for a wider conflict. But Ukraine is the one hitting the headlines. Way back in October 2008 Washington Times writer Jeffrey T. Kuhnerm asked, “Will Russia-Ukraine be Europe’s next war?” Asking such a question then, after the Orange Revolution but before the current crisis might seem prescient, but the fact that it was asked in the Washington Times gives us a big clue about why it was asked.
Of course, Ukraine is on the geopolitical front line, wedged between the NATO bloc and a Russia which wishes to reclaim superpower status by contradicting NATO. But so are many other countries. All the countries bordering Russia to the West have ethnic minorities with historic grievances, many of whom do not think they should be in the country they are in. Ukraine is no more of a tinderbox than its neighbours, just the one the most petrol has been poured on in recent times.
It is not Ukraine which is a threat to east-west relations but the rest of the countries just west of Russia. Despite their internal divisions minority groups there are not conducting armed revolts against the national government. Indeed the Baltic States, which have an ethnic national/ethnic Russian population split very similar to Ukraine’s, are considered bywords for harmony and straightforwardness when in geopolitical theory they should be exactly the opposite.
When Latvia, for example, gained its independence it did two things. Firstly it passed a nationality law which deprived most of its large ethnic Russian population of citizenship of the new country they continued to live in. Then it set up a rugby team, so it could make its international mark in a sport the Soviets wouldn’t encourage.
Most of the rugby team, including its captain, weren’t entitled to Latvian passports due to the nationality law. But they just got on with it and found a way to satisfy everyone and keep everyone happy with the new country. All the ingredients were there to create another Ukraine, but the locals refused to allow it.
Do either the US or Russia want the largest country in Europe showing that their conflict is largely unnecessary? Russia has more to lose from any conflict for obvious reasons of geographic proximity to it, quite apart from the political blowback. The US has everything to gain from causing more trouble for Russia, undermining even the EU and gaining more dependent regimes. But what would happen if it had to face the fact there are other ways of doing things?
The bottom line
The basis of US foreign policy even in benign periods is to identify US interests and promote and defend them no matter what. Callous disregard for the welfare of its allies is the norm. All this is done for the same reasons all great powers do it – that US values are superior to everyone else’s. But few great powers, if any, have made such concerted efforts to deprive its partners, as colonies now have to be, of the same values the US tells them justify everything.
The Soviet Union imposed Soviet Communism throughout the Eastern bloc, with the exception of Yugoslavia, which developed its own even nastier version. Most US allies in the developing world would be very happy to have US-style democracy imposed on them, as they aspire to such a system and all of the USA’s other professed values. Yet time and again the US has propped up even the nastiest dictators because it had identified a US interest, so that is the way it has to be.
All this is always justified as a short term expedient necessary to preserve broader US values in a hostile world. If that were true, no country would be allowed to be a democracy or be able to function as one. But many do, and live to tell the tale. The justification for US foreign policy actions grows thinner every time other countries achieve what the US says many of its allies aren’t capable of or fit to.
Ukraine has to be in conflict to justify conflict itself. Without conflict the emperor is wearing no clothes. If such wars are unnecessary so are a lot of other things. The international system would collapse overnight if Ukraine sorted out its own affairs like everyone else does.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared:

Saturday, September 13, 2014

NATO, a Cold War relic that should have been abolished

Ukraine Conflict: Red Meat for Anemic NATO Alliance

Tuesday, 09 September 2014 11:39 By Medea Benjamin, PINKtank | News Analysis
President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference at the end of the NATO summit in Newport, Wales, the United Kingdom, Sept. 5, 2014. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times) President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference at the end of the NATO summit in Newport, Wales, the United Kingdom, Sept. 5, 2014. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)
The footage of President Obama strolling through the ancient ruins at Stonehenge was an apt bookend to the meeting of NATO, a Cold War relic that should have been abolished after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. But while hundreds of protesters marched through the streets calling for NATO to be dissolved—“From Iraq to Ukraine, NATO only causes pain,” they chanted—NATO leaders saw the crisis in Ukraine as an opportunity to breathe new life into the moribund military alliance.
The recent NATO meeting in Wales was supposed to be about how to wind down NATO’s 12-year military adventure in Afghanistan—without admitting the monumental failure of leaving behind a fractured, impoverished nation that can’t even figure out who won the last election. Afghanistan, however, was barely mentioned. Nor was the disastrous NATO intervention in Libya that has resulted in a failed state rife with violence. And while there was some handwringing about how to deal with ISIS, it was clear most NATO countries did not want to join Obama in a new military quagmire. The meeting’s main focus was the conflict in Ukraine, a conflict that NATO played a key role in creating.
A creature of the Cold War created in 1949 to defend Europe from Soviet expansion, NATO did not dissolve when the Soviet Union collapsed peacefully. But it did assure Russia that it would not expand eastwards beyond the reunified Germany, and it would not station significant numbers of troops in Eastern Europe.
NATO broke the pledge. In 1999, it admitted three former Warsaw Pact countries: the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. In 2004, it admitted Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Today the NATO security alliance covers 28 member states. It does not include Ukraine, but Ukraine is pushing for NATO membership.
One does not have to sympathize with Putin’s oligarchic authoritarianism or Russia’s annexation of Crimea to recognize the West’s intimidation. When Ukraine’s corrupt but elected president was overthrown in a US-backed coup, it was scarcely paranoid for Russia to see the takeover of the neighboring state as a threat to its core interests.
For the past six months, fighting between the Moscow-backed eastern Ukrainian resistance and the NATO-backed nationalists has led to thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced.
Instead of seeking to reduce tensions, British Prime Minister David Cameron used the Summit to announce the creation of a new rapid-reaction force of 4,000 troops. The force, to be made up of troops provided by member states on a rotating basis, would be capable of deploying on 48 hours’ notice to protect any NATO member from external aggression, which under the current circumstances means the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
While NATO insists that is has no plans for new permanent bases in Eastern Europe, it announced that troops will be rotated to the region every four months, creating what it calls a “persistent” presence. The force will be supported with logistics and equipment, including weapons and fuel pre-positioned in Eastern European countries closer to Russia. This will be enhanced by more military exercises and air patrols, as well as exercises in Ukraine. And the US government has already committed some $60 million to provide the Ukrainian military with items like night vision goggles, body armor, and communications equipment.
Adding to Russia’s sense of encirclement, NATO is also building missile interceptor shields. NATO insists this will be purely defensive and is intended to thwart any future missile attack by a rogue state such as Iran or North Korea. But Russia views NATO deployment of interceptor missiles and radars in Romania, the Czech Republic, and Poland as another form of intimidation.
NATO’s encroachment in Russia’s backyard and its backing of the Ukraine government’s bombardment of the eastern part of the country threatens not only a new Cold War, but an armed conflict between Russia and NATO-aligned countries. With Russia possessing thousands of nuclear weapons, the conflict could well spiral out of control.
The protesters outside the summit were well aware of the danger. Russian activist and scholar Boris Kagarlitsky told the protesters said that while Putin’s government is no model of democracy, the stationing of NATO troops next to its border violates Russia’s security and stokes the conflict. He also said that the Ukrainian government’s bombing of rebel areas has led to a severe humanitarian crisis, with hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into Russia—a humanitarian crisis that the West has ignored.
During the NATO meeting, while Western leaders were calling for more troops in the region and more sanctions against Russia, the government of Ukraine and the pro-Russia separatists were actually talking peace. In fact on the last day of the Summit, NATO leaders were surprised when Ukraine’s president announced a ceasefire. But instead of being greeted with cheers, NATO leaders treated the announcement as a distraction and vowed to push ahead with new sanctions. “I don’t think we want to be distracted from our determination to impose further sanctions in response to Russia’s major military adventure into Ukraine by these noises off about a possible ceasefire,” said UK foreign secretary Philip Hammond.
Why be distracted by a ceasefire, or put energy into promoting a non-violent solution to the conflict in Ukraine? NATO, after all, is a military alliance and—as the saying goes—when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The protesters, by contrast, had much more constructive proposals. Use the United Nations to reinforce the peace process. Scrap the missile defense shield. No Western troops in the Baltic states. And dismantle the NATO war machine.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

A NATO Sabotage is on Order for the Ukraine Ceasefire

A NATO Sabotage is on Order for the Ukraine Ceasefire
Finian CUNNINGHAM 07.09.2014 00:00

Within hours of the ceasefire taking effect in eastern Ukraine, Kiev’s forces were accused of breaching the truce with rocket attacks on civilian areas. The Western-backed Kiev junta, in turn, blamed pro-independence militia of breaking the ceasefire. However, video evidence of explosive damage to homes and vehicles indicated that the Kiev forces had in fact resumed their usual tactics of targeting civilians. 
Nevertheless, there is still hope that a cessation of hostilities may yet take hold and allow for political dialogue between Kiev and the self-declared People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk so as to end the nearly five months of conflict in the eastern region of Ukraine.
But the success of any peace process will most likely depend not so much on the actions of the fighting partisans on the ground, but rather more on the conduct of the foreign powers sponsoring the Kiev regime.
The ceasefire was announced last Friday in the Belarus capital of Minsk after earnest discussions between the Trilateral Contact Group of Kiev envoys, independence leaders, and the Russian government. The deal was brokered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and was given impetus by a seven-point peace plan drawn up by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The three main points agreed were for a bilateral ceasefire, exchange of prisoners, and for the access of humanitarian aid convoys from Moscow to the mainly ethnic Russian civilian population of the eastern Donbass regions.
Kiev’s president Petro Poroshenko hailed the deal as a breakthrough and representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk rebel regions also gave their commitment to the truce. Poroshenko said that the peace process would not alter the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while Igor Plotnitsky and Alexander Zakharchenko said that the deal would not preclude their regions’ determination to form independent republics. How those seeming diametric positions will be resolved remains to be seen in the course of dialogue. 
But at least the conflicting parties appear to have reached a mutual understanding to halt the violence – which has so far claimed more than 2,600 lives since April and caused some one million refugees. Most of the victims have been civilians in this appalling episode. 
The crucial factor, however, for a viable political settlement is how the United States and European Union respond. Unfortunately, that factor does not bode well. After all, it was the tacit support of these sponsors and in particular the sinister involvement of CIA director John Brennan last April that emboldened the Kiev regime to launch its military operations in the Donbass. Such involvement points to a callous disregard for civilian life and a genuinely peaceful resolution. 
US President Barack Obama said on Friday at the close of the NATO summit in Wales that he welcomed the news of a ceasefire brokered in Belarus. But he immediately poured scorn on the deal by saying that he was «skeptical that the separatists would follow through and the Russians will stop violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity». 
Once again Obama was reiterating inflammatory and specious accusations against Russia as being the aggressor in Ukraine. Moscow has consistently denied that it is supplying weapons or military personnel into Ukraine’s Donbass regions. Russia argues, with much reason, that the conflict in Ukraine is the result of the US and Europe destabilizing the country by its support for the illegal coup against the Ukrainian government that occurred on February 22 earlier this year. The far-right reactionary regime that came to power went on to launch a military offensive on the pro-Russian populations in the east due to their refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the coup. 
Western governments and their media have continually charged Russia with instigating and fuelling the unrest in eastern Ukraine without providing any evidence to support such tendentious claims. 
Obama’s snide qualification about the latest ceasefire as being prone to failure because of Russia’s alleged violation of Ukrainian sovereignty is not merely an unhelpful slander; it also sets the stage for sabotage of the ceasefire from the Western-backed Kiev side, and the use of Russia as a convenient scapegoat.
The US insistence that Russia is violating Ukrainian territory without citing any supporting evidence for such a claim means that the claim will continue to be leveled. Therefore, from the prejudiced Western viewpoint, the success of the ceasefire is already doomed because Russia is somehow illegally involved in Ukraine, and Russia will never be able to satisfy this Western prejudice that it is not involved. The Big Lie will just keep churning out.
The European Union’s top bureaucrats also displayed the same irrational mentality when they announced new harsher economic sanctions against Russia on Friday. Presidents of the European Council and European Commission, Hermann Van Rompuy and José Manuel Barroso said that a new package of embargoes had been drawn up to restrict Russia’s energy, banking and defense sectors in order to «reinforce the principle that EU sanctions are directed at promoting a change of course in Russia's actions in Ukraine».
Again, as the White House, the European Union has judged Russia guilty until proven innocent without adumbrating any evidence. That obtuse attitude means that Russia will hardly ever be able to convince these detractors otherwise. And with the reactionary anti-Russian Polish prime minister Donald Tusk elected to take over from Van Rompuy as European Council President it seems that the irrationality will become institutionalized. 
During the two-day NATO summit in Wales, which closed just as the ceasefire pact was being announced in Minsk, Belarus, there was a torrent of invective against Russia over Ukraine and a host of calculated provocations. 
NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen led the chorus of vitriol accusing Russia of «attacking Ukraine». Rasmussen clearly knows nothing about libel law, or, more sinisterly, he is acting consciously as a deceitful propagandist with an offensive agenda. 
The NATO alliance of 28 members vowed solidarity with Ukraine in the face of «Russian aggression» and promised some EURO 15 million ($19m) in military aid to the reactionary regime in Kiev. There was also talk of fast-tracking NATO membership for Ukraine in truculent disregard of Moscow's appeal on the importance of maintaining that country's military neutrality.
The NATO gathering gave place of honor to Kiev president Poroshenko who addressed delegates with a plea for support because his country’s «stability and security was brutally undermined by Russian aggression».
Barack Obama and British premier David Cameron denounced Russia for forcing Ukraine «to abandon its right to democracy at the barrel of a gun». 
Rasmussen then chimed in again with more slander to tell the conference that Russia had «not taken a single step towards peace» and that Moscow «wants protracted, frozen conflicts in the neighborhood» of Eastern Europe.
Poland and the rightwing Baltic states added to the doom-laden mood by repeatedly warning that their security was being infringed by a predatory Russia. «We are next on Moscow’s target list» was their lament, which predictably solicited brave declarations of NATO «collective defense» under the organization’s Article 5. 
And so, the NATO narrative escalated seamlessly from alleged Russian hostility in Ukraine to imaginary expansionist designs in the Baltic region and beyond. And with this suitably grim background, the US-led military alliance announced that it was to set up a new Rapid Response Force based in Eastern Europe – in violation of the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997. The new NATO force will comprise 4,000 troops and be able to deploy within 48 hours.
«It sends a clear message to any potential aggressor: should you even think of attacking one ally, you will be facing the whole alliance,» said Rasmussen with veiled reference to Russia. The Danish NATO cheerleader also explained that the spearhead force would be able to deploy anywhere in the world. So much for NATO supposedly being a defense alliance for the North Atlantic hemisphere. NATO is explicitly now going global and proud of it. 
The setting up of this reactive battalion was again in defiance of Moscow’s expressed opposition ahead of the NATO conference because such a move would be in breach of past and existing NATO binding commitments to desist from establishing a military presence in Eastern Europe. 
But before the summit closed, almost laughably, the NATO naysayers were proven wrong when the Minsk meeting produced a ceasefire between Kiev and the pro-independence rebels – largely thanks to Russian diplomacy. Unlike Russia, it is the US government, the EU and NATO that have not taken a single step towards ending the conflict in Ukraine. It is these parties who have evidently fomented and fuelled the bloodshed. And as the Russian Foreign Ministry noted at the weekend the EU continues to ratchet up sanctions on Russia instead of providing any humanitarian aid to the suffering civilians of the Donbass regions. 
To be fair to Poroshenko, his envoys did sign up to a ceasefire and a political dialogue. But Poroshenko is only a puppet. His commitment is far from reliable because it is not he who is calling the shots. The CIA-installed prime minister in Kiev, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, has made clear his contempt for any peace deal. He denounced it as a «Russian ploy» before the agreement was even signed on Friday. 
And, as we can see from the relentless NATO and EU aggression towards Russia, the puppet masters operating the Kiev regime have no interest in settling Ukraine politically. For them Ukraine is just a psyops move in a bigger picture of adversity towards Russia. The US and its European allies want Ukraine as a whole vassal state from where they can menace Russia. They have already lost Crimea, and they are certainly not going to lose any further territory in the industrial east of Ukraine. That’s why the US-led EU and NATO will try to make sure the latest ceasefire and dialogue do not amount to an equitable conclusion. Sabotage is the order of the day. 
A genuine political peace in Ukraine will only come about when the US and its NATO and EU allies stop their criminal interference in that country and let the Ukrainian people determine their own future