Get Ready World: The U.S.-Russian Rivalry Is Back

And it could get ugly.

Dmitri Trenin

May 28, 2014

The May 25 presidential elections in Ukraine mark the end of the beginning in Ukraine; but they do not mark the end of the story, which will continue to evolve and could possibly turn more violent. Yet, the elections and their results give Ukraine more of a chance at avoiding a full-scale civil war and sticking together, even as it deals with current and future hardships.

The Ukraine crisis has ended the era of post–Cold War engagement, which failed to culminate in integration between the West and Russia. In a stunning reversal, the crisis has opened up a period of intense geopolitical competition, rivalry, and even confrontation between Moscow and Washington, but also between Moscow and Brussels.

The area of competition is again Eastern Europe; only this time, father to the east of its Cold War namesake. In a region which includes Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, and also the unrecognized Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, fault lines have developed both within and between countries.

Some of these countries, like Georgia, lean toward the European Union; others, such as Belarus, toward Russia; some are battleground states; and there is only one outlier, Azerbaijan. The "gray" buffer zone between Europe and Russia, which has existed ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union, is unraveling.

Russia is pivoting away from Europe and the West. It is pivoting toward itself as a unique civilization related to, but separate from, Western Europe. It is also pivoting to its former empire in Eurasia, redesigned as a Russia-led economic and security union. Lastly, it is pivoting to China, which is seen as a new center of global economic and political power. 

All these changes are happening in an atmosphere of intensifying competition. The revolutionary coup in Kiev, supported by Washington, was interpreted in Moscow as a prelude to Ukraine's eventual accession to NATO. President Putin responded with his own coup in Crimea, which resulted in the peninsula's incorporation into Russia. The U.S.-Russian tussle over Ukraine has become the first case of open, great-power clash since the end of the Cold War.

In this new rivalry, Europe is both a player, as America's ally in NATO, and an area of competition in its own right. Europeans are divided in their attitudes toward Russia. Those geographically closer and still reeling from the Soviet era are more wary than those farther afield, who are more relaxed; political elites with little interest in Russia are more critical than the business circles, who have something to lose; and anti–European Union, anti–United States elements see Putin as their ally.

Although the new rivalry is confined to a relatively small region and is peripheral to the United States' and even Europe's core interests, it has implications for the wider world. Russia's shift to the east, which strengthens its alignment with China, is gaining more strategic depth. The Sino-Russian gas deal, signed in Shanghai on May 21, embodies and symbolizes a new quality to the relationship between Moscow and Beijing.

Four decades after Nixon's groundbreaking trip to China, the strategic triangle between the United States, China and Russia looks very different, with China, rather than America, having better relations with the two other powers. This puts Japan in a more difficult situation: Tokyo is Washington's ally; it fears Beijing and hopes to improve relations with Moscow. Yet Prime Minister Shinzo Abe perseveres in his strategy of rapprochement with Russia, and looks forward to hosting Putin in the fall of 2014.   

Across the Middle East, Russia and the United States continue to share some interests, with respect to fighting terrorism or preventing further nuclear proliferation. But in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, Moscow has become more active in its support for Syria's Assad, strengthening ties to Tehran, and reaching out to Egypt and Saudi Arabia—even as it has managed to protect its special relationship with Israel. U.S.-Russian competition in the Middle East, albeit at a lower level than during the Cold War, is again a reality.

This new competition is essentially being fought on the terrain of economics and information flows and will eventually be decided by economic factors and popular attitudes. This relates to Ukraine, which faces a dire economic situation. This relates to Russia and its ability to use Western economic sanctions to reinvent itself. The alternatives are the country's breakdown and a possible breakup, or it becoming China's economic satellite. This relates to Moscow's Eurasian Union project, which will rise or fall on economic, not geopolitical grounds. And of course, it relates to the European Union, which faces a conflict between the need for further integration and many people's reluctance to go for it, as evidenced in the elections to the European Parliament, also held on May 25.

As for the United States, its foreign policy can only be as effective as its resources permit. Whether in Ukraine, NATO or the Middle East, Washington has been limiting its commitment. This makes for a more level playing field.  

Dmitri Trenin is the Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.

Image: Kremlin photo

 

 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/get-ready-world-the-us-russian-rivalry-back-10545

The State Department's Ukraine Fiasco

The State Department's Ukraine Fiasco

 

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

 

25 May 14

 

American diplomacy, by definition, is supposed to advance the national interests of the United States, not contribute to international crises that undermine those interests. Yet, by that standard, the U.S. State Department and Secretary of State John Kerry have failed extraordinarily during the current Ukraine crisis.

Besides ripping Ukraine apart – and getting scores of Ukrainians killed – the U.S.-supported coup in February has injected more uncertainty into Europe's economy by raising doubts about the continued supply of Russian natural gas. Such turbulence is the last thing that Europe's fragile "recovery" needs as mass unemployment now propels the rise of right-wing parties and threatens the future of the European Union.

 

Any new business downturn in Europe also would inflict harm on the U.S. economy, which itself is still clawing its way out of a long recession and needs a healthy Europe as an important trading partner. But the crisis in Ukraine, spurred on by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and other anti-Russian hardliners, is now complicating the U.S. recovery, too.

 

There's also the problematic impact of pulling Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and locking it into Europe's: the scheme would shift the financial burden for Ukraine's impoverished population of 45 million people onto Europe's back, even as the EU is straining to meet the human needs of the jobless in Greece, Spain and other countries devastated by the Great Recession.

 

One of Ukraine's principal exports to Europe has been low-wage Ukrainian workers, including participants in the criminal underworld, most notably prostitution. The willingness of Ukrainians to take the lowest-paying jobs across Europe has exacerbated the Continent's unemployment situation and is sure to become an even bigger problem if a bankrupt Ukraine is more fully integrated into Europe.

 

Plus, the State Department's endless stoking of tensions between President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin has caused other complications for U.S. foreign policy, including what is emerging as a historic rapprochement between China and Russia, a coming together highlighted by the signing of a major new gas deal on Wednesday.

 

The $400 billion pact means that Putin, in effect, has countered U.S. efforts to use limited U.S./EU sanctions to isolate Russia by deftly playing the China card and  aligning the two emerging countries as an economic and political counterforce to American dominance.

 

Though the natural gas deal has been in the works for months, the Ukraine crisis provided the urgency to get the agreement signed. The crisis also provided the impetus to solidify the closer geopolitical bonding between China, the world's ascending economy, and Russia, its resource-rich neighbor.

 

The two longtime adversaries, who faced off as communist rivals during the Cold War, have joined together recently as a bloc on the United Nations Security Council to block Western initiatives on Syria, for instance. That means that instead of isolating Russia at the UN, the State Department's hawkish approach to Ukraine has had the opposite effect. Russia now has a new and powerful ally.

 

The Ukraine crisis could inflict other collateral damage on President Obama's initiatives toward resolving thorny disputes around Syria's civil war and Iran's nuclear program. In both areas, President Putin provided important assistance to President Obama in securing agreements: Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to accept constraints on its nuclear activity.

 

Though the Russians have not pulled out of those U.S. collaborations yet, the strains over Ukraine – if they are not eased – could undermine valuable cooperation toward reaching resolution of those two complicated and dangerous Mideast problems.

 

Pouring Fuel in the Fire

 

Yet, even as President Putin and other Russian leaders have tempered their rhetoric regarding Ukraine in recent weeks, the U.S. State Department continues to talk tough, bombarding Putin with both warnings and insults.

 

Typical were the comments in the lead story of the Washington Post on Saturday with writer Karen DeYoung quoting State Department and other U.S. officials berating Putin despite his conciliatory remarks about his willingness to work with the new Ukrainian government that will emerge from a disputed election on Sunday.

She wrote: "Western governments express deep uncertainty at what Russia will do, and it was symptomatic of their equally deep mistrust of Putin that few took him at his word [about working with the new government]. U.S. officials parsed his language as leaving a hole big enough to drive a brigade of Russian soldiers through."

The Post quoted the harsh rhetoric emanating from State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, who told the Russians: "Pull the rest of your troops back. … Put your money where your words are. Come on."

 

DeYoung herself termed the Russian military deployment along Ukraine's eastern border "threatening," but didn't mention the Russian rationale for the initial deployment, as an effort to deter the slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who objected to the violent overthrow of their elected President Viktor Yanukovych. This context of what's happening in eastern Ukraine is almost always missing.

 

Instead, the major U.S. news media, particularly the New York Times, has made great fun by mocking Putin as a liar for saying that, first, he had ordered Russian troops to pull back from the border, and then that he ordered some to return to their bases. The Times conflated these two different statements as one and then favorably quoted NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as saying there was no evidence of a Russian pullback. Gotcha, another Putin lie!

 

Yet, while showing their trust in Rasmussen's honesty and forthrightness, the Times and other mainstream outlets haven't bothered to inform their readers that this was the same Anders Fogh Rasmussen who as Danish prime minister last decade was a staunch supporter of the Iraq War and a gullible believer in President George W. Bush's claims about Iraq's non-existent WMD.

 

For instance, Prime Minister Rasmussen declared, "Iraq has WMDs. It is not something we think, it is something we know. Iraq has itself admitted that it has had mustard gas, nerve gas, anthrax, but Saddam won't disclose. He won't tell us where and how these weapons have been destroyed. We know this from the UN inspectors, so there is no doubt in my mind."

 

Pretty much everything in that statement was wrong — and Rasmussen appears to have been wrong, too, about Russia's pullback of troops, which has now been confirmed, at least in part, by the Pentagon. But, for days, the Times let Rasmussen, in effect, call Putin a liar without any independent checking, just one more sign of the long pattern of U.S. media bias against Russia during the Ukraine crisis. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Twisting Putin's Words on Ukraine."]

 

Blaming Russia

 

In line with that bias pervading the mainstream U.S. media for months, the Post's DeYoung added her own inflammatory rhetoric, stating "if Russian-inspired violence breaks out, it could be the start of far more serious and widespread international upheaval." All violence, it seems, must be "Russian-inspired."

 

DeYoung is presumably referring to the resistance in eastern Ukraine against the imposition of the coup regime's authority. The U.S. media has repeatedly treated these ethnic Russians in the east as Putin's "minions," being armed and directed by Russian special forces although no evidence has emerged to support that allegation.[See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop."]

 

But DeYoung's characterization of "Russian-inspired violence" fits with Official Washington's "group think" that has treated the Ukraine crisis as instigated by Putin supposedly so he can begin reclaiming territory lost when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

 

But the evidence clearly indicates that the uprising in Kiev was driven by a mix of popular dissatisfaction with Yanukovych, Western support and encouragement for the disorders, and violent neo-Nazi militias that despise the ethnic Russians in the east and spearheaded the Feb. 22 putsch that drove Yanukovych from office.

Still, the U.S. mainstream media has insisted on whitewashing the neo-Nazis brown shirts because their key involvement complicates the preferred American narrative of white-hat idealistic protesters taking on black-hat Yanukovych, backed by even blacker-hat Putin. Any reference to the well-documented role of neo-Nazis militias in the putsch is dismissed as "Russian propaganda" or the "Russian narrative." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's Inconvenient Neo-Nazis."]

 

So, instead of a balanced account, the American people have been fed Official Washington's "group think" of some master conspiracy engineered by Putin that requires your believing that Putin first orchestrated the EU's reckless association offer to Ukraine last year, then got the International Monetary Fund to insist on draconian austerity measures which Yanukovych rejected, then arranged the angry demonstrations at the Maidan while also secretly training neo-Nazi militias in western Ukraine to provide the muscle to carry out the February putsch – all the while pretending that he was trying to save Yanukovych's government and appearing to be distracted by the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

 

Of course, this grand conspiracy theory never made any sense and also lacked any evidence. What really happened was that neoconservatives in and around the State Department and Congress fed the flames of western Ukraine's discontent against Yanukovych's government that had been elected primarily with votes from the southern and eastern ethnic Russian sections.

 

The Neocon Role

 

There were, of course, legitimate complaints about Ukraine's pervasive political corruption, which has been an endemic problem since the hasty privatization that followed the Soviet collapse in 1991 and turned Ukraine into a country dominated by a handful of extremely wealthy oligarchs.

 

But the evidence is clear that powerful neoconservatives in Washington, including some still ensconced at the State Department, helped organize U.S. support for the protests that led to Yanukovych's ouster.

In late September, the neocons were furious over Putin helping Obama find a way out of an impending U.S. attack on Syria, an intervention that the neocons hoped might notch another "regime change" on their belts. So, their focus quickly turned to driving a wedge between the two leaders, with Ukraine becoming that wedge.

Carl Gershman, a leading neocon and longtime president of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, took to the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to urge the U.S. government to push European "free trade" agreements on Ukraine and other former Soviet states and thus counter Moscow's efforts to maintain close relations with those countries.

 

The ultimate goal, according to Gershman, was isolating and possibly toppling Putin in Russia with Ukraine the key piece on this global chessboard. "Ukraine is the biggest prize," Gershman wrote. "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

In furtherance of these goals, NED funded scores of projects in Ukraine, training activists, financing "journalists" and organizing business groups, according to NED's annual report.

 

After Yanukovych rejected the IMF's terms for European association as too drastic – because they would hit the already hard-hit Ukrainian people even harder – his removal from power became the State Department's goal, as Assistant of State Nuland urged on the demonstrators in the Maidan by passing out cookies and reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European aspirations."

 

Sen. John McCain, a leading neocon hawk, also showed up in Kiev to rally the protesters, speaking next to a Svoboda party banner honoring World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera whose paramilitary force helped exterminate Jews and Poles. Bandera is a hero to the right-wing nationalists in western Ukraine though despised by the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

 

In an intercepted phone call, Nuland was caught telling U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt that her preference to replace Yanukovych was Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom she called "Yats." After the Feb. 22 coup, Yatsenyuk emerged as the new prime minister with the neo-Nazis gaining control of four ministries, including the office of national security headed by neo-Nazi Andriy Parubiy. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine, Through the US 'Looking Glass'."]

 

One of Yatsenyuk's first moves was to approve the IMF austerity plan, while Parubiy incorporated some of the neo-Nazi militias into the National Guard and dispatched them as storm troopers to confront the resistance to the coup regime in the east.

 

Amid all the political chaos and violations of the Ukrainian constitution (which was ignored in the abrupt impeachment of Yanukovych), Crimea arranged a hasty referendum which showed some 96 percent support for seceding from Ukraine and rejoining Russia, a request that Putin and the Russian government accepted.

Typically, the New York Times and other major outlets summarize the Crimean switch as a Russian "invasion" with Putin supposedly dispatching troops to seize control of the peninsula with the help of a "sham" referendum.

 

Almost never does the U.S. press note that the Russian troops were already in Crimea under an arrangement with Ukraine allowing Russians to maintain their historic naval base at Sevastapol. The vote also clearly reflected the popular will of the Crimean people given their historic ties to Russia and the chaos in Ukraine.

 

Medvedev's Comments

 

"We did not annex any part of Ukraine," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told Bloomberg News this past week, "The population of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea held a referendum and voted for self-determination and for joining Russia in accordance with the existing procedure. And that's what they did.

"They started by proclaiming independence and after that, they asked to join Russia. We satisfied their request. The Russian Constitution was amended so that Crimea could join Russia as the result of a popular vote. Crimea is a special and unique story." That was a reference to Crimea being a longtime part of Russia.

Regarding any other parts of Ukraine, Medvedev added, "Any conjectures about Russia wanting to annex some territories are mere propaganda. … It is essential to calm tensions in Ukraine. We all see what's happening there: the situation is nothing short of a civil war, as a matter of fact. This is what we should all be thinking about."

 

Pressed by Bloomberg's Ryan Chilcote on guaranteeing that Russia would not accede to requests from Ukrainian separatists in eastern Ukraine, Medvedev responded, "we (I'm referring to all those who sympathize with Ukraine – European countries and as far as I understand, the United States and, of course, Russia, which is the closest to Ukraine) should do all we can to de-escalate tensions – a measure that everyone is talking about now.

"In other words, we should do everything to stop the spread of civil war on Ukrainian territory. As for the positions of people in Lugansk, Donetsk and other [eastern] parts of Ukraine, our stance is simple – their positions deserve respect. If they hold some referendums, we should understand what they want and why they express such views.

 

"So in the future, the main point is to make sure that Ukraine's central, de facto authorities and those who live in these parts of Ukraine establish a fully-fledged dialogue based on mutual respect and understanding, a dialogue that takes into account the position of eastern Ukraine. This would ease tensions; otherwise the conflict will continue, and we will most likely hear the same appeals [for secession] that were discussed at the referendums."

 

Medvedev added: "Let our partners in the dialogue, namely the EU and the United States, guarantee us something, for example, that they won't interfere in Ukraine's internal affairs. Let our Western partners guarantee us that they won't lure Ukraine into NATO, that the Russian language won't be prohibited in eastern Ukraine, and that some senseless movement such as the Right Sector won't start killing people there. Let our partners guarantee this."

 

The key Ukraine question now is: Can Putin and Obama overcome Official Washington's chest-thumping hysteria and deescalate the violence — along with the rhetoric — for the good of all rational parties in the dispute?

I'm told that Putin, though stung by Obama initially joining the anti-Russian stampede, has begun working again with Obama with the goal of a possible summit meeting in Normandy on June 6 during the ceremonies honoring the 70^th anniversary of D-Day.

 

Yet, even if the pieces of a shattered Ukraine can be glued back together, one still has to wonder why the U.S. State Department and other parts of Official Washington undertook this provocative project in the first place: contributing to the overthrow of Ukraine's elected government, violently destabilizing the country, heightening tensions with Russia, stirring up new threats to the EU and U.S. economies, and pushing Russia and China back together.

 

It may be understandable at some level that the still-powerful neocons saw the Ukraine wedge as a useful tool in splintering the Putin-Obama cooperation that had eased tensions over Syria and Iran – two of the neocons' top targets for "regime change" – but it remains a mystery how anyone could think that the Ukraine adventure has served U.S. national interests.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-State-Department-s-Ukr-by-Robert-Parry-Crisis_Medvedev_Neocons_Propaganda-140524-81.html

Putin and the mythical empire — RT Op-Edge

 

http://rt.com/op-edge/159796-putin-empire-ukraine-west/

Putin and the mythical empire

 

Opinion pieces by Peter Lavelle, the host of RT's shows CrossTalk and On the Money, who was also the anchor of the review programme In Context and the commentary series IMHO.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (RIA Novosti/Michael Klimentyev)

Western media, following the "bullhorns of propaganda" resident at the White House and State Department, assumes Putin is bent on re-building the Russian and/or Soviet Union. This is assumed to be true because the "bullhorns of propaganda" say it's true.

There is never any evidence cited or even a coherent analysis provided to back up this claim. Needless to say, this mindless approach to foreign policy – if it can be called that – ends with car wrecks on someone else's turf, in this case Ukraine. I submit a completely different and actually very simple interpretation of Putin's foreign policy. It has nothing to do with an empire and everything to do with respect of ethnic Russians and democratic rights.

Putin has no interest in rebuilding the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an incredible net economic loss for Russia and Russians. In this century, Russia correctly sees an empire as too costly, politically risky, and importantly at odds with international law. Since the advent of the Putin presidency, the Kremlin has demonstrated it will make smart trade deals with its immediate neighbors, but outright subsidies are to be avoided. (Russia's overly generous approach toward Ukraine since 1991 is a partial exception – trade relations with Kiev have always been complicated by Russia's important trade relationship with Europe).

Putin's 'near abroad' foreign policy is about people and principles. The day the Soviet Union came to an end, millions of ethnic Russians suddenly found themselves in a country that was not their own. Putin is addressing this painful historical wrong. And it is a very important domestic issue among Russians at home.

The West likes to consider itself to be above all others due to its self-proclaimed superior values. This includes values of the right to self-determination. However, these are only often words. Ethnic Russians in the Baltic states frequently see themselves as being treated as second-class citizens within the European Union. They are discriminated against on the basis of language and even cultural values. In Georgia in 2008, they were violently assaulted in South Ossetia. Russia was forced to intervene militarily to protect lives, including those of Russian citizens and internationally recognized peacekeepers. In Ukraine, the same is happening, though on a horrific scale and supported (again) by the West.

 

RIA Novosti/Alexei Druzhinin

Putin's agenda is not to change present borders. (Crimea is of course an exception. It should not have been "given" to Ukraine during the Soviet period on a whim, over the heads of the people there). What Putin wants is to have ethnic Russians on the other side of the border given the same rights of the majority population. This includes a say in both domestic and foreign policies. For example, any government in Ukraine must take into account the opinion of ethnic Russians when joining any military alliance. The US State Department should not be the entity to decide this along with their illegally imposed regime in Kiev.

Putin's approach also includes respect for the cultural values of Russians abroad. For the most part, Russians are culturally and socially conservative. This includes respect for the traditional family unit and reverence for the sacrifices made during the Great Patriot War. Many Western cultural and social values remain alien to many among the Russian population. Said differently: Russia and the West are moving further and further away from each other because of discernible cultural and social differences.

The current leadership in Russia is not consumed by ideological determinism like in the West. Putin's worldview is informed by realities found inside Russia and along its borders. Russia's foreign policy in fact is status quo orientated and risk averse. That cannot be said about the West, particularly Washington.

The West assaults country after country in the world in the name of democracy and so-called universal freedoms. This is a lofty mission in name only. Washington's neo-liberal economic agenda has no place for values or national pride. It is a neo-colonial agenda to forward the greed of the few who have captured the political process and the West's media echo chamber.

Vladimir Putin disagrees. Putin's empire is of the mind and is found among the people who look to him to express their values.

Peter Lavelle is host of RT's political debate program 'CrossTalk' and monthly business program 'On the Money.' His views are his own and not necessarily those of his employer.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Comments

Add comment

In Ukraine, the US is dragging us towards war with Russia

Washington's role in Ukraine, and its backing for the regime's neo-Nazis, has huge implications for the rest of the world

 

A pro-Russian activist with a shell casing and a US-made meal pack that fell from a Ukrainian army APC in an attack on a roadblock on 3 May in Andreevka, Ukraine. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty

Why do we tolerate the threat of another world war in our name? Why do we allow lies that justify this risk? The scale of our indoctrination, wrote Harold Pinter, is a "brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis", as if the truth "never happened even while it was happening".

Every year the American historian William Blum publishes his "updated summary of the record of US foreign policy" which shows that, since 1945, the US has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.

In many cases Britain has been a collaborator. The degree of human suffering, let alone criminality, is little acknowledged in the west, despite the presence of the world's most advanced communications and nominally most free journalism. That the most numerous victims of terrorism – "our" terrorism – are Muslims, is unsayable. That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was nurtured as a weapon of Anglo-American policy (Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan) is suppressed. In April the US state department noted that, following Nato's campaign in 2011, "Libya has become a terrorist safe haven".

The name of "our" enemy has changed over the years, from communism to Islamism, but generally it is any society independent of western power and occupying strategically useful or resource-rich territory, or merely offering an alternative to US domination. The leaders of these obstructive nations are usually violently shoved aside, such as the democrats Muhammad Mossedeq in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile, or they are murdered like Patrice Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo. All are subjected to a western media campaign of vilification – think Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, now Vladimir Putin.

Washington's role in Ukraine is different only in its implications for the rest of us. For the first time since the Reagan years, the US is threatening to take the world to war. With eastern Europe and the Balkans now military outposts of Nato, the last "buffer state" bordering Russia – Ukraine – is being torn apart by fascist forces unleashed by the US and the EU. We in the west are now backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.

Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.

But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.

Instead, Putin has confounded the war party by seeking an accommodation with Washington and the EU, by withdrawing Russian troops from the Ukrainian border and urging ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to abandon the weekend's provocative referendum. These Russian-speaking and bilingual people – a third of Ukraine's population – have long sought a democratic federation that reflects the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous of Kiev and independent of Moscow. Most are neither "separatists" nor "rebels", as the western media calls them, but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland.

Like the ruins of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine has been turned into a CIA theme park – run personally by CIA director John Brennan in Kiev, with dozens of "special units" from the CIA and FBI setting up a "security structure" that oversees savage attacks on those who opposed the February coup. Watch the videos, read the eye-witness reports from the massacre in Odessa this month. Bussed fascist thugs burned the trade union headquarters, killing 41 people trapped inside. Watch the police standing by.

A doctor described trying to rescue people, "but I was stopped by pro-Ukrainian Nazi radicals. One of them pushed me away rudely, promising that soon me and other Jews of Odessa are going to meet the same fate. What occurred yesterday didn't even take place during the fascist occupation in my town in world war two. I wonder, why the whole world is keeping silent." [see footnote]

Russian-speaking Ukrainians are fighting for survival. When Putin announced the withdrawal of Russian troops from the border, the Kiev junta's defence secretary, Andriy Parubiy – a founding member of the fascist Svoboda party – boasted that attacks on "insurgents" would continue. In Orwellian style, propaganda in the west has inverted this to Moscow "trying to orchestrate conflict and provocation", according to William Hague. His cynicism is matched by Obama's grotesque congratulations to the coup junta on its "remarkable restraint" after the Odessa massacre. The junta, says Obama, is "duly elected". As Henry Kissinger once said: "It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but what is perceived to be true."

In the US media the Odessa atrocity has been played down as "murky" and a "tragedy" in which "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) attacked "separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal damned the victims – "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Propaganda in Germany has been pure cold war, with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung warning its readers of Russia's "undeclared war". For the Germans, it is a poignant irony that Putin is the only leader to condemn the rise of fascism in 21st-century Europe.

A popular truism is that "the world changed" following 9/11. But what has changed? According to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a silent coup has taken place in Washington and rampant militarism now rules. The Pentagon currently runs "special operations" – secret wars – in 124 countries. At home, rising poverty and a loss of liberty are the historic corollary of a perpetual war state. Add the risk of nuclear war, and the question is: why do we tolerate this?

www.johnpilger.com

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger

They're lying about Ukraine, again: Primitive prejudice, stupidity and the reflexive compliance of the New York Times

We have had the full-frontal porn of an American subversion op, a coverup -- then the media's supine cooperation

Patrick L. Smith

Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin (Credit: AP/Evan Vucci)

However Ukrainians settle their drastic differences — and they can, providing all sides find the will to do so — a large and welcome consequence of this crisis falls to Americans. This is summed up in a single word. Ukraine gives us the gift of revelation.

We Americans are destined to discover who we are in this century, as opposed to who we tell ourselves and others we are. The great dodge of the American century, chiseled in granite with Woodrow Wilson's famous line, "The world must be made safe for democracy," will lose its power to propel. This was a fairly easy call long before the events of the past six months on Russia's southwest border. In Ukraine we start to see how this will occur, what forms it may take, and what we will find when we look.

I did not see this coming, to be honest. It was Victoria Nuland's famous-but-not-to-be-mentioned "'F' the EU" appearance on YouTube in February that turned things. We have since had full-frontal porn of an American subversion op, the ensuing coverup, then the media's supine cooperation in the coverup, then the full-frontal of everybody in the bedroom. Even the coverup is not covered up.

American-sponsored coups have flopped before, goodness knows. The list is long. But this failure takes us further than ever before up the creek that smells, in my view.

At writing, the provisional government in Kiev has reluctantly opened talks on decentralizing the Ukrainian political structure. Hardly was this in Washington's plan, but the Obama administration will nonetheless have considerable influence on the outcome in Ukraine as it backs out the gate it crashed, as I am convinced it will before this is over.

This is not my point. My concern is with what the Ukraine crisis has unexpectedly exposed: the bankruptcy of the story, the hollowness of the pose. To be revealed is the great collection of presuppositions, prejudices, presumptions, myths, representations and ideological beliefs that were the ink with which the American century narrative was written.

Good for Ukrainians, all of them in the end, that Washington's effort to install a crew of neoliberal puppets in Kiev has been disrupted. Good for everyone, including Americans, that the Ukraine crisis exposes so many of the defects in the prevalent American worldview. I may judge the moment too optimistically, but there seems no going back from this.

 

I have asserted previously in this space that Moscow's account of the Ukraine crisis is more coherent than Washington's. Each time, the argument provokes a certain shock-horror syndrome among many readers — and, of course, numerous accusations that the writer of such things must be a shill for the Russians, an FSB agent, a Putin groupie, and so on.

To be honest, I greatly enjoy advancing this view. First of all because it is true, and second because so many of my fellow Americans choke on it. The default position, name-calling, is a boring but common ruse in the American conversation, always an indication that there is no comeback other than to invoke beliefs as opposed to thoughts.

The question raised is what lies behind this. The core idea is that if the Russians say something or think it, it cannot be right and no one's thinking can credibly coincide with theirs. I see something important to learn here; something needing to be revealed.

I am always one for history, so let us begin there.

The first thing to consider is how "the West" came to be. The idea of the West as opposed to "the East" is as old as Herodotus, maybe older. But the West as a political notion is much younger. It dates to the 1840s. Peter the Great had started modernizing Russia and building an empire — in imitation of the Europeans — in the early 18th century. By the mid-19th century it was evident that the czars had made Russia a contending power.

Ponder this observation: "There are only two peoples now. Russia is still barbarous, but it is great. The other young nation is America. The future is there between these two great worlds. Someday they will collide, and then we shall see struggles of which the past can give no idea."

That is a French historian and critic named Charles Augustin Sainte–Beuve. He wrote the passage in 1847 — a prescient call, we have to say. Within a few years, French and German thinkers wanted Europe and the U.S. to make common cause by way of some form of alliance against the rising Russians. Out of this came the political West, and it is a straight line all the way up to NATO.

The West, then, evolved from a cultural distinction to a function — an operational entity, a mechanism — and was a reaction from the start. Westerners accustomed to civilizational supremacy were fearful of the arriving East.

The scholars call what emerged from this current in 19th century thinking a national character argument. You find these in lots of places, and in every case they are to be countered without mercy, for they are nothing but ignorant prejudice. Germany after the war got this treatment: The Germans did this because they are German and this is what Germans do. The Chinese deploy this as we speak: The Japanese did what they did to us in the war because they are Japanese.

Essentialism substitutes for politics and history: This is the trick of the national character crowd. It is excellent for marshaling popular emotion but altogether an indecent exercise. The French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." Now you know what I think of people who signed on for this one during the Bush II years.

The Russians came in for a national character argument as Western opinion evolved in the 19th century and then the 20th. Russia was quintessentially of the East, and the East was cast as Edward Said described in "Orientalism": autocratic, irrational, dark of motive, and so on more or less infinitely.

You can anticipate the next thought easily enough. Exactly 100 years before time, Sainte-Beuve described the Cold War. There was a practice run after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, and then the real thing as of 1947. (Amazing symmetry in these dates.) The Cold War was many things, but before it was anything else it was the consequence of intellectual habits formed a century earlier.

Plainly enough for anyone who lived it and suffered all the propaganda and rhetoric and appalling scholarship, the Cold War rested on a national character argument articulated with little inhibition — and no shame. Nothing Soviet was of any worth. All Soviet citizens suffered all the time. No Soviet market ever had enough on the shelves. Anything a Soviet apparatchik said was the very opposite of true. And never to be forgotten (my little fixation), Soviet officials always wore "ill-fitting suits." Had to be.

The Cold War ended in 1991, but only because the Soviet Union collapsed. The longer war, of which the Cold War decades were but an interim, went on. Russia was still Russia and Russia was still "the East" and all this had come to mean. The West proposed a partnership in the 1990s. As we can see now more plainly, this was impossible from the first in that the West would continue to insist on a divided world, West and East, as soon as it became clear "partnership" would have to mean more than a capitulation of all history and culture on the Russians' part.

This is why I take revelation as my topic. Most of us think we look at the Ukraine crisis, listen to our leaders, read our newspapers, and draw informed conclusions. Missed altogether is that we are merely taking our place in the long story. There is nothing in orthodox thinking, or in most people's views, that departs from the burdensome inheritance. (And part of the inheritance is not understanding that it is inherited and is a burden.)

All is in place. The West is the light side of the moon, Russia the dark. Russia has aggressed in Ukraine: We have no evidence but it must have, as this is what Russians do. If Putin says it, it has to be wrong: Russian autocrats are never right or truthful.

No Ukrainian could possibly want to live within the dense weave of his or her historic ties with Russia. This last is an assault on the American sensibility. The American inheritance makes this information indigestible, foreign food. So the Russians must be pulling the strings, manipulating millions of minds as they always do.

Here, just one example.

Last week, Vladimir Putin publicly urged those in revolt against the provisional government in Kiev to step back from their planned referendums on their future arrangements with Kiev. How did the New York Times report this? "It remains unclear what Mr. Putin's motives were for suggesting the delay," its correspondent in eastern Ukraine told us in Sunday's editions.

The baggage of primitive prejudice brings us to stupidity. It is the only way to explain this sentence. It could not be that Putin urged a delay because he thought it best and wanted one. Never, with a Russian, do you get what you see. Never is what is said meant.

The American orthodoxy on the Ukraine question is suffused with this kind of thing. It is irrationality masquerading as high-end rationality. And irrational minds are not equipped to judge.

This is what Ukraine reveals for us. We have a long tradition to overcome. As I have argued elsewhere, among our 21st century tasks is to cross divides, to remake our relations with "the Other" in all manifestations, to advance beyond old conceptions of "the West" and "the East," to take a divided world as being of the past but not the future.

With the Ukraine crisis as our point of revelation, we are not very far along, are we? In essence Washington has reverted to type, failing to register that this will no longer do. Simply on a practical plane, do American policy cliques seriously think Europe and the rest of the world will take more than a brief, altogether expedient interest in any prolonged attempt to isolate Russia? Out of the question.

Washington's refusal to acknowledge its role in the Ukraine crisis grows more remarkable by the day. A great game of pretend persists, in the face of pretty good dissemination of many facts. In keeping with the retro character of the strategy, Washington relies on 1950s-era credulousness to sell its story to Americans. But this willing suspension of disbelief common during the Cold War is no longer so reliable. We have the history this time, and the evidence of the history.

It is not encouraging, this stubborn adherence to the plainly untrue. I read it as Washington's way of deflecting all that Ukraine shows us about ourselves. I also read it as evidence of a profound lack of imagination within the American leadership. No capacity among them to move on from what once was.

It is a truism that self-discovery is never easily achieved. But in this case there is no choice. History's wheel will force this upon us Americans. We will have to come to terms with who we are and what we do if we are not to fall behind, if we are to avoid other Ukraines. It is doubtful other nations will have the patience or the stomachs for other Ukraines. This one has cost us, in my view, and more of them will cost us more.

Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/15/theyre_lying_about_ukraine_again_primitive_prejudice_stupidity_and_the_reflexive_compliance_of_the_new_york_times/

Russia's Lavrov Says Ukraine `Close to Civil War' - VIDEO

Russia's Lavrov Says Ukraine `Close to Civil War'

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov talks about the prospect of a civil war in Ukraine. He speaks with Bloomberg Television's Ryan Chilcote in Moscow. (Excerpt. Source: Bloomberg)

                                                                                                                                                                                

VIDEO….

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/ukraine-as-close-to-civil-war-as-possible-lavrov-Mxqx9qdZR8OCC1fmUTGbyA.html

 

 

WP: Ukraine needs Russia and the West

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Opinion Writer

Ukraine needs Russia and the West

(Yannis Behrakis/Reuters) - An armoured fighting vehicle with pro-Russian rebels patrols in the streets of the eastern Ukrainian city of Slaviansk on Monday evening.

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Published: May 13

Violence in Ukraine is spreading. The Ukrainian military and police are splitting apart, a reflection of the fissures in that deeply divided country. Pro-Russian separatists are taking over government buildings and police stations in eastern Ukraine. Pro-government mobs have burned protesters alive. The referenda on self-rule cobbled together by pro-Russian movements in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions deepens the divisions. Zealots on both sides could drive the country into a bloody and destructive civil war.

The United States has no direct national security interests at stake in Ukraine, but we do have an interest in a united and functional Ukraine that has stable relations with its European Union neighbors to the west and with Russia to the east. And the United States surely wants to forestall a crisis that could disintegrate into civil war, economic collapse and chaos, possibly destabilizing a weak European economy.

But if the United States is to help stabilize Ukraine and prevent a much larger European crisis, then the American political establishment and much of the mainstream media will need a sober reassessment of reality.

U.S. actions over the past several months have defied common sense. Given the deep divisions in Ukrainian society and the vital interest Russia has in the country, it was a provocative step for the United States to immediately and unconditionally recognize as legitimate the government erected out of violent protests and in violation of the negotiated agreement for a peaceful transition. And it makes no sense to treat Russia's actions as an existential threat to the post-war international order, given that the West needs Russian cooperation to stabilize Ukraine both politically and financially.

Not only have the media and political class egged on the administration in a rash and destructive foreign policy, but the debate, shamefully inadequate as it has been, has had an Alice in Wonderland quality to it. Voices across the political spectrum have scorned the president as weak, fulminating about forceful action while forswearing any use of U.S. military forces, knowing the American people had no appetite for another conflict on the other side of the world.

Leaks from the White House to the New York Times suggest that Russia must be treated as a "pariah nation," in an updated form of Cold War containment. This would require isolating the sixth-largest economy in the world, one that supplies Europe with more than a quarter of its oil and gas and has growing ties with emerging powers, including China and India. The only way to sell that to Americans — much less the Europeans — would be to repeat the Dean Acheson formula at the beginning of the Cold War of painting the threat "clearer than truth." Action to deal with the crisis is vital before events on the ground get farther out of hand.

The first step is a return to common sense about basic reality. Ukraine is and has been a deeply divided country. Roughly half of the country looks west to Europe, and roughly half looks east to Russia for help.

Russia views its border with Ukraine as vital to its security. Neither the United States nor its European allies will go to war with Russia to defend Ukraine. Nor will they endlessly support Kiev financially or cover its energy bill. Inevitably, the country, if it is to survive, will have to find a way to coexist with Russia.

After the chaotic autonomy votes of this past weekend, negotiation could be the sole path to prevent Ukraine's disintegration. It is vital now to do what can be done to defuse the crisis on the ground and move to a broader, comprehensive settlement. German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposal for a multi-party roundtable to work out the details of such a plan was almost immediately supported by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin (in his barely reported statement on May 6). It is critical that the United States add its clear support for constructive steps forward.

The parameters of an acceptable outcome are clear and have, in essence, been agreed upon by the United States, Russia and the Ukraine authorities in the Geneva Declaration of April 17, updated by Merkel's "roundtable." Together these two measures call for all parties to disarm, while convening a national dialogue to consider a new constitutional arrangement that will provide for greater regional autonomy. The authorities in Kiev agree that regional authority is vital for the country to have any hope of cleaning out the corruption that has impoverished it. The premature presidential election scheduled for the end of May will be contested in much of eastern Ukraine. Hopefully, whoever emerges in the election will support the roundtable leading to constitutional reforms; that would provide the basis for nationwide agreement on new elections to create a legitimate national government. International bodies such as the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe could provide the space for the national dialogue.

A constitutional settlement inside Ukraine will solve nothing if the country remains a pawn in U.S.-Russian jockeying. Here, the bipartisan establishment dream of extending NATO to Russia's borders needs to be abandoned. Instead, the West should accept that Ukraine will remain independent of NATO, while Russia accepts that it will remain a unified independent country. Similarly, the European Union should abandon the effort to force Ukraine to choose between Russia and Europe. Instead, the E.U. should embrace the compromise put forward by Moscow that Ukraine should be part of both the European market and the Russian customs federation. If the country has any chance of recovery, assistance from both Russia and the West will be needed.

This outcome will be possible only if common sense can find some traction in Washington and in media coverage of the crisis. The United States needs to get over its post-Cold War triumphalism: It has neither the resources nor the mandate to "police" the world. Countries such as Ukraine need to find their own way to protect their independence while recognizing the reality of living with powerful neighbors. The United States, its allies and global institutions and opinion can help make those arrangements more or less stable. But we should be wary of risking the lives of others to fulfill the fantasies of those blind to the limits of our power or our military.

Read more from Katrina vanden Heuvel's archive or follow her on Twitter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-ukraine-needs-russia-and-the-west/2014/05/13/1f269790-da19-11e3-bda1-9b46b2066796_story.html

EU and NATO hypocrisy on Ukraine

 

May 9-11, 2014 -- EU and NATO hypocrisy on Ukraine Previous | Next   May 9-11, 2014 -- EU and NATO hypocrisy on Ukraine In one of the most blatant displays of hypocrisy in modern international affairs, the same state, supranational, and non-governmental organization actors who stood at the forefront of splitting apart Yugoslavia into seven smaller independent states are also standing at the helm in calling for the preservation of the unity of Ukraine. These players include the European Union, NATO, and the World Bank/International Monetary Fund, in addition to the United States, Britain, Germany, and organizations like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In fact, the OSCE expelled Yugoslavia from membership in 1992 because it did not want to listen to the Yugoslavian representative present his nation's views on the planned dismemberment of his country to the other OSCE delegations. The contradictions of how the OSCE treated Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and how it is dealing with Russia, Crimea, and the independence-seeking Russian-speaking regions of eastern and southern Ukraine serve as textbook examples of Western hypocritical policies. In the 1990s, the OSCE, which was already infiltrated by George Soros operatives, championed the independence of the constituent nations of Yugoslavia, starting with Slovenia and Croatia, and then moving into the country that would spark a bloodbath: Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the OSCE, the EU, and NATO performed their nation-busting, Yugoslavia was broken into seven nations: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia. The European "Triune" of the EU, NATO, and the OSCE, however, has vigorously opposed the retrocession of Crimea to Russia and declarations of sovereignty by Donetsk, Lugansk, and Odessa in Ukraine even though these regions have more of a claim to self-determination than did the NATO and EU creation of Kosovo, an Albanian-run statelet in the middle of the Balkans led by organized crime figures and terrorists. The EU and the United States maintain that any change in Ukrainian borders must be approved by a national referendum held in all of Ukraine. Yet, no national referendum on the preservation of Yugoslavia was ever held. NATO and the EU supported the various breakaway republics of "South Slavia," without any regard to the wishes of the Yugoslav people as a whole.  When Serbs, who found themselves trapped in the newly-independent countries of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, declared their wish for self-determination, they were branded "secessionists" and then "war criminals." In this regard, NATO and the EU treated the Serbs living outside of Serbia proper in the same manner as the moribund and corrupt Western organizations are treating the Russians trapped inside a Ukraine governed by a coalition of neo-Nazis and austerity-driven technocrats. NATO and the EU were more than happy to have ethnic Serbs have their future determined by the ideological descendants of the pro-Nazi Ustashe in Croatia and the pro-Hitler Bosniak Muslims running Bosnia from Sarajevo. The situation for the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia was no different than that which has befallen ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians in eastern and southern Ukraine. In both the cases of Yugoslavia and Ukraine, the EU, NATO, Soros's organizations, and the neoconservative think tanks in Washington allied with ethnic nationalists tainted with a neo-Nazi hue. Xenophobic anti-Russian attitudes, which now pervade the governments in Berlin, Washington, London, and eastern Europe, were also prevalent in these same capitals in the early 1990s. Johann Reismuller, the editor of the influential Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, championed the cause of independent Croatia and Slovenia by deploring the "Yugo-Serbs" as "Russian Bolsheviks" who had no place in the European Union. Today, individuals like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, have brought their respective Polish Catholic and Jewish Czech "baggage" to bear on steering U.S. policy on a decidedly anti-Russian course. Brzezinski, Albright, and Kerry have adopted Russophobia as a hallmark of American foreign policy in the same manner as they embraced "Serbophobia" as U.S. foreign policy in the 1990s. The only difference is that where they championed the dissolution of Yugoslavia they now seek to maintain the unity of Ukraine. In both cases, they sought to tweak the nose of the Russian bear.  The Slavophobe, Serbophobe, and Russophobe Hungarian Jew George Soros (left) has been at the heart of the troubles of Yugoslavia and Ukraine. Hungarians are not a Slavic people. The progressive left has been co-opted by the Soros gang to demonize Russia just as they were co-opted to paint Serbia as some sort of evil aggressor. Condemning Serbs in the Bundestag, German Green leader Joschka Fischer equated Serbs with the German Nazis. It has been reported from a number of sources that Fischer, a radical leftist friend of German radical and "Paris 68" provocateur Daniel Cohn-Bendit, both had Cold War links to the CIA. Green Party leader Petra Kelly considered Fischer to be an "upstart" and a "careerist." The question remains: What organization provided Fischer with his lifetime career? Perhaps the same one that provided Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the poseur "progressive," with his own storied career. The fact that the CIA and Soros were covering all bases in Europe in seeking the dismemberment of Yugoslavia is evidenced by the fact that independence for Croatia and Slovenia was supported by Fischer on one side and the octogenarian Otto von Habsburg, the heir to the crown of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, when the CIA is involved in anything, strange bedfellows are always commonplace. The use of Pussy Riot "feminists" like Nadya Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, recently feted by the U.S. Senate, is nothing new. During the campaign to break up Yugoslavia, public relations spinners like the Ruder Finn public relations firm, contracted by Croatia, successfully marketed the meme to the international press that Serbs were running "rape camps." The intent was to stir feminist outrage toward Serbia. The story of rape camps was patently false but, was nevertheless, run as a legitimate news story by The New York Times and Newsday. CNN's Christiane Amanpour echoed other propagandists in the news media in reporting non-existent Serbian "atrocities" against "defenseless" Muslim Bosnians. In fact, CNN never reported that the Bosnian Muslims were well-armed. The CIA enabled a number of Arab and other Muslim paramilitary units to enter Bosnia to support the Muslim government in Sarajevo. These paramilitary units included one led by one Osama Bin Laden who moved in and out of Bosnia on a Bosnian diplomatic passport issued, with the approval of the CIA, by the Bosnian embassy in Vienna. Another Muslim paramilitary leader in Bosnia was one Colonel Mohammed Atta of the Egyptian Air Force. Today, there are reports that takfiri fighters, some linked to Al Qaeda, are being sent into Ukraine from Syria to help the Kiev government fight the Russian secessionists in the east. There are also reports of Chechen terrorist groups arriving in Ukraine to fight the Russians. Likewise, Jewish-American groups were targeted in a campaign that painted the Serbs as Nazis. Leading Jewish neocons like Richard Perle and Douglas Feith set up the "Bosnia Defense Fund" to funnel millions of donated dollars from Qatar, Brunei, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia to the Bosnian government based on the so-called "Muslim cleansing" threat posed by Serbia. The final nail in the coffin of Yugoslavia was brought about by the International Criminal Court, an institution which the United States rejects having jurisdiction over its own affairs, but is systematically used by Washington to carry out its political agendas. The indictments for war crimes destroyed any chance that any Yugoslav leader, including Slobodan Milosevic, who suspiciously died while in custody of the ICC in The Hague in 2006, could ever maintain political power. Now, the ICC has stated that it is looking at possible criminal indictments of pro-Russian Ukrainian and Crimean leaders, as well as the leadership of the Kremlin itself. Like the OSCE, the ICC is jam-packed with Soros operatives.

__._,_.___

 

__,_._,___

Brzezinski endorses arming Ukrainian junta, to no avail

Brzezinski endorses arming Ukrainian junta, to no avail

© Collage: Voice of Russia

The situation in Ukraine is on the verge of spiralling out of complete control, especially now that the junta's military and Pravy Sector irregulars are deployed against the citizens of the Southeast. The US is bunkering down in its support of the coup-imposed Ukrainian authorities with a renewed round of sanctions against Russia and Congressional chatter about arming the Ukrainian forces.

Among the strongest advocates of American aggression is former National Security Advisor and influential policy activist Zbigniew Brzezinski (incidentally, the strategic founder of the Mujahedeen), who in a recent article argues that the US needs to step up its military commitment to Ukraine. What is most striking, however, is that Brzezinski's attempts to paint Russia in a negative light betray a self-conscious guilt on the part of the American ruling establishment. As such, Brzezinski's latest blather into public diplomacy should be seen as nothing more than the thinly disguised psy-op that it is.

Most news reports on Brzezinski's piece focus on his suggestion to arm the Ukrainian military (and by implicit understanding, the Neo-Nazi Pravy Sector forces now aligned with them) in order to create a type of guerrilla insurgency to sabotage any Russian peace and stabilization intervention in the beleaguered Southeast. This plan for proxy warfare reeks of the stench of 1980s Afghanistan, when the US (guided by Brzezinski) worked to trick the Soviets into a quagmire. A simple substitution shows that the US has a simple plan for copying this template into 2014 Ukraine. Whereas the Afghans had Stinger missiles, rural battlegrounds, and CIA-trained organization, the Ukrainians are envisioned to have hand-held rockets and anti-tank missiles, an urban battleground, and, like the Afghans, CIA organization as well. It's the same trick being played on the same audience, but this time the trickster himself is the fool. 

Nowhere is this seen more explicitly than in Brzezinski's plea for Obama to present a "comprehensive statement of what is really at stake". A point for point response as viewed by the Rest (non-West) follows: 

Brzezinski: Why we are facing this problem? 

Rest: There has been an explosion of Western-organized covert activity all across the world (Color Revolutions, "Arab Spring"), dangerously culminating on Russia's doorstep. Brzezinski's Arc of Crisis and Eurasian Balkans policy have leaped from the Mideast to Eastern Europe in order to separate Russia from Ukraine. Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" that keeping Ukraine away from Russia is absolutely necessary to prevent Russia from restoring an "empire". This line of thinking fulfils Hillary Clinton's threat of "figure[ing] out effective ways to slow down or prevent [the Eurasian Union]". 

Brzezinski: Why it is in our common interest to resolve it? 

Rest: Nobody in Eurasia wants to see the Eurasian Balkans project succeed, because if it does, then a bloody divide and rule policy will conquer the supercontinent. 

Brzezinski: Why, if negotiation does not work out, (do) we have an obligation to help Ukraine? 

Rest: The entire world has an obligation to help the people of Ukraine, just not the junta. Color Revolutions and their spawn must be eradicated at the root, otherwise their non-state actor infrastructure will spread like weeds throughout the Eurasian lawn and choke out other Resistant and Defiant (R&D) States. 

Brzezinski: Above all, the president must clarify why we cannot tolerate an international system in which countries are invaded by thugs and destabilized from abroad. 

Rest: This is exactly what President Putin and the Russian Federation have been doing for years, and Putin most recently referred to the threat of Color Revolutions in his speech announcing the reunification of Crimea with Russia. Thugs have turned Libya into a "scumbag Woodstock", and they have been fighting for over three years to overthrow the popular secular government of Syria and replace it with an extreme Islamic dictatorship. Both are exported from abroad, and the US has now set its shadowy sights on Ukraine.

Brzezinski: And why this is a common responsibility not just for us but for our allies and other friends like the Chinese, whose stake in stability should be as great as ours. 

Rest: China most certainly has a stake in Eastern European stability, so much so that it has just announced its cooperation in linking Crimea to mainland Russia. 

The Rest understands the trick being played by the West, and they are not falling for the same games anymore. This is why Brzezinski implores Obama to address the American people, not the world, in pushing for an escalation of the crisis by arming the Ukrainian junta. It's a lost cause to try to sell the same old shtick to a global non-Western audience that is becoming more politically and economically empowered with each passing year. And interestingly enough, it may even be a sign of desperation for Obama to so explicitly address his American subjects on this topic. After all, at the end of March, 46 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Obama was handling the Ukrainian Crisis. Western pundits may spin this as meaning that the public wants Obama to "get tough" on the issue, but the opposite may be true. One needs look no further for evidence of the US population's weariness for warfare than the extreme unpopularity that a US strike on Syria last year, to say nothing of taking measures that could theoretically push Russia and the US to nuclear brinksmanship. 

The ultimate irony behind Brzezinski's piece is it is he who engineered this entire Ukrainian destabilization strategy through the theories advocated in "The Grand Chessboard". It is not realistic that he, of all people, would suddenly turn into a dove after his policy has seen relative success in disrupting Russia's foreign policy with its largest Eastern European neighbor. Taken from this obvious perspective, his article and its "peaceful" recommendations (a trilateral economic framework) should be taken with a grain of salt. Cursory research would indicate that it was first Russia, not Brzezinski, who thought of the trilateral idea, although this was flatly rejected at the time. 

Additionally, while using Turkey's 50+ years of trying to join the EU as some type of assurance that Ukraine would not immediately be gobbled up into the Union, Brzezinski conveniently omits the blinding speed that Brussels surged East into relatively poor and politically dysfunctional Bulgaria and Romania, to say nothing of formerly war-torn Croatia's ascension last year. The ease with which he mentions "vulnerable NATO countries" shows that he takes for granted these countries' membership in NATO in the first place, which itself clearly violates the agreement not to expand the alliance eastward after the Cold War. With these basic facts in mind, one can rightly (for once!) channel John Kerry and describe Brzezinski as the real "propaganda bullhorn" of the Ukrainian Crisis.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_05_09/Brzezinski-endorses-arming-Ukrainian-junta-to-no-avail-3995/

 

 

 

__,_._,___