Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
C’mon baby, light my (Crimean) fire
Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, Mar 8 2014
Mar 16 is C Day. The Crimean parliament, by 78 votes with 8 abstentions, decided this is the day when Crimean voters will choose between joining the Russian Federation or to remain part of Ukraine as an autonomous region with very strong powers, according to the 1992 constitution. Whatever “diplomatic” tantrums Washington and Brussels will keep pulling, and they will be incandescent, facts on the ground speak for themselves. The city council of Sevastopol, the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, has already voted to join Russia. And next week the Duma in Moscow will study a bill to simplify the mechanism of adhesion. Quick recap: this is a direct result of Washington spending $5b (a Victoria “Fuck the EU” Nuland official figure) to promote regime change in Ukraine. On the horizon, Crimea may be incorporated into Russia for free, while the “West” absorbs that bankrupt back-of-beyond (Western Ukraine) that an Asia Times Online reader indelibly described as the “Khaganate of Nulands” (an amalgam of khanate, Victoria’s notorious neo-con husband Robert Kagan, and no man’s land). What Moscow regards as an illegal, neo-Nazi-infiltrated government in Kiev, led by Prime Minister Arseniy “Yats” Yatsenyuk, a Ukrainian Jewish banker playing the role of Western puppet, insists Crimea must remain part of Ukraine. And it’s not only Moscow; half of Ukraine itself does not recognize the Yats gang as a legitimate government, now boasting a number of oligarchs imposed as provincial governors. Yet this “government” supported by the US and the EU has already declared the referendum illegal. Proving its impeccable “democratic” credentials, it has already moved to ban the official use of the Russian language in Ukraine, get rid of the communist party (which amassed 13% of the votes in the last election, more incidentally than the neo-Nazi-infested Svoboda party, now ensconced in key government security posts), and ban a Russian TV station, which happens to be the most popular on Ukrainian cable.
Amid all the hysteria from Washington and certain European capitals, what’s not explained to puzzled public opinion is that these fascists/neo-Nazis who got to power through a coup will never allow real elections to take place in Ukraine. After all, they would most certainly be sent packing. This implies that Yats and his gang, reveling in their red-carpet welcome at a pompous yet innocuous EU summit in Brussels, won’t budge. For instance, they used heavy muscle to send pro-Russian protesters in front of the Donetsk government building running. Heavily industrialized Donetsk is very much linked commercially to Russia. Then there’s an even more sinister possible scenario looming in the horizon; an instrumentalization of the lunatic Jihadi fringe of the 10% of Tatars in Crimea, from false flags to suicide bombings. The House of Saud, according to a solid Saudi source, is immensely interested in Ukraine, and may be tempted to do a few favors for Western intelligence.
Arguably, for Moscow, keeping Crimea inside the Ukraine, with large autonomous powers plus the current signed agreement to keep the base in Sevastopol, is a much better deal than annexing it. It’s as if Russia was annexing what for all practical purposes was already a Russian province. Yet the Kremlin may always decide not to annex, and use the all but certain result of the referendum as a key pawn in a complex negotiation with, not the EU, but fundamentally Germany. The EU is a mess. The “government” in Kiev is a mess. What matters is what Vladimir Putin is discussing over the phone with Angela Merkel. Much has to do with Pipelineistan, as in the €9b ($12.4b) Nord Stream, the steel umbilical cord between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. Merkel, the then Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, and former German chancellor and now Nord Stream chairman Gerhard Schroeder were very close when the pipeline project carrying Russian gas to Germany went online in 2011. The project was initially proposed in 2005 when Schroeder was chancellor and Putin was Russia’s president, first time round. Schroeder, earlier this week, said that NATO should shut up. Moreover, two-way trade between Russia and the EU was around a whopping $370b in 2012 (no 2013 data yet), with Russia exporting mostly oil, gas and cereals, and the EU exporting mostly cars, medicine, machine parts. Forget about sanctions, that sacrosanct Washington mantra. They are really bad for business. Moscow, though, has a real, tangible and very serious red line. It does not even have to bother about Ukraine in the EU, because the overwhelming majority of Europeans don’t want it as part of their club. The red line is NATO bases in Ukraine. Moscow might even compromise on Ukraine remaining a sort of Finland between Russia and Europe. With Crimea still inside the Ukraine, a NATO base side by side with the Russian base in Sevastopol would be nothing short of psychedelic. So a resolution in Crimea, whichever way it goes, does send a very clear message from Moscow to the “West”. Watch our red line. And unlike others, we mean it, and we back it up with all we got.
First Obama solemnly declared that the referendum in Crimea would “violate international law” (Kosovo, though, could merrily secede from Serbia in 2008, to wild Washington fanfare.) And this after he declared Crimea to be an “extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the US”. What next? Crimean nationalists invading Iowa? No, just a ploy for the White House to deploy the usual financial war. All that when the brilliant “strategy” of Team Obama (keep demonizing Putin to Kingdom Come) was reaching its apex. But then Obama, noticing Angela Merkel was stealing the spotlight, called Putin and stayed on the phone for nearly a full hour trying to “engage” him. Why the change of heart? A possible response may be supplied by the inescapable Dr Zbigniew “The Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski, former national security advisor to that Hamlet hick Jimmy Carter; the man who gave the Soviets “their Vietnam”; the man who always dreamed that the US should rule over Eurasia; and Obama’s “invisible” top foreign policy mentor. As Dr Zbig told WorldPost’s Nathan Gardels:
The strategy of the West at this moment should be to complicate Vladimir Putin’s planning.
Well, that didn’t work so well, did it? Then Dr Zbig advances:
NATO should invite the Russians to participate in its ongoing discussions.
It’s not happening. Dr Zbig is adamant:
We have to formally recognize the new government in Ukraine, which I believe expresses the will of the people there.
In fact, the will of perhaps half of the nation, at best.
Interference in Ukrainian affairs should be considered a hostile act by a foreign power.
That was Obama’s rationale until his phone call to Putin. Dr Zbig got even more apocalyptic, stressing:
We should put NATO contingency plans into operation, deploying forces in Central Europe so we are in a position to respond if war should break out and spread.
No wonder US corporate media went bananas. But then Dr Zbig falls back into sanity:
The best solution for Ukraine would be to become as Finland has been to Russia.
So in the end he may have suggested to Obama “a compromise solution that is acceptable for Russia as well as the West”. And that will involve “serious economic aid and investment”. And guess who should take the lead, as in footing the bill? “Germany, the most prosperous and strongest economy in the EU.” So in the end we fall back, once again, on what Angela and Vlad have been discussing. Is it Finlandization? Or is it about who’s trying to set the night on fire?
When the UN Embraces Tolerance, Terrorism and Military Intervention
Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research, Mar 8 2014
Another day, another stitch-up. On Mar 6, Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, the eloquent and elegant Mr Bashar al-Ja’afari, and the Syrian UN Mission had restrictions placed on them by the US State Dept, limiting their travel to no further than 25 miles from New York’s Columbus Circle intersection. The UN Sec-Gen representing the world organization avowed, “to practice tolerance and live together with one another as good neighbours … to develop friendly relations among nations … to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations … based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members,” is predictably silent. Predictably not silent is the self-declared Coalition for a Democratic Syria, a pro-insurgent Syrian-USAian group who declared that Mr al-Ja’afari was engaged in “a series of propaganda tours across the US,” according to Reuters. These cheerleaders for military intervention, in a “Call to Action” to “Contact your Congress Members”, last September urged US involvement in Syria and has adopted a “Policy Brief” which is “used to brief members of the US government on the crisis in Syria … and delineates a comprehensive strategy for the US government to pursue.” Impossible not to be reminded of Ahmed Chalabi’s mega CIA-funded Iraq National Congress who peddled stories of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and invaders being greeted with “sweets and flowers.” There is, however no indication of the source of sources for the funding for the Coalition. Last year they urged:
ON APR 11, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS AND TELL THEM: “I am calling to voice my support for the Free Syria Act of 2013 (HR 1327) or the Syria Democratic Transition Act of 2013.
On Apr 25, it was:
Mark Your Calenders … Come to Washington and directly lobby House and Senate offices to support the Syrian revolution.
The Free Syria Act “provides funding and other assistance for a peaceful, stable, and organized political transition to a democratic, inclusive government …”(2) which, incidentally, makes President Nobel Obama and Jackass Kerry’s current protestations regarding the sanctity of “sovereignty and territorial integrity,” regarding Russia’s legitimate (and shot-free) concerns in the Crimea, duplicitous in the extreme. Terrorism, after all, whether in Iraq (whose special forces the US is currently training in Jordan to “attack their own people”), Libya, Syria or Ukraine, is “achieving political ends by violent means.” No doubt the sort of “propaganda” that Mr al-Ja’afari is charged with spreading in the US is what he so reasonably told the world’s media at the “Peace Summit” in Geneva last month. That each item for discussion was vitally interconnected, complex and could not be rushed:
We insisted on considering each item separately in the dialogue within the draft agenda, to reach an agreement on each of them, because such an accord would reflect positively on other items … They want to make ‘the transitional government’ a priority because the side utilizing terrorism has not finished yet, those who allege desire of ceasing violence should accept the item of counter-terrorism … The USA looming military escalation has encouraged the coalition delegation to show intransigence and foil this round. We are ready to return to Geneva after agreeing a date for the next round, stemming from our belief in the importance of the political solution … We came for reaching a political solution according to Geneva, but no solution could begin while the Syrian people are living under terrorism.
That terrorism, in addition to beheadings, chopping of hands, in the last days has extended to executing children and elderly men, shown in another graphic video. In a supreme irony, Mr al-Ja’affari’s assertions are endorsed in no uncertain terms by the man who moved heaven and earth to destabilize Syria as US Ambassador there until he fled in 2011, Robert Ford. On Mar 1, in a speech at Tufts University, Ford stated:
You have one AQ faction fighting another AQ faction. That’s how fractured this is. One sharp sliver fighting another sharp sliver. I bring no good news to you tonight about Syria. The Syrian opposition itself has done a miserable job distinguishing itself from the AQ elements. There are some really bad people in Syria right now, on the opposition side. Can the opposition show that it is willing to reach out and figure out a way security-wise and politics-wise to reunify across that sectarian divide?
Ambassador Al-Ja’afari, a man who does not duck from inconvenient truths, also warned on Sep 3 on CNN:
You can repeat the same mistakes that the previous US administrations did, many times, during Vietnam War, during the Cuban Crisis or the Iraqi War with Colin Powell in the Security Council.
But the petty restrictions by the US and the silence of the US’ safe pair of hands at its helm in the UN’s eighth Sec-Gen, Ban-Ki-moon, “who has sought to be a bridge-builder” and support “countries facing crisis or instability,” mirrors exactly what happened to Iraq’s Mission when the country was repeatedly bombed, eventually invaded and, as Syria, strangulatingly embargoed. Kofi Annan, Ban’s predecessor, was equally mute, even taking nearly a year to declare the ultimate invasion illegal. Iran and North Korea also share Syria’s travel restrictions in the “Land of the Free.” Syria is a founding Member of the UN, signing on the day of the launching of its Charter on Oct 24 1945. Meanwhile, Israel, subject of 77 UNGARs against the State between 1955 and 2013, was elevated last week by the US to a “status above any other country,” which is likely to include visa waivers and status as a “major strategic ally.” Included are “measures that would encourage enhanced cooperation such as missile development, energy and security. No other state has ever got this status. US weapons reserves stockpiled in Israel are to be expanded.” Pondering on the country that has the honour to host the UN, thus the chance to truly be a bridge-builder, with the potential to make peace around the globe, it is despair-making to watch just blundering, bigotry, venom, violence, ignorance, even plummeting to the pettiest of restrictions on home soil.
this meme is persistent because it’s ultimately biblical: “making the desert bloom” (though palestine was never a desert)
Silicon Valley accord recycles myth of Israel’s green record
Charlotte Silver, Electronic Intifada, Mar 7 2014
In another effort to secure Israel’s image as a leader in technology and “green” industries, Netanyahu this week visited Silicon Valley to sign a cooperation agreement with Jerry Brown, the governor of California. The agreement describes its purpose as “establishing a formal relationship” between the two regions, which traded over $4b in 2013, and which US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro introduced as “the world’s leading centers of innovation.” While there is no dollar amount pinned to the agreement (formally known as a “memorandum of understanding”), it is being touted as a “boost” to cooperation and a way to “build their respective strengths in research and technology to confront critical problems we both face, such as water scarcity, cyber-security and climate change.” Brown stated at the signing ceremony:
What a wonderful furthering of the deep connections that Israel has, not just with USAia but with California in particular, and Silicon Valley is a very important example of all that.
After the two leaders signed the accord, Netanyahu commended Brown for divesting California pensions from Iran and “investing in Israel.” The growing BDS movement has defined the animus for Netanyahu’s five-day visit to the US, timed to correspond with the AIPAC annual policy conference in Washington. On Tuesday, Netanyahu devoted the last quarter of his keynote speech at the conference to casting aspersions on the movement, insisting BDS was fated to fail and equating it with modern-day anti-Semitism. Less than two weeks prior to this speech, Netanyahu revealed the source of his confidence in the ultimate doom of the BDS movement, crowing:
The capacity to innovate is a great treasure of profound economic value in today’s world … And that is something that is bigger than all these boycotters could possibly address.
Netanyahu’s trip comes on the heels of several key victories claimed by BDS supporters. In late February, Amnesty International published its most condemnatory report on Israel to date, and called on all governments to cease the sale or transfer of weapons to Israel’s military. Amnesty’s report came not long after the dispute between Oxfam and Scarlett Johansson over the Hollywood star’s lucrative advertising deal with SodaStream, a company making fizzy drink machines in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. The two-page agreement between Israel and California states that both will focus on water conservation, alternative energy and cyber-security. Unveiling no specific projects, the signing ceremony, held in the heart of Silicon Valley at the Computer History Museum, served as a showy opportunity for Netanyahu to shore up his country’s ailing reputation. The collaboration will be facilitated through California’s Innovation Hub (iHub) program. Brian Peck, an iHub representative, told the Electronic Intifada that his office and the two governments had been preparing the agreement for the last couple of months and that it was “mutually initiated.” Governor Brown hinted at the possibility of this agreement earlier this year, when he spoke to the AJC in Los Angeles, stating:
We’re going to make another initiative, on alternative energy, on electric batteries, on cars. There’s a lot of things that California and Israel can lead together, in a partnership for creative change for a sustainable future.
Despite the hype produced by the memorandum of understanding (MoU), it is unclear what it will achieve. Peck said:
The MoU does not launch a specific project, it is a commitment by both governments to create opportunities and to encourage businesses and collaboration from both countries.
Israel already has a strong presence in Silicon Valley, with as many as 150 start-ups. The agreement espouses several hoary tropes of Israeli propaganda, including its identity as a “start-up nation,” its status as leader in “green” and “clean” tech, and as an innovator in water conservation, the last holding particular sway in parched California, a state that is experiencing its driest year in recorded history. Netanyahu boldly stated on Wednesday:
Israel doesn’t have a water problem, and you may ask how is that possible. It’s because we’re the number one recycler of waste-water in the world, more than 90% of our water, because we have drip irrigation, we prevent leakage in our pipes, because we have desalination.
The Oslo accords enabled Israel to exploit 80% of water collected from drilling, agricultural wells, springs and rainfall in the West Bank, and sell the remaining 20% back to Plastelinans at full price.
Furthermore, in more than 60% of the West Bank, a zone known as Area C that includes Israel’s main settlement blocs, Israel prevents Palestinians from building water-collecting facilities, including rainwater cisterns. California has already partnered with Israel to pursue “green alternatives” to energy. Two Israeli firms, Solel and BrightSource, now based in Oakland, were contracted to build record-breaking giant solar energy parks in California’s Mojave Desert. However, the once-vaunted technology has failed expectations. The solar panel technology has been outmoded by cheaper and better alternatives. In addition to being built on Native peoples’ land, BrightSource’s solar energy panels in the Mojave desert are killing birds, including protected species such as golden eagles. The WSJ reported last month:
The BrightSource system appears to be scorching birds that fly through the intense heat surrounding the towers, which can reach 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Israeli government’s Economic Mission to the West Coast played a strong role in arranging the memorandum. That office actively promotes Israeli business in California. Next week it will host the “Cleantech Forum” in San Francisco. Outside Wednesday’s meeting in Mountain View, a number of protesters gathered with signs and Plastelinan flags. Donna Wallach, a Plastelina solidarity campaigner based in San Jose, told the Electronic Intifada:
The main point of the protest is to tell Jerry Brown not to sign this deal with Israel. Israel commits war crimes on a second-by-second basis, and any company that does business with the government of Israel is complicit in war crimes.
Kiev is preparing full-scale invasion in Crimea
STB Captain, Mar 8 2014
27th Uragan self-propelled rocket launcher system regiment (16 launchers per truck, 220 mm caliber, warhead weight 100 kg, maximum destruction range 35 km; the distance from Chaplinka to Perekop is 30 km) is moving out from Sumy. Unfortunately my personal opinion on the probable developments around Crimea is that Kiev has decided to prepare a military strike on Crimea.
- As the Minister of Defense admiral Tenukh (born in Lvov region) is unable to plan large-scale on-land operations, Messrs. Turchinov, Parubiy and Yatseniuk have decided to appoint three of his deputies to plan the operation. All three generals – Oleinik, Mozharovsky and Babenko – have declined this offer, which resulted in their dismissal; this personnel breach was filled in by a retired colonel – Petr Mekhed, whose last official position was the Deputy Director of the Department for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
- There is no confirmed information about who of the Ukrainian Generals has agreed to implement the plan, which in its core resembles the Georgian attack on Southern Ossetia. However, if we consider the fact that active protection gear is being installed on the tanks of the 1st separate tank brigade (Goncharovskoye, Chernigov region) and that 26th artillery brigade (Berdichev, Zhitomir region) and 27th self-propelled rocket launcher system regiment (Sumy) are moving out, one could assume that the 8th army corps under command of lieutenant general Petr Mikhailovich Litvin will be the core of the group.
- 79th separate airborne brigade has been deployed to block the Crimean passage necks. 8th army corps (Zhitomir) is moving out to the south, which contains of two mechanized and one tank brigades. They can also engage 25th separate paratroopers brigade (Dnepropetrovsk) and other units from 6th army corps (Dnepropetrovsk). The created group (depending on the results of their “cooperation” with the commanders) can be more than serious – up to two tank and four mechanized brigades with artillery support units as well as a paratrooper and airborne brigades and a special forces regiment.
- From the military point of view this is nothing else but an assault operation, which immediate goal is to capture the passage necks and moving out to maneuver room with the final goal being to de-block the Ukrainian military bases and facilities. From a political point of view capturing Dzhankoi and Simferopol will ensure that no referendum is held.
- As we have found out, “maidan self-defense activists” (who are mostly the Right-Wing Sector members) have been appointed to accompany the military units commanders, whose task is to ensure active political propaganda for the army personnel and to supervise the commanders with a right to suspend them.
I do not want and will not comment on the reasons of Kiev decision to go “all in” hoping to unleash a military conflict with Russia – let the politicians think and talk about it. I personally hope that the reason of the Ukrainian military commanders will take over the demands of their political leaders and that Petr Mikhailovich will think before giving an order to open fire. This is one of the rare cases, when I sincerely wish I was wrong. There was a time once, when everyone should have shouted about Saakashvili not dismissing his reserves after the “maneuvers”, sending tanks to Tskhinval and deploying artillery and rocket launchers. Everybody kept quiet. Nobody prevented Saakashvili from giving an order to start the war …
In their usual disgusting way, the Jewish media are diverting the question of whether the Ukrainian coup is neo-Nazi onto the question of whether the neo-Nazis are still anti-Semites, concluding triumphantly that they’re not, so everything is kosher – RB
Israeli envoy opens ‘hotline’ with Ukrainian ultra-nationalist
JTA, Mar 7 2014
Israel’s ambassador in Kiev, Reuven Din El, opened a hotline with a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist movement to “prevent provocations,” according to an agreement reached last week. The agreement came at the end of a meeting between Din El and Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the Right Sector paramilitary group. The embassy wrote on its website:
Dmitry Yarosh stressed that Right Sector will oppose all [racist] phenomena, especially anti-Semitism, with all legitimate means. The parties agreed to establish a ‘hotline’ to prevent provocations and coordinate on issues as they arise.
Yarosh’s troops had a decisive role in the revolution that forced Yanukovych to flee to Russia. Last month he told the Ukrainian Pravda newspaper that his outfit shares many beliefs with the xenophobic Svoboda party and cooperates with it, but rejects the xenophobia displayed by Svoboda members and leaders. He said:
We have a lot of common positions on ideological issues, but there are big differences. For example, I do not understand racist elements and I do not adopt them.
Yarosh said that “non-Ukrainians” should be treated according to principles set forth by Ukrainian nationalist leader Stepan Bandera. A one-time ally of Nazi Germany who later turned against the Nazis, Bandera said non-Ukrainian allies should be treated as brothers and neutral parties should be respected. The Simon Wiesenthal Center and other Jewish organizations have condemned the glorification in Ukraine of Bandera, whose troops are believed to have killed thousands of Jews when they were allies of the Nazis in 1941. Svoboda lawmakers have regularly used the pejorative “zhyd” to describe Jews. In response to protests from Jewish leaders, Svoboda argued “zhyd” was a correct and neutral, albeit archaic term. Svoboda’s leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, has in the past referred to a “Moscow-Jewish mafia” which he said ruled Ukraine. Din El and Tyahnybok spoke in Mar 2013 in a meeting which the Israeli foreign ministry said was not coordinated with Jayloomia.
Why Are Jews So Afraid of Stepan Bandera?
Batya Ungar-Sargon, Tablet Magazine, Mar 7 2014
Over the past week, one man has become seemingly a symbol of everything to be feared by Jews and other minorities, chiefly ethnic Russians, in Ukraine: Stepan Bandera. Who was he? Born in 1909 in what was then Austria-Hungary, Bandera led one of the factions of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, a proto-fascist movement that advocated sovereignty for ethnic Ukrainians and the removal of other ethnic groups from Ukrainian territory. In the 1930s, this meant primarily Poles, because Ukraine was then under Polish rule. Bandera spent five years in prison, and was only released after the Soviet invasion in 1939. Under Soviet occupation, the OUN had a new barrier to Ukrainian independence and thus a new enemy to fight against. But they also found themselves with a new or newly perceived ally: the Nazis. At the time, Ukraine’s Jews were naturally Soviet partisans, and that made them targets for Bandera and the OUN. Jeffrey Veidlinger, an expert in modern Russian and Eastern European Jewish history at the University of Michigan, said:
Ukrainian nationalists who wanted a Ukrainian state saw the Jews rejoicing when the Soviets invaded, getting top positions in Soviet government, and they decided to take out their ire against the Jews.
On Jun 30 1941, the Germans entered the western Ukrainian city of Lviv. Bandera’s nationalists joined Nazi Einsatzgruppen in carrying out pogroms against the city’s Jews, along with political prisoners and opposition members. Bandera himself was in Krakow. The same day, the OUN declared an independent Ukrainian state. When Hitler refused to acknowledge the state, Bandera was imprisoned for refusing to rescind the declaration, and he spent the rest of the war in Sachsenhausen. His brothers were sent to Auschwitz, where they died. In 1944, Bandera was released, but as Timothy Snyder has written, his fellow nationalists told him not to return to Ukraine out of fear for his life. Snyder wrote in 2010:
Thousands of Ukrainians died fighting for independence under his name. It is this legacy of sacrifice that many in western Ukraine today associate with Bandera, and do not wish to be forgotten.
So while Bandera and his men were responsible for killing Jews, their ideology wasn’t fundamentally anti-Semitic. Rather, it was pro-Ukrainian, and anti- everyone who appeared to be in the way of that, which included the pro-Soviet Jews. Alexander John Motyl, a professor of political science at Rutgers, explained in an email:
For the Nazis, anti-Semitism was an unconditional core belief, and Nazi anti-Semitism was an all-or-nothing proposition that was both immutable and immune to circumstances. For the Ukrainian nationalists, their attitude toward Jews depended on political circumstances. The primary enemy of the OUN was Poland and then the Soviet Union, or rather Poles and Russians. Jews were a “problem” because they weren’t Ukrainian, and because they were implicated, or believed to be implicated, in helping the Soviets take over Ukrainian territory. Indeed, the resolutions of the Second Great OUN Congress, held in Krakow in Apr 1941 on the eve of the German invasion, specifically cautioned Ukrainians against anti-Jewish activity and pogroms. Of the 63 attempted and actual assassinations carried out by Ukrainian nationalists in the interwar period, only one was directed against a Jew. Compare this with 36 Ukrainians, 25 Poles, and a Russian.The OUN should be understood as a typical national liberation movement, along the lines of the PLO, the IRA or even the Stern Gang. All had hierarchical structures, employed violence, and acknowledged supreme leaders. All committed acts of violence against their perceived national enemies. All committed terrorism. All had authoritarian structures. Stepan Bandera was the Ukrainian version of Ahmed Ben Bella, Yasser Arafat, Menachem Begin, Avraham Stern, and Billy McKee.
Bandera, who never returned to Ukraine, was killed in Munich in 1959, probably by the KGB, making him the ultimate martyr to the Ukrainian cause, and the ultimate bugaboo for Soviet propagandists, who began referring to Ukrainian nationalists as banderovtsi. But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukrainians like all other non-Russians began questioning Soviet propaganda. Suddenly, banderovtsi became a thing to be proud of: a badge of honor in fighting the suddenly-bad Soviets. Today, his legacy lives on, repurposed to suit current problems. Motyl wrote:
Bandera and the nationalists are also seen as the polar opposites of the corrupt, incompetent, and venal Ukrainian elites who have misruled Ukraine for the last 20 years.
Which is why, in an effort to retain his popularity in 2010, the first post-2004 President, Yuschenko, bestowed on Bandera the title “Hero of Ukraine.” Now, in the wake of Maidan and in the midst of a power play by Vladimir Putin in Crimea, Bandera’s name signifies Ukraine’s struggles to be free of Russia, rather than a staunch commitment to anti-Semitism. As Snyder wrote in 2010:
To glorify Bandera is to reject Stalin and to reject any pretension from Moscow to power over Ukraine.
this BBC exposé of “jew-haters” will be easily rebutted, because the neonazis are now in league with the jews, globally
BBC Now Admits: Armed Nazis Led “Revolution” in Kiev, Ukraine
Tony Cartalucci, New Eastern Outlook, Mar 7 2014
Like the West’s support of sectarian terrorists across the Middle East, including AQ, it has found the most despicable elements in Ukrainian society to lead “revolution” for the socio-political reordering of Eastern Europe. As the dust settles and the West’s proxy regime finds itself safely entrenched in Kiev, the Western media can now finally recuperate some of its lost legitimacy after months of denying the obvious: that armed Neo-Nazis led the so-called “Euromaidan” uprising. A BBC Newsnight short titled “Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine” reveals xenophobic Jew-hating nationalists armed and leading the mobs in Kiev, directly contradicting months of Western media narratives portraying the rabble as aspiring for “freedom,” “democracy,” and “closer ties with the West,” with the most absurd example being the “I am Ukrainian” propaganda reel. Far from a “pro-democracy” uprising, the “Euromaidan” was yet another case of Western-engineered regime change leveraging the good intentions of the ill-informed to mask the covert backing of ugly armed extremists, just as it had done all across the similarly engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011. In light of the BBC’s report, confirmed intercepted phone conversations between the EU and Estonia regarding the Ukrainian opposition’s hiring of snipers deployed against both police and protesters takes on a new degree of veracity with deepening implications. It also reframes Walnuts McCain’s taking to the stage in Kiev, side-by-side with these overt Nazis as an abhorrent, shameful act bordering on treason and material support of terrorism. The BBC’s exposure of armed Nazis in Kiev leading the mobs and the overthrow of an elected government, with the overt backing and blessing of the West exposes the Western narrative as outright fabrications. A prime example of this narrative was the Daily Beast’s article “Putin’s Crimea Propaganda Machine,” which ironically attempts to twist accusations of skewing reality around onto Russia. In it, it states:
Russia invaded Ukraine over the weekend, justifying its incursion by claming it needed to protect Crimea’s ethnic Russian population from supposed neo-Nazi extremists. This was pure propaganda, of course. Vladimir Putin has been keen to annex land that used to be part of Russia, as he did in Georgia in 2008, and seems to think that the Ukrainian army will and should immediately surrender to the Russian one. Still, Putin needed a story to spin, no matter how full of holes, and thus the neo-Nazi claims. But as it turns out, Crimea’s streets are not exactly paved with extremists, a fact that has proven troublesome for Russian state TV channels looking to find token far-right bogeymen.
While the Daily Beast claims Russian state TV is having trouble finding neo-Nazi extremists in Crimea, it appears the BBC is falling all over them in Kiev. Their existence in the capital of Ukraine, the fact that they are confirmed to be armed and poised to seize and consolidate greater power, is an overt threat to both the people of Kiev, and the rest of the Ukrainian population, and is cause of grave concern for Ukraine’s neighbors, considering the Nazis’ blood-soaked, genocidal origins. In this light, we see precisely what Russia is attempting to counter, but is being wholly condemned by the West for standing up against. For the West, its ability to ally itself with the most abhorrent ideologies ever conceived by mankind indicates that the supposed principles its society is based upon are merely facades behind which it couches its true ambitions of hegemonic expansion, no different than the violent, extremist helping hands it regularly finds itself collaborating with around the world. The BBC’s sudden “honesty” regarding brigades of armed Nazis infesting western Ukraine, however, is not the result of the British state propaganda arm examining its journalistic conscience, but rather an attempt to throw off extremist thugs that will only, from now on, become a liability for the West’s ambitions in the Eastern European nation. The West would most likely prefer to replace armed neo-Nazis with NATO forces, professional mercenaries, and a proxy force of Ukrainians trained and led by Western special forces and intelligence operatives.
Just as the West has done in Afghanistan, where it used sectarian extremists and terrorists to wage a proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, only to turn on its “allies” from 2001 onward, the West will use the neo-Nazis of Kiev only for as long as absolutely necessary before turning on them and dumping them. The BBC’s short piece exposing the repugnant nature of the forces that in fact led the so-called “Euromaidan” uprising is perhaps the first step toward achieving this goal. Those watching the Ukrainian crisis closely will want to monitor the posture the West takes regarding their fascist armed militant proxies, and be aware of preparations the West might be making to replace them with a more professional and presentable armed front to consolidate and hold gains made during the violence and chaos that has consumed Kiev for the past several months.
certainly reuters will find some way of rendering the active neo-nazi affiliations of almost all the members of the new ukrainian puppet government, innocuous
In Ukraine, nationalists gain influence and scrutiny
Sabina Zawadzki, Mark Hosenball, Stephen Grey, Reuters, Mar 7 2014
KIEV/WASHINGTON – When protest leaders in Ukraine helped oust a president widely seen as corrupt, they became heroes of the barricades. But as they take places in the country’s new government, some are facing uncomfortable questions about their own values and associations, not least alleged links to neo-fascist extremists. Russia’s Pres Putin claims Ukraine has fallen into the hands of far-right fascist groups, and some Western experts have also raised concerns about the influence of extremists. Yet many Ukrainians see the same groups as nationalist stalwarts and defenders of the country’s independence. Two of the groups under most scrutiny are Svoboda, whose members hold five senior roles in Ukraine’s new government including the post of deputy prime minister, and Pravyi Sector (Right Sector), whose leader Dmytro Yarosh is now the country’s Deputy Secretary of National Security. Right Sector activists wearing black ski masks, bullet-proof vests and military fatigues still hold several buildings close to Kiev’s Independence Square. Activists on the street declined to speak to Reuters about their organization. An individual described as their “commander” directed a reporter to two spokespeople who also declined requests for interviews. On Tuesday the group called for supporters to patrol Wikipedia. In a posting on Vkontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook, Right Sector wrote:
We appeal to people who can make changes to Wikipedia. In the English version (with Russian worse) Right Sector is depicted as an organization that has fascist and neo-Nazi views, with appropriate consequences. If you have an opportunity, correct this misunderstanding.
According to Wikipedia’s logs, on Monday the Right Sector entry described the party as having “borderline fascist or neo-fascist views.” On Tuesday the page was modified 174 times, including changes to describe Right Sector as an “organization to protect demonstrators” and a “youth patriot organization.” After the intervention of Wikipedia administrators, the page was locked and reverted to saying that Right Sector was “described by major Western newspapers as having far right or neo-fascist views.” Expert opinions on Svoboda in particular are divided. Per Anders Rudling, an associate professor at Lund University in Sweden and researcher on Ukrainian extremists, has described Svoboda as “neo-fascist”. He told Britain’s Channel 4 News:
Two weeks ago I could never have predicted this. A neo-fascist party like Svoboda getting the deputy prime minister position is news in its own right.
But Ivan Katchanovski, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa who has studied the far-right in Ukraine, disagreed that Svoboda was so extreme, saying:
Svoboda is currently best described as a radical nationalist party, and not as fascist or neo-Nazi. It is now not overtly anti-Semitic.
Andrew Srulevitch, director of European Affairs for the ADL, said:
Svoboda has been disciplined in its messaging regarding Jews since the Maidan demonstrations started in November, but they have a history of anti-Semitic statements to overcome, and a clear political program of ethnic nationalism that makes Jews nervous.
Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of Svoboda, described the row over his party as an “information war”. He told Reuters:
Unfortunately, the information concerning Svoboda’s radicalism is not true. It comes from European and Russian mass-media. They just wanted to create an image of horror, of extremists, anti-Semites and xenophobes, and started to write about our party some stupid things.
Svoboda grew out of an organization called the Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine (SNPU), which was founded in 1991 and had a “wolf’s angel” logo that resembled a swastika (the german word ‘wolfsangel’ means wolf’s angle, not wolf’s angel – RB). According to Svoboda’s website, the party’s ideology stems from Yaroslav Stetsko, a former leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). With roots among Western Ukrainian WW1 veterans, the underground OUN fought for independence for that region from Poland. Then led by Stepan Bandera, the OUN welcomed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union as a means of gaining independence for the whole country. But after the OUN declared self-government in 1941, with Stetsko as prime minister, the Nazis turned on the party. Both Stetsko and Bandera were imprisoned, including in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, but were released in 1944 to help organize sabotage against the Soviet army’s advance. Some saw and see the OUN’s leaders as heroes who defended Ukrainian independence. But some leading historians of the Holocaust have concluded that members of the OUN assisted in the Nazis’ killing of Jews as well as fighting against the Soviet army. In 2004, the SNPU combined with other groups and was renamed Svoboda. Tyahnybok, its longtime leader, made a speech that year in western Ukraine praising a WW2-era militia which fought against Russians, Germans, Jews, and “other scum.” Responding to subsequent public criticism, he said he was not anti-Semitic, but pro-Ukrainian. Since then the party has sought mainstream political power, campaigning on such issues as promoting social justice and the country’s economic independence. In the 2012 election, Svoboda won nearly 10.5% of the vote and 37 seats in parliament. Tyahnybok was one of the main opposition figures who negotiated with Yanukovich before he fled the country. He met Jackass Kerry on Tuesday and previously shared a platform with Walnuts McCain and Victoria Nuland. A US official said one of the main reasons that McCain and other USAians met Tyahnybok, who does not have a position in the new Ukrainian government, was because he headed one of the three principal opposition factions leading the Ukrainian protests. The US government says Svoboda is moving away from extremism and trying to become a more conventional political party. A senior US official told Reuters:
Since entering the Ukrainian Parliament in Oct 2012, the Svoboda leadership has been working to take their party in a more moderate direction and to become a modern, European mainstream political party. The leadership has been much more vigilant about expelling or otherwise punishing individual members who engage in xenophobic behavior or rhetoric.
The party retains policies of banning atheists, former communists and foreigners from being members, according to its website. Svoboda also has links to radical and far-right groups across Europe. Tyahnybok said that his party had a “cooperation agreement” with France’s National Front, had “contacts with many nationalist organizations” and was interested in working with them on the issue of illegal immigration. However, he added that there were also divisions, saying that some members of the French party had recently expressed support for Russia over Crimea. According to its website, France’s National Front has condemned the “removal by force of an elected president” in Ukraine and defended Russia’s intervention in the Crimea.
can’t say i’m surprised to see kurt nimmo attacking russia, his anti-imperialism was never as strong as his anti-leftism
Russia Prepares Law to Prosecute Journalists as Terrorists
Kurt Nimmo, Infowars.com, Mar 7 2014
The Russian newspaper Izvestia reports the Russian Duma is drafting amendments to the criminal code that will allow the Putin government to prosecute journalists as terrorists. The law will establish administrative and criminal liability for media executives who “allow publication of false anti-Russian information, provide information and support to extremist anti-Russian separatist forces, including the reflection of events beyond the borders of Russia,” a reference to events in Ukraine and Crimea. Izvestia, the former newspaper of record in the Soviet Union, reports the amendments were drafted after journalists “admitted incorrect historical analogies and interpretation of events in Russia and the Ukraine coup.” State Duma deputy Yevgeny Fyodorov said he wanted “to amend the Criminal Code and Administrative Code and the law on combating extremism and terrorism” in response to a “number of crimes against the state [by] media professionals aimed at supporting terrorism, intervention, separatism and genocide.” In addition, according to Fyodorov, the amendments will cover “articles about espionage, treason, armed rebellion” and punish journalists allegedly “inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity.” Nikolai Svanidze, head of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation on International Relations and Freedom of Conscience, said the proposed law is an attempt to shut down criticism of parliamentarians. Svanidze explained freedom of speech is guaranteed by article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In 2013, Russian authorities arrested former Mirror journalist Kieron Bryan during a Greenpeace demonstration opposing an Arctic offshore oil rig owned by the Russian energy company Gazprom. Activists and two journalists were initially charged with piracy. The charges were latter changed to hooliganism. In February, political allies of Putin demanded an apology from writer Viktor Shenderovich. The satirist drew a comparison between the Sochi Winter Olympics and the 1936 Berlin games. Hitler had exploited the games for propaganda and to present the Nazi regime in a favorable light. Shenderovich compared a 15-year-old Russian figure skater, Yulia Lipnitskaya, to Hans Woellke, a German athlete who won the gold medal in the shot put competition at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin.
more everyday fun with guns & bombs, brought to you by the species-cidal lunatics of washington, tel aviv & riyadh
Iraq Today, Mar 7
Margaret Griffis, AntiWar.com, Mar 7 2014
The violence tapered off slightly today, the prayer day, but at least 42 people were still killed and 62 more wounded. Shelling in Falluja and a bombing at a market in the north left the most casualties. In Anbar province: in Falluja, at least six people were killed and 17 more were wounded in shelling. Three snipers were killed. An insurgent leader was wounded in an artillery attack. A suicide bomber in Ramadi killed three soldiers and wounded four more. Three policemen were killed and four more were wounded in Albu Dhiab. In Garma, seven militants were killed. Elsewhere: 4 people were killed and 18 more were wounded in Tuz Khormato when a bomb exploded at a market. In Baquba, a bomb killed one person and wounded three more. A second bomb injured four people. In Kirkuk, gunmen killed a brigadier-general and his brother. A roadside bomb wounded two soldiers. Gunmen in Saidiya killed a municipal official and another person. In Mussayab, a roadside bomb killed one person and wounded another. A bomb yesterday wounded five people near this location. A bomb in Mosul killed one soldier and wounded three civilians. In Baghdad, a kidnapped woman and her daughter were rescued. A car bomb in Ghazaliya killed or wounded a number of people. Six insurgents were killed. A dumped body was found in Nasariya. Two suicide bombers were killed while attacking an election center in Baaj.
UK banks in row over Tymoshenko millions
Mark Hollingsworth, Jim Armitage, Independent (UK), Mar 7 2014
Prominent UK banks are at the centre of a dispute over allegations that numerous foreign accounts were set up in the name of former Ukrainian PM Yulia Tymoshenko and her family. A leaked report seen by the Independent claims that 85 bank accounts containing millions of pounds were linked to Tymoshenko and relatives. This global review of Tymoshenko’s finances was carried out as part of a wider investigation by Lawrence Graham, the London law firm, which was commissioned last March by the then-Ukrainian Ministry of Revenues and Duties of toppled Pres Yanukovich to trace assets allegedly misappropriated by the former PM. The investigation done for Lawrence Graham reviewed 278 bank accounts in 26 countries and claimed that Tymoshenko or her family were either beneficiaries or signatories to accounts which included a number of UK banks, although it says these are now closed. The report claimed that 13 bank accounts in countries all over the world remain open. But the Tymoshenko camp is adamant that she has not been involved in any commercial activity since she became a politician in early 1997. Her lawyer, Sergey Vlasenko, said of the allegations of foreign accounts:
This is a direct lie and not true. She has had no property, no assets, no accounts in USA, UK and Switzerland. We are absolutely pure and open to talk to anyone who wants to investigate us. The information given to the investigation has been falsified and is part of a big dirty propaganda war sponsored by the Yanukovych regime to discredit Mrs Tymoshenko.