Miroslav Antić

ANTIC.org-SNN

Archive for mart 2014

Pushing Toward The Final War — Paul Craig Roberts

leave a comment »


Pushing Toward The Final War — Paul Craig Roberts

March 28, 2014 |

Pushing Toward The Final War

Paul Craig Roberts

Does Obama realize that he is leading the US and its puppet states to war with Russia and China, or is Obama being manipulated into this disaster by his neoconservative speech writers and government officials? World War 1 (and World War 2) was the result of the ambitions and mistakes of a very small number of people. Only one head of state was actually involved–the President of France.

In The genesis Of The World War, Harry Elmer Barnes shows that World War 1 was the product of 4 or 5 people. Three stand out: Raymond Poincare`, President of France, Sergei Sazonov, Russian Foreign Minister, and Alexander Izvolski, Russian Ambassador to France. Poincare` wanted Alsace-Lorraine from Germany, and the Russians wanted Istanbul and the Bosphorus Strait, which connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. They realized that their ambitions required a general European war and worked to produce the desired war.

A Franco-Russian Alliance was formed. This alliance became the vehicle for orchestrating the war. The British government, thanks to the incompetence, stupidity, or whatever of its Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, was pulled into the Franco-Russian Alliance. The war was started by Russia’s mobilization. The German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was blamed for the war despite the fact that he did everything possible to avoid it.

Barnes’ book was published in 1926. His reward for confronting the corrupt court historians with the truth was to be accused of being paid by Germany to write his history. Eighty-six years later historian Christopher Clark in his book, The Sleepwalkers, comes to essentially the same conclusion as Barnes.

In the history I was taught the war was blamed on Germany for challenging British naval supremacy by building too many battleships. The court historians who gave us this tale helped to set up World War 2.

We are again on the road to World War. One hundred years ago the creation of a world war by a few had to be done under the cover of deception. Germany had to be caught off guard. The British had to be manipulated and, of course, people in all the countries involved had to be propagandized and brainwashed.

Today the drive to war is blatantly obvious. The lies are obvious, and the entire West is participating, both media and governments.

The American puppet, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, openly lied on Canadian TV that Russian President Putin had invaded Crimea, threatened Ukraine, and was restarting the Cold War. The host of the TV program sat and nodded his head in agreement with these bald-faced lies. http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Stephen+Harper+accuses+Vladimir+Putin+being+stuck+back+USSR/9663692/story.html

The script that Washington handed to its Canadian puppet has been handed to all of Washington’s puppets, and everywhere in the West the message is the same. “Putin invaded and annexed Crimea, Putin is determined to rebuild the Soviet Empire, Putin must be stopped.”

I hear from many Canadians who are outraged that their elected government represents Washington and not Canadians, but as bad as Harper is, Obama and Fox “News” are worse.

On March 26 I managed to catch a bit of Fox “news.” Murdoch’s propaganda organ was reporting that Putin was restoring the Soviet era practice of exercise. Fox “news” made this report into a threatening and dangerous gesture toward the West. Fox produced an “expert,” whose name I caught as Eric Steckelbeck or something like that. The “expert” declared that Putin was creating “the Hitler youth,” with a view toward rebuilding the Soviet empire.

The extraordinary transparent lie that Russia sent an army into Ukraine and annexed Crimea is now accepted as fact everywhere in the West, even among critics of US policy toward Russia.

Obama, whose government overthrew the democratically elected government in Ukraine and appointed a stooge government that has threatened the Russian provinces of Ukraine, falsely accuses Putin of “invading and annexing” Crimea.

Obama, or his handlers and programers, are relying on the total historical ignorance of Western peoples. The ignorance and gullibility of Western peoples allows the American neoconservatives to fashion “news” that controls their minds.

Obama recently declared that Washington’s destruction of Iraq–up to one million killed, four million displaced, infrastructure in ruins, sectarian violence exploding, a country in total ruins–is nowhere near as bad as Russia’s acceptance of Crimean self-determination. US Secretary of State John Kerry actually ordered Putin to prevent the referendum and stop Crimeans from exercising self-determination.

Obama’s speech on March 26 at the Palace of Fine Arts in Brussels is surreal. It is beyond hypocrisy. Obama says that Western ideals are challenged by self-determination in Crimea. Russia, Obama says, must be punished by the West for permitting Crimeans to exercise self-determination. The return of a Russian province on its own volition to its mother country where it existed for 200 years is presented by Obama as a dictatorial, anti-democratic act of tyranny. http://on.rt.com/sbzj4o

Here was Obama, whose government has just overthrown the elected, democratic government of Ukraine and substituted stooges chosen by Washington in the place of the elected government, speaking of the hallowed ideal that “people in nations can make their own decisions about their future.” That is exactly what Crimea did, and that is exactly what the US coup in Kiev contravened. In the twisted mind of Obama, self-determination consists of governments imposed by Washington.

Here was Obama, who has shredded the US Constitution, speaking of “individual rights and rule of law.” Where is this rule of law? It is certainly not in Kiev where an elected government was overthrown with force. It is certainly not in the United States where the executive branch has spent the entirety of the new 21st century establishing government above the law. Habeas corpus, due process, the right to open trials and determination of guilt by independent jurors prior to imprisonment and execution, the right to privacy have all been overturned by the Bush/Obama regimes. Torture is against US and international law; yet Washington set up torture prisons all over the globe.

How is it possible that the representative of the war criminal US government can stand before an European audience and speak of “rule of law,” “individual rights,” “human dignity,” “self-determination,” “freedom,” without the audience breaking out in laughter?

Washington is the government that invaded and destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of lies. Washington is the government that financed and organized the overthrow of the Libyan and Honduran governments and that is currently attempting to do the same thing to Syria and Venezuela. Washington is the government that attacks with drones and bombs populations in the sovereign countries of Pakistan and Yemen. Washington is the government that has troops all over Africa. Washington is the government that has surrounded Russia, China, and Iran with military bases. It is this warmongering collection of Washington war criminals that now asserts that it is standing up for international ideals against Russia.

No one applauded Obama’s nonsensical speech. But for Europe to accept such blatant lies from a liar without protest empowers the momentum toward war that Washington is pushing.

Obama demands more NATO troops to be stationed in Eastern Europe to “contain Russia.” http://news.antiwar.com/2014/03/26/obama-wants-more-nato-troops-in-eastern-europe/ Obama said that a buildup of military forces on Russia’s borders would reassure Poland and the Baltic states that, as NATO members, they will be protected from Russian aggression. This nonsense is voiced by Obama despite the fact that no one expects Russia to invade Poland or the Baltic countries.

Obama doesn’t say what effect the US/NATO military buildup and numerous war games on Russia’s border will have on Russia. Will the Russian government conclude that Russia is about to be attacked and strike first? The reckless carelessness of Obama is the way wars start.

Declaring that “freedom isn’t free,” Obama is putting pressure on Western Europe to pony up more money for a military buildup to confront Russia. http://news.antiwar.com/2014/03/26/us-presses-eu-nations-to-hike-military-spending-to-confront-russia/

The position of the government in Washington and its puppet states (Eastern and Western Europe, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Georgia, Japan) and other allies purchased with bagfuls of money is that Washington’s violation of international law by torturing people, by invading sovereign countries on totally false pretenses, by routinely overthrowing democratically elected governments that do not toe the Washington line is nothing but the “indispensable and exceptional country” bringing “freedom and democracy to the world.” But Russia’s acceptance of the self-determination of Crimean people to return to their home country is “a violation of international law.”

Just what international law has Washington and its puppets not violated?

Obama, whose government in the past few years has bullied Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Lebanon, Iran, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela and is now trying to bully Russia, actually declared that “bigger nations can not simply bully smaller ones.” What does Obama and his speech writers think Washington has been doing for the entirety of the 21st century?

Who can possibly believe that Obama, whose government is responsible for the deaths of people every day in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Syria, cares a whit about democracy in Ukraine. Obama overthrew the Ukrainian government in order to be able to stuff the country into NATO, throw Russia out of its Black Sea naval base, and put US missile bases in Ukraine on Russia’s border. Obama is angry that his plan didn’t pan out as intended, and he is taking his anger and frustration out on Russia.

As the delusion takes hold in Washington that the US represents idealism standing firmly against Russian aggression, delusion enabled by the presstitute media, the UN General Assembly vote, and Washington’s string of puppet states, self-righteousness rises in Washington’s breast.

With rising self-righteousness will come more demands for punishing Russia, more demonization of Russia and Putin, more lies echoed by the presstitutes and puppets. Ukrainian violence against Russian residents is likely to intensify with the anti-Russian propaganda. Putin could be forced to send in Russian troops to defend Russians.

Why are people so blind that they do not see Obama driving the world to its final war?

Just as Obama dresses up his aggression toward Russia as idealism resisting selfish territorial ambitions, the English, French, and Americans presented their World War 1 “victory” as the triumph of idealism over German and Austrian imperialism and territorial ambitions. But at the Versailles Conference the Bolsheviks (the Tsar’s government failed to gain the Straits and instead lost the country to Lenin) “revealed the existence of the notorious Secret Treaties embodying as sordid a program of territorial pilfering as can be found in the history of diplomacy. It appears that the chief actual motives of the Entente in the World War were the seizure of Constantinople and the Straits for Russia; not only the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France, but the securing of the west bank of the Rhine, which would have involved the seizure of territory historically far longer connected with Germany than Alsace-Lorraine had ever been with France; the rewarding of Italian entry into the War by extensive territory grabbed away from Austria and the Jugo-Slavs; and the sequestering of the German imperial possessions, the acquisition of the German merchant marine and the destruction of the German navy in the interest of increasing the strength of the British Empire” (Barnes, pp. 691-692). The American share of the loot was seized German and Austrian investments in the US.

The secret British, Russian, and French aims of the war were hidden from the public, which was whipped up with fabricated propaganda to support a war whose outcomes were far different from the intentions of those who caused the war. People seem unable to learn from history. We are now witnessing the world again being led down the garden path by lies and propaganda, this time in behalf of American world hegemony.

316

About Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03/28/pushing-toward-final-war-paul-craig-roberts/

Written by Mika

30. marta 2014. at 12:36

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev

leave a comment »


< Older Newer >

Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev

Written by Steve Weissman

Tuesday March 25, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revolution on Demand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orange Revolution II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He Who Pays the Piper

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Containment, OK?

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

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

That is where the State Department’s second Orange Revolution started.

Reprinted with permission from Reader Supported News.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/march/25/meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev.aspx

Written by Mika

26. marta 2014. at 16:20

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

Hајвећа руска победа у последњих 70 година

leave a comment »


Мирослав Лазански

Поглед са Крима

Треба доћи у Јалту па схватити зашто су пре неколико година Руси напросто полудeли за црногорском обалом. Рељеф потпуно исти, брда и камен, беле виле и стаклени солитери, стазе, палме и цвеће, зелена трава и макија кроз коју су положене цеви за воду у случају шумских пожара. Путеви су овде ипак бољи него на Црногорском приморју, од Симферопоља до Јалте има више од сто километара солидног пута којима возе и градски тролејбуси. Дуж пута је и неколико одличних ресторана и винарија са карактеристичним полуслатким винима са Крима.

Сама Јалта је прелеп град, шеталишта дуж морске обале, бутици са италијанском одећом и обућом, пицерије и кафићи, градска марина са јахтама, белим углачаним каменим плочама обложени тргови, фонтане и споменици. Крим са Јалтом и Севастопољем руска је историја, овде је царска породица Романов често боравила баш у дворцу Ливадија, где су се у фебруару 1945. године срели Стаљин, Рузвелт и Черчил. Овде су „бели“ дали и један од последњих отпора „црвенима“ у Октобарској револуцији. Овде су и споменик и гроб чувеног руског адмирала Нахимова.

Онда су 1954. године руски „црвени“ поклонили Крим украјинским „црвенима“, који су после 1991. постали украјински „бели“. А они не желе да се одрекну поклона што су га добили од „црвених“.

На шеталишту, на градској риви, пије се вероватно и најбољи капућино у Јалти. Према пучини Црног мора окренут је велики споменик Лењину. Дође ми да му викнем: друже Лењине, како те данас селективно користе, друже Лењине многе твоје идеје су пропале, али она о самоодређењу народа до права на отцепљење важи за неке, док за друге не важи. Нешто даље је споменик борцима Црвене армије, који су изгинули бранећи Севастопољ и Крим пред нацистичким трупама у Другом светском рату. Шта би они, да могу, одговорили фрау Меркел на њену тврдњу „да је Русија енектирала Крим“? Можда би је одвели да види оне избушене стене на улазу у Севастопољ и да се сети Вермахта на Криму. И СС-егзекуција над цивилима на Криму. Како можете анектирати нешто што је одувек било ваше, са вашом историјом и са вашим становништвом, нешто што сте кроз историју крваво платили? И сада вам прете да ћете опет платити.

Каже госпођа Меркел „да је срамотно успоређивати Крим и Косово“. Срамотно је да било који немачки политичар данас уопште и говори о Криму. Јер, Совјетски Савез је у Другом светском рату изгубио на хиљаде својих бораца у бици за Севастопољ, Вермахт је тешким топовима месецима дивљачки рушио тај град. Да би пре два дана улицама Риге у Летонији прошла свечана поворка неонациста, обучених у СС униформе. А Летонија је у ЕУ. И пожурила је да призна екстремну десницу у Кијеву као власт. Јер та десница је екстремно антируски настројена.

Како то да и после скоро 70 година од Јалте и Кримске конференције нацисти у Европи и даље марширају? Коме су они данас потребни, је ли Хитлер уопште и побеђен 1945? Је ли то та ЕУ која ћутке прелази преко маршева неонациста?

Пијем капућино на риви у Јалти и размишљам како је срушен тај поредак Јалте. Је ли Савезна Република Немачка анектирала Демократску Републику Немачку? Јесте. И то без референдума у ДДР-у. А ДДР је била међународно призната држава. Нико на Западу није због тога скочио. Јесу ли се бивше југословенске републике разишле после референдума, али на републичком нивоу, и све су врло брзо и међународно признате. Да ли су се мирно разишли Чеси и Словаци? Да ли се било ко на Западу када је реч о Југославији и њеном разлазу, као и Чехословачке, и касније заједничке државе Србије и Црне Горе, томе успротивио? Није. Је ли неко на Западу тада рекао да су референдуми нелегални и да неће бити признати? Није. Је ли неко тада дигао галаму због суверенитета и територијалног интегритета свих тих држава? Није. Отимање Косова да и не спомињем. Па како сада одједном сви на Западу брину о територијалном интегритету Украјине и њеног проблема са Кримом? Јасно је и зашто. Јер, Украјина је најмоћнија геополитичка карта у игри против Русије. Сви потези Запада око Украјине усмерени су против Русије и Москва је тога свесна.

Некада су овде у Јалти Стаљин, Рузвелт и Черчил седели у фотељама и ништа нису држали у рукама. Сада лицемерне бирократе и министри ЕУ, све поскакујући, излазе из својих лимузина у Бриселу, и онда правећи се важни позирају са некаквим фасциклама и папирима у рукама.

Нисам малициозан, али морам да кажем да Запад сада жање оно што је раније онако бахато и са силом бескрупулозно посејао. Фрау Меркел није за војну опцију око Крима? Па била је једном немачка војна опција, знамо и како је завршила на Криму. Можете Србији да претите војном опцијом, али не можете Русији. Ово је највећа руска победа у последњих 70 година.

Мирослав Лазански

објављено: 15.03.2014.

http://www.politika.rs/pogledi/Miroslav-Lazanski/Pogled-sa-Krima.sr.html

Written by Mika

16. marta 2014. at 10:21

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

MI5 Brit talks about coup

leave a comment »


4 March, 23:55

Ukraine was coup d’état by the CIA – David Shayler

© Photo "Golos stolitsy" (Voice of capital/Kiev)

Download audio file

What has occurred in Ukraine was not a popular revolution, it was a carefully orchestrated coup d’état. The "demonstrators" with the metal barricades, bullet proof vest, army helmets, weapons, shield and masks were very well organized and trained. The whole affair was orchestrated by the West in an attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO and split Russia. Mr. David Shayler a former MI5 officer spoke to the Voice of Russia on the activities of the intelligence services and on what the forces behind the scenes are doing. He says President Putin is merely protecting his country and his people and is in a strong position.

Hello this is John Robles your listening to an interview with Mr. David Shayler, he’s a former MI-5 officer, turned whistleblower and truth campaigner. This is part 1 of a longer interview.

Robles: Hello David how are you this evening?

Shayler: Hello John I am fine. Thanks for having me on the show again.

Robles: Thanks for agreeing to speak to us. It is a very difficult time for Russia, for Ukraine, very strained relations. Something is getting lost in the media coverage in the West and I’ve seen a lot of reports from the West it is completely skewed. What is being lost, I think, is the fact that 80% or more of the Ukrainian population are Russian-speaking or Russian nationals and their rights are being obliterated. Can you comment on what you know about, since you are former intelligence officer, on subversive operations by NATO and the West in Ukraine? What do you think their objective is?

Shayler: When I first saw this it was absolutely clear to me that this was not a popular revolution. Immediately you had people turning up with metal barricades, they were very organized, they were in masks and so on. Now I would say if I was pissed off with my government, now I’m going to demonstrate, where would I get a metal barricade from?

So, clearly these people are paid mercenaries and this revolution was nothing to do with the will of the people. As you say, most of the people in the Ukraine either speak Russian or have relations in Russia and so on. This was something that’s been orchestrated by the west, they’ve been trying to start the Third World War, and we saw that last year in Syria. It failed then, but they are obviously now trying to open another front to try and cause that war.

And what’s a bit curious in this country has been the propaganda for both sides, on the one hand we’ve been told on certain newspapers, this is Putin trying to build an empire, and you’ve only got to look at the maps of bases that go around Iran, US bases, to see what empire building looks like. And obviously, I don’t believe Vladimir Putin is trying to build an empire at all, I think he is trying to protect his own country.

And on the other hand, we’ve had people then trying to say that Putin is extremely, in a very weak position. No, he is not in a weak position, because he supplies gas to Europe basically. Now people are trying to say “Oh he couldn’t turn the gas off, it’s got to be a bad news for him”, but if he turned that gas off, Europe would be ruined in about 3 or 4 days.

So, Putin once again is in a very strong position, he played his hand very, very well in Syria, and won enormous admiration in the west, he has won enormous admiration in the west for setting up Russia Today, which is the fastest growing English news channel, and the one that we all log on to, we don’t trust the BBC anymore, we don’t trust our mainstream media in this country.

So, the idea that it is some kind of Russian operation to try and take over the world, it is just absolutely nonsense, it belongs to the old rhetoric of the Cold War, and as we saw then most of that stuff in that period of the Cold War, was that the American intelligence inventing things about the Soviet Union to try and get more funding, and to get more intelligence officers and so on.

And when the Soviet Union collapsed – they didn’t predict that – and it was quite obvious the Soviets weren’t trying to take over the world in the way that they suggested. So, this whole thing, from the beginning to the end, is a total nonsense of the western coverage.

It is uncritical of people like John Kerry, when he says “unacceptable for Russian troops to go into the Crimea”. I mean, we’ve got troops in Afghanistan still, we had huge invasions of Iraq, we’ve had illegal activity in Libya, in a country that is now, again, being taken over by Islamic extremists.

So, people in this country make comments, but they don’t seem to be able to see that the west is doing these things far worse than any other country. But there is a good reason why this is happening, because the economy of the west is about to collapse. There have been articles suggesting that the spring of this year will be when we start to see the collapse, somebody has even named the date of March 4th 2014, which is actually tomorrow, because they’ve got to a point now where they can’t go either way, they can’t put interest rates any lower, and they can’t print any more money without devaluing the currency.

So, they’ve got to do one or the other, and either of them are going to lead to massive chaos on the streets. People are going to start losing their homes, they are not going to be able to afford food, and that is that. So that’s why we are seeing all this propaganda in the western media. It is just that – it is propaganda. This was a textbook revolution stoked up by western intelligence services basically.

Robles: The coverage now, if you could. You are in the UK, you are bombarded with this propaganda, they are putting out, and I’ve had people say it is so egregious, it seems like pre-invasion or pre-war propaganda, I mean threats, and these are repeated. First it was Obama saying there is going to be a price to pay etc, characterizations I’ve heard of in the western media that there are these innocent little Ukrainian soldiers being surrounded by this huge Russian invasion force. Actually in Crimea all of the military, they switched sides, they declared the generals, the commanders, they all said the government in Kiev is illegitimate, they are now under the command of the Governor of Crimea.

Shayler: In the west they have reported that these Ukrainian generals who have refused to play ball, are going to be charged with treason. But doing this is not treason, as you say, this was a democratically elected government. But what we saw over the last few days, in weeks, and everything in Kiev, I say has been a violent insurrection, there have been lots and lots of people killed.

Now could you imagine if that had been the streets of London and we had been protesting, and taking police kidnap, and shooting people? The western media would not be reporting that as a popular revolution, they would be reporting that as an armed insurrection, which is what it is.

Robles: It was even worse than that David, they were actually, they were killing police officers who were unarmed. They were shooting them in the head, snipers shooting them in the head. There was like 89 police officers, with either … out of all of them were either killed or taken to hospital. They had bullet wounds to their head or the neck.

Shayler: Yes, no, this is what we are seeing; it is a bit like a few years ago with Georgia as well. The western media was full of how the Russians were invading Georgia, and then Putin sent over Gorbachev because he had got quite a profile in the west, to actually come and tell western governments that this was all a load of rubbish. If it hadn’t been for intervention of Gorbachev, whom they trusted, that could have provoked a war.

And as I say, the problem is, the people … the powers that that be are in absolutely desperate situation. They’ve been pursuing these lies, these policies that are impoverishing the British people, impoverishing the people of the west, and they thought they could get away with it by starting the Third World War in Syria, because once they’ve done that, they can bring in all sorts of repression, all sorts of austerity and no one can complain. Now it hasn’t happened, so 6 months down the line from that failure to invade Syria they are now being exposed on all fronts.

The only place where they still have any reputation, or they try and preserve any reputation is in the western mainstream media. But believe me, our alternative news people here, people who are doing their own websites, the bloggers, and all those people have seen through this stuff.

So, let’s take some solace from that, but the vast majority, well I know they don’t take part in blogging, but certainly not the people I know. I don’t think they are probably representative, but there are certainly a lot of people in this country who know the truth of what is going on, and this is western propaganda and the Russians are just trying to defend their own stage. I say, I put out a spoof article saying “breaking news, Russia sites missiles in Cuba”, kind of thing, because that is how crazy it is. If the Russians are siting missiles in Cuba, provoking revolutions in Mexico on the doorstep of America, the Americans would have something to say about that. Of course they would.

It just shows how stupid the whole thing is. And I say, I just cannot get inside the heads of western leaders; I cannot believe that in this day and age they cannot know what is going on. Obviously they try and insulate them, they lead very strange lives, American presidents are constantly watched by the secret service, even when they no longer presidents.

And that way of course, they can’t talk to anybody they shouldn’t be speaking to, because the secret service will report it back again. But even in those circumstances surely these people must have some time to get on the Internet and just check things for themselves. But they don’t. And I say, that is a frightening, frightening state of affairs. It really is.

Robles: So, do you believe that Obama is ignorant of the real situation in Ukraine?

Shayler: Well I tend to think that the reason they choose these people is because they have a level of stupidity and compliance. You see stuff on the Internet saying it is all a conspiracy, and Obama is part of it, Tony Blair was part of it, and so on. But what those people never seem to allow for is just sheer human vanity and ego, and stupidity. These are people who are academically educated, that can be extremely stupid when it comes to actually thinking for themselves. So, I generally think they keep people away from it, so they can actually, obviously go on the television and say the lies without realizing they are lies.

If they work for television they knew there were lies, they might give it away through their facial ticks and body language. That is my personal opinion; I don’t think these people are signed up to it, but I fully believe that behind that, in terms of the military, the intelligence, those organizations have been penetrated by the Zionists. Now, once you understand all of that, you begin to understand what is going on in the world at the moment.

Robles: Zbigniew Brzezinski has populated the entire US foreign policy establishment, the top of it, including Obama’s advisors – they are all Brzezinski acolytes. From your view, as someone who was on the inside, what can you tell us about Brzezinski?

Shayler: I only know about Brzezinski, what I’ve seen on the Internet and so on, but he does appear to be part of this New World Order, and it is about control of the media through membership, through discrediting the enemies of the media through off-the-record briefings, and in fact we’ve actually had this leaked recently, something that Edward Snowden took.

It has been written about by Glenn Greenwald, and they’ve now released the actual slides for a presentation of a secret section of GCHQ, which is like the Joint Intelligence Task something or other, and all the things I’ve been talking about, how they stop you by creating false victims on the Internet, or go on the Internet and claim that you’ve done something to them, by taking away your means of income, by trying to discredit you in all ways. This is now a matter of record.

All of the things I’ve been saying for 16 years of intelligence services and the secret services have now all been disclosed but that doesn’t seem to get through to parliament, it hasn’t stopped the head GCHQ from going to the parliamentary committee and go and see the intelligence services and say they are working in our interest, they are trying to protect us. They are clearly not. The whole invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq have put the citizens of the west at far greater risk of attack.

Robles: Now how is the UK involved? Now, after 9/11, I don’t know if you are aware of General Wesley Clark. He was shocked himself that Paul Wolfowitz came to him one day, he was assistant secretary of Defense in the US, Clark was the Head of NATO, and he told him, we are now in the business of destroying countries. And they came out with this list of 7 countries that they had to destroy in 5 years. How is UK involved in all that? Where do they play in?

Shayler: What we play is the kind of junior partner of the US, don’t we, we call it special relationship, so we live in this country with American airbases, we have no independent UK, we’ve got 5 nuclear weapons as well as Americans, so we essentially are the first country to become colonized by the Americans using the new form of neo-imperialism.

They’ve got some basis but you don’t need a law soldiers there, it is more a kind of imperialism done through the control of the political class in the media. When you look at the power of the CIA, the CIA is a larger economy than many of the economies in Africa, they own companies, airlines, publishing companies. Then you realize the CIA has got enormous tentacles and I am now inclined to believe the CIA was behind the problems we had for example during the minor strike in 1980s.

There was a man called Roger Windsor, we worked for National Union of Mineworkers, who basically to try to avoid sequestrations, sent money out of the accounts abroad, but that could easily be traced. And he’d actually cut his teeth in organization, I can’t remember the name of, but it was known to be a CIA-funded organization. This man was alleged to be an MI-5 agent and he approached me after I blew a whistle. He came to me and said "do you think I am MI-5 agent?". I said, "no, I don’t, I think your profile was not like to be an MI-5 agent".

Then I looked at his case and the conclusion I came to is that he was MI-6 agent. Next time he phoned me up, he says "do you think I am an MI-5 agent?" – I said no, he says "good". And then I say, "you are an MI-6 agent", at which point he put the phone down. MI-6 and CIA work very closely.

What it does with MI-6 is MI-6 is funded by CIA but there is no freedom of information in Britain surrounding the intelligence services. So, the things the CIA can’t do in America, in case to it, they get MI-6 to do, knowing that nobody in Britain is allowed to see what MI-6 does and therefore they will be clear basically.

Ukraine was coup d’état by the CIA – David Shayler – News – VoR Interviews – The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics

Written by Mika

9. marta 2014. at 10:36

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

Stephen F. Cohen: Distorting Russia

leave a comment »


Distorting Russia

How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine.

Stephen F. Cohen

February 11, 2014 | This article appeared in the March 3, 2014 edition of The Nation.

(Reuters/Mikhail Klimentyev/RIA Novosti/Pool)

The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm.

There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two different political or “expert” views on major developments; or to publish opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.

The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted Washington’s narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did was a “transition from communism to democracy” and thus in America’s best interests. This included his economic “shock therapy” and oligarchic looting of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of a “presidential” Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which gave rise to terrorists in Russia’s North Caucasus; rigging of his own re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.

Since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts. (Was any Soviet Communist leader after Stalin ever so personally villainized?) If Russia under Yeltsin was presented as having legitimate politics and national interests, we are now made to believe that Putin’s Russia has none at all, at home or abroad—even on its own borders, as in Ukraine.

Russia today has serious problems and many repugnant Kremlin policies. But anyone relying on mainstream American media will not find there any of their origins or influences in Yeltsin’s Russia or in provocative US policies since the 1990s—only in the “autocrat” Putin who, however authoritarian, in reality lacks such power. Nor is he credited with stabilizing a disintegrating nuclear-armed country, assisting US security pursuits from Afghanistan and Syria to Iran or even with granting amnesty, in December, to more than 1,000 jailed prisoners, including mothers of young children.

Not surprisingly, in January The Wall Street Journal featured the widely discredited former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, branding Putin’s government as one of “deceit, violence and cynicism,” with the Kremlin a “nerve center of the troubles that bedevil the West.” But wanton Putin-bashing is also the dominant narrative in centrist, liberal and progressive media, from the Post, Times and The New Republic to CNN, MSNBC and HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, where Howard Dean, not previously known for his Russia expertise, recently declared, to the panel’s approval, “Vladimir Putin is a thug.”

The media therefore eagerly await Putin’s downfall—due to his “failing economy” (some of its indicators are better than US ones), the valor of street protesters and other right-minded oppositionists (whose policies are rarely examined), the defection of his electorate (his approval ratings remain around 65 percent) or some welcomed “cataclysm.” Evidently believing, as does the Times, for example, that democrats and a “much better future” will succeed Putin (not zealous ultranationalists growing in the streets and corridors of power), US commentators remain indifferent to what the hoped-for “destabilization of his regime” might mean in the world’s largest nuclear country.

Certainly, The New Republic’s lead writer on Russia, Julia Ioffe, does not explore the question, or much else of real consequence, in her nearly 10,000-word February 17 cover story. Ioffe’s bannered theme is devoutly Putin-phobic: “He Crushed His Opposition and Has Nothing to Show for It But a Country That Is Falling Apart.” Neither sweeping assertion is spelled out or documented. A compilation of chats with Russian-born Ioffe’s disaffected (but seemingly not “crushed”) Moscow acquaintances and titillating personal gossip long circulating on the Internet, the article seems better suited (apart from some factual errors) for the Russian tabloids, as does Ioffe’s disdain for objectivity. Protest shouts of “Russia without Putin!” and “Putin is a thief!” were “one of the most exhilarating moments I’d ever experienced.” So was tweeting “Putin’s fucked, y’all.” Nor does she forget the hopeful mantra “cataclysm seems closer than ever now.”

* * *

For weeks, this toxic coverage has focused on the Sochi Olympics and the deepening crisis in Ukraine. Even before the Games began, the Times declared the newly built complex a “Soviet-style dystopia” and warned in a headline, Terrorism and Tension, Not Sports and Joy. On opening day, the paper found space for three anti-Putin articles and a lead editorial, a feat rivaled by the Post. Facts hardly mattered. Virtually every US report insisted that a record $51 billion “squandered” by Putin on the Sochi Games proved they were “corrupt.” But as Ben Aris of Business New Europe pointed out, as much as $44 billion may have been spent “to develop the infrastructure of the entire region,” investment “the entire country needs.”

Overall pre-Sochi coverage was even worse, exploiting the threat of terrorism so licentiously it seemed pornographic. The Post, long known among critical-minded Russia-watchers as Pravda on the Potomac, exemplified the media ethos. A sports columnist and an editorial page editor turned the Olympics into “a contest of wills” between the despised Putin’s “thugocracy” and terrorist “insurgents.” The “two warring parties” were so equated that readers might have wondered which to cheer for. If nothing else, American journalists gave terrorists an early victory, tainting “Putin’s Games” and frightening away many foreign spectators, including some relatives of the athletes.

The Sochi Games will soon pass, triumphantly or tragically, but the potentially fateful Ukrainian crisis will not. A new Cold War divide between West and East may now be unfolding, not in Berlin but in the heart of Russia’s historical civilization. The result could be a permanent confrontation fraught with instability and the threat of a hot war far worse than the one in Georgia in 2008. These dangers have been all but ignored in highly selective, partisan and inflammatory US media accounts, which portray the European Union’s “Partnership” proposal benignly as Ukraine’s chance for democracy, prosperity and escape from Russia, thwarted only by a “bullying” Putin and his “cronies” in Kiev.

Not long ago, committed readers could count on The New York Review of Books for factually trustworthy alternative perspectives on important historical and contemporary subjects. But when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the NYRB has succumbed to the general media mania. In a January 21 blog post, Amy Knight, a regular contributor and inveterate Putin-basher, warned the US government against cooperating with the Kremlin on Sochi security, even suggesting that Putin’s secret services “might have had an interest in allowing or even facilitating such attacks” as killed or wounded dozens of Russians in Volgograd in December.

Knight’s innuendo prefigured a purported report on Ukraine by Yale professor Timothy Snyder in the February 20 issue. Omissions of facts, by journalists or scholars, are no less an untruth than misstatements of fact. Snyder’s article was full of both, which are widespread in the popular media, but these are in the esteemed NYRB and by an acclaimed academic. Consider a few of Snyder’s assertions:

§ ”On paper, Ukraine is now a dictatorship.” In fact, the “paper” legislation he’s referring to hardly constituted dictatorship, and in any event was soon repealed. Ukraine is in a state nearly the opposite of dictatorship—political chaos uncontrolled by President Viktor Yanukovych, the Parliament, the police or any other government institution.

§ ”The [parliamentary] deputies…have all but voted themselves out of existence.” Again, Snyder is alluding to the nullified “paper.” Moreover, serious discussions have been under way in Kiev about reverting to provisions in the 2004 Constitution that would return substantial presidential powers to the legislature, hardly “the end of parliamentary checks on presidential power,” as Snyder claims. (Does he dislike the prospect of a compromise outcome?)

§ ”Through remarkably large and peaceful public protests…Ukrainians have set a positive example for Europeans.” This astonishing statement may have been true in November, but it now raises questions about the “example” Snyder is advocating. The occupation of government buildings in Kiev and in Western Ukraine, the hurling of firebombs at police and other violent assaults on law enforcement officers and the proliferation of anti-Semitic slogans by a significant number of anti-Yanukovych protesters, all documented and even televised, are not an “example” most readers would recommend to Europeans or Americans. Nor are they tolerated, even if accompanied by episodes of police brutality
, in any Western democracy.

§ ”Representatives of a minor group of the Ukrainian extreme right have taken credit for the violence.” This obfuscation implies that apart perhaps from a “minor group,” the “Ukrainian extreme right” is part of the positive “example” being set. (Many of its representatives have expressed hatred for Europe’s “anti-traditional” values, such as gay rights.) Still more, Snyder continues, “something is fishy,” strongly implying that the mob violence is actually being “done by russo-phone provocateurs” on behalf of “Yanukovych (or Putin).” As evidence, Snyder alludes to “reports” that the instigators “spoke Russian.” But millions of Ukrainians on both sides of their incipient civil war speak Russian.

§ Snyder reproduces yet another widespread media malpractice regarding Russia, the decline of editorial fact-checking. In a recent article in the International New York Times, he both inflates his assertions and tries to delete neofascist elements from his innocuous “Ukrainian extreme right.” Again without any verified evidence, he warns of a Putin-backed “armed intervention” in Ukraine after the Olympics and characterizes reliable reports of “Nazis and anti-Semites” among street protesters as “Russian propaganda.”

§ Perhaps the largest untruth promoted by Snyder and most US media is the claim that “Ukraine’s future integration into Europe” is “yearned for throughout the country.” But every informed observer knows—from Ukraine’s history, geography, languages, religions, culture, recent politics and opinion surveys—that the country is deeply divided as to whether it should join Europe or remain close politically and economically to Russia. There is not one Ukraine or one “Ukrainian people” but at least two, generally situated in its Western and Eastern regions.

Such factual distortions point to two flagrant omissions by Snyder and other US media accounts. The now exceedingly dangerous confrontation between the two Ukraines was not “ignited,” as the Times claims, by Yanukovych’s duplicitous negotiating—or by Putin—but by the EU’s reckless ultimatum, in November, that the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country choose between Europe and Russia. Putin’s proposal for a tripartite arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was flatly rejected by US and EU officials.

But the most crucial media omission is Moscow’s reasonable conviction that the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West’s ongoing, US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia, which began in the 1990s with NATO’s eastward expansion and continued with US-funded NGO political activities inside Russia, a US-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense installations near Russia. Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels policy is wise or reckless, it—not Putin’s December financial offer to save Ukraine’s collapsing economy—is deceitful. The EU’s “civilizational” proposal, for example, includes “security policy” provisions, almost never reported, that would apparently subordinate Ukraine to NATO.

Any doubts about the Obama administration’s real intentions in Ukraine should have been dispelled by the recently revealed taped conversation between a top State Department official, Victoria Nuland, and the US ambassador in Kiev. The media predictably focused on the source of the “leak” and on Nuland’s verbal “gaffe”—“Fuck the EU.” But the essential revelation was that high-level US officials were plotting to “midwife” a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its democratically elected president—that is, a coup.

Americans are left with a new edition of an old question. Has Washington’s twenty-year winner-take-all approach to post-Soviet Russia shaped this degraded news coverage, or is official policy shaped by the coverage? Did Senator John McCain stand in Kiev alongside the well-known leader of an extreme nationalist party because he was ill informed by the media, or have the media deleted this part of the story because of McCain’s folly?

And what of Barack Obama’s decision to send only a low-level delegation, including retired gay athletes, to Sochi? In August, Putin virtually saved Obama’s presidency by persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to eliminate his chemical weapons. Putin then helped to facilitate Obama’s heralded opening to Iran. Should not Obama himself have gone to Sochi—either out of gratitude to Putin, or to stand with Russia’s leader against international terrorists who have struck both of our countries? Did he not go because he was ensnared by his unwise Russia policies, or because the US media misrepresented the varying reasons cited: the granting of asylum to Edward Snowden, differences on the Middle East, infringements on gay rights in Russia, and now Ukraine? Whatever the explanation, as Russian intellectuals say when faced with two bad alternatives, “Both are worst.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia

Written by Mika

4. marta 2014. at 11:29

Objavljeno u Uncategorized

Ukrajina: jugoslovenski scenario?

leave a comment »


Ukrajina: jugoslovenski scenario?

Objavljeno u: Komentar nedelje

28 Februar, 2014 Petak u 9:24

Pod nadzorom su bili kavkaski džihadisti

A napad je došao od ukrajinskih buržuja. Zapad–Rusija: 1 prema 1.

(Autorski osvrt koji prenosimo objavljen je u francuskom dnevniku „Figaro“ u rubrici STAV, sa napomenom: Srpskohrvatski pisac Slobodan Despot iznosi niz sličnosti između ukrajinske krize i sukoba koji je doveo do raspada Jugoslavije, ukazujući na huškačku igru Zapada koji postavlja svoje pione na Istoku, ne vodeći računa o stvarnim potrebama regiona.)
Umesto da uspostave primirje, koje je svojevremeno i bilo razlog njihovog osnivanja, Olimpijske igre su veoma riskantan period za Vladimira Putina. On je u avgustu 2008. morao brže-bolje da napusti otvaranje OI u Pekingu da bi lično poveo kontraofanzivu u Južnoj Osetiji koju je iznenada, uz podršku NATO, napala Gruzija. U Sočiju, gde je bio domaćin, nije sebi dao slobodu da obuče uniformu. Rusi su ponosni na svoju sportsku veličinu i samim tim osetljivi kad se ukaže prilika da se istaknu. Naposletku: krah njihovog jadnog saveznika Janukoviča zasenio je velelepnu ceremoniju zatvaranja. Pod nadzorom su bili kavkaski džihadisti a napad je došao od ukrajinskih buržuja. Zapad–Rusija: 1 prema 1. Samo su anestezirani novinari, plaćeni pre svega da ne razmišljaju, izostavili ova neobična podudaranja kalendara. Isti će i dalje tvrditi, a da ne trepnu, da je obaranje režima u Kijevu proisteklo iz spontanog narodnog ustanka koji, navodno, EU i SAD prate sa legitimnim saosećanjem, ali koji one nipošto nisu podstakle, a kamoli pokrenule. U pitanju je ideološki aksiom koji nijedna činjenica ne može pobiti, pa čak ni snimljeni razgovori američkog ambasadora u Ukrajini i zamenice američkog državnog sekretara Viktorije Nuland – Madam „Fuck the EU!“ – iz kojeg se može zaključiti da naši oslobodioci iz ’45 smatraju ceo Stari kontinent najobičnijom šahovnicom, gde sebi dopuštaju da manipulišu pionima, pa i pravilima igre. Je li neka evropska država opozvala svoje diplomate nakon ove uvrede? Nijedna? Zato što dodvoravanje ide sa poricanjem stvarnosti, zato što su evropski državnici spremni da „sjebu Evropu“ ako im američki šefovi to nalože.
Video sam kako ista komedija, ista glupost, ista sentimentalna pristrasnost razaraju Jugoslaviju, divnu zemlju u kojoj sam rođen, i kako je pretvaraju u niz smešnih, etnički čistih baronija, koje podsećaju na Nemačku iz vremena braće Grim, na Italiju iz doba Dekamerona.
U nekom drugom životu, ovoj komediji bih prišao cum grano salis razmatrajući univerzalni ratorijum („pacovsko svratište“) koji je najavljivao Aleksandar Zinovjev, koji je prvi uvideo da totalitarizam nije puka slučajnost naše civilizacije, već njen cilj. Ali već sam imao prilike da vidim kako ista komedija, ista glupost, ista sentimentalna pristrasnost razaraju Jugoslaviju, divnu zemlju u kojoj sam rođen, i kako je pretvaraju u niz smešnih, etnički čistih baronija, koje podsećaju na Nemačku iz vremena braće Grim, na Italiju iz doba Dekamerona. Zar vas „FUCK“ gospođe Nuland ni na šta ne podseća? E pa mene da. Nakon sporazuma koje su na jedvite jade izneli Evropejci i njihov ambasador Kutiljero u Lisabonu 1992, u cilju mirnog raspodeljivanja Bosne, bio je potreban samo jedan poziv ambasadora SAD, ničim izazvano obećanje Aliji Izetbegoviću, fundamentalističkom predsedniku muslimanske partije – kako bi ovaj povukao potpis koji se još nije ni osušio i time dao zeleno svetlo građanskom ratu. „Fuck Europe, Alija! Mi ćemo ti dati celu Bosnu!“ Tako je, ili ne baš doslovce, navedeno u Memoarima gorenavedenog Vorena Cimermana. Te memoare nijedan evropski novinar, sklon moralisanju, nije naveo, treba li podsećati.
„Spontana“ revolucija u Majdanu? Pod palicom i obukom srpskih specijalista pokreta „Otpor“ koji su elegantno (i uz moju tadašnju naivnu podršku) zbacili predsednika Miloševića 2000, istog onog čiju je odgovornost i spremnost na saradnju hvalio Žak Širak (pripazite se Judinog poljupca!). Specijaliste je formirala National Endowment for Democracy i njeni anglosaksonski teoretičari manipulacije, po kojima je nenasilna revolucija samo jedno od sredstava – i to najjeftinijih – za preuzimanje vlasti kod drugog. A taj drugi, to je naravno bilo koji moralno kompromitovani režim na međunarodnoj sceni koji će oklevati u pribegavanju sili. Jer možemo zamisliti šta bi neka samopouzdana zapadnjačka civilizacija uradila u slučaju oružane pobune u svojoj prestonici! Treba samo obratiti pažnju kako se pariski režim poneo prema učesnicima Manif pour tous („Demonstracije za sve“) koja je bila nenasilna i mnogo masovnija od ustanka u Kijevu, gde su se proslavili neonacisti.
Analogije s Jugoslavijom su zapanjujuće. Kao u Hrvatskoj, na Kosovu i u Bosni, naslednici gubitnika Drugog svetskog rata uklanjaju spomenike koje su podigli pobednici. Otpor nacizmu se već u Zapadnoj Ukrajini asimilovao sa velikoruskim imperijalizmom. Očito je da rusofone zone ukrajinskog jugoistoka neće prihvatiti novu kijevsku vlast. Oni će se oglušiti o novu centralnu vlast, kao što su nekad učinili Srbi iz Krajine, odbacujući otcepljenje Hrvatske, koje je podsticala Nemačka. Sa predvidljivim licemerjem, koje ih najviše i odlikuje, članovi Atlantskog pakta će to otcepljenje proglasiti ilegalnim, zaboravljajući da su se oni prvi ostrvili na ukrajinski demokratski proces i obespravili snagu ulice. Kao i prilikom razaranja Jugoslavije 1991. Kao i pri zbacivanju Miloševića 2000.
Međutim, „pedagogija pamćenja“ u kojoj je Sovjetska Rusija jedno vreme briljirala, već je oveštala veština na našim prostorima. Ako su pape raskolnici iz Rima mogli iz istorije da izbace legitimne pape iz Avinjona, Vašington i Brisel će bez muke ubediti u svoj stav kako je sumnjiva kijevska vlast predvorje demokratije na pragu evroazijskih stepa. Zar nisu isti uspeli da hrvatskog revizionističkog generala Tuđmana, čiji bi spisi u Francuskoj bili zabranjeni, proglase poslednjim svetionikom civilizacije, licem u lice sa srpskim hordama? Zar nije bestidni BHL (Bernar Anri-Levi) išao u Sarajevo da bodri svog prijatelja Izetbegovića, proslavljenog islamistu, autora ratoborne Islamske deklaracije?
Sistem zapadnjaka je da na Istoku podrže i ohrabre one pojedince koje bi, da su se kod njih pojavili, bacili u zatvor.
I tu moja razgaljenost u suočavanju sa „velikom geopolitičkom igrom“, koja je za naivčine prekrivena „humanizmom“, prerasta u melanholiju. Pomišljam na neprilike i gorčinu koji čekaju ove Ukrajince što danas igraju pred vratima Evrope kao Beograđani 2000. godine. Nakon „obojene revolucije“, prilike se u Srbiji nisu popravile. Ali zato je njom prodefilovao niz tirana, zapadnjačkih ulizica, od kojih je s vremenom svaki bio sve nesposobniji i gluplji. Sistem zapadnjaka je da na Istoku podrže i ohrabre one pojedince koje bi, da su se kod njih pojavili, bacili u zatvor. Ali, kao što je Čerčil rekao Meklinu, kad se ovaj čudio tome što se Jugoslavija prepušta komunistima, nakon konferencije u Teheranu: „Ni vi ni ja ne planiramo tamo da živimo. I šta onda?“

Piše: Slobodan Despot za pecat.co.rs

Written by Mika

1. marta 2014. at 11:46

Objavljeno u Uncategorized