Canada criticized for ‘unconditional’ Israel support

Canada criticized for 'unconditional' Israel support

1. Home
2. Americas
3. More

Sat Feb 7, 2015 11:12AM

 

Canadian Premier Stephen Harper (R) along with Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu (L)

•  

A Palestinian civil society coalition has slammed Canada's "unconditional" support for Israel, saying the Ottawa government is complicit in the Tel Aviv regime's occupation and aggression against Palestinians.

In a report published on by online the Electronic Intifada on Friday, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) said Canada is escalating its "disinformation campaign and repressive measures" against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The BNC criticized a vow made by Canadian public safety minister, Steven Blaney, last month that Ottawa would continue to combat "anti-Semitism."

"Rather than seeking to hold Israel to account for its war crimes during the recent military assault on Gaza and its intensified colonization of the occupied West Bank," the Canadian government "is further deepening its collaboration with Israel's occupation and launching a shameful, propagandistic attack on free speech in the process," said Rafeef Ziadah, a member of the BNC secretariat.

The BNC also condemned recent deals signed between Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and the Israeli regime.

Ziadah said the Harper government's "continued unconditional support for Israel's colonial policies and its smear campaign against BDS" reveals the "deeply ideological and reactionary character of this government."

The activist added that Ottawa "is sending Israel the message that it can act with total impunity in violating human rights and international law."

Canada suppressing free speech

The Palestinian coalition further criticized Canada for muzzling critics and suppressing the rights of its own civil groups.

Ziadah noted that "while claiming to defend free speech" Canada has been "among the most repressive in the west; it has gone farther than most in suppressing free speech and infringing the rights of its own civil society, including trade unions, community and faith groups, to participate in human rights campaigning, as in boycotts against Israel's injustices."

The BDS campaign is part of international efforts to pressure Tel Aviv to stop aggression against Palestinians, including illegal constructions in the occupied Palestinian territory and an ongoing assault against Gaza.

CAH/MKA

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/07/396546/Canada-slammed-for-supporting-Israel

Kosovo: Set the Trojan Horse on Fire

Dispatch

Set the Trojan Horse on Fire

As Serbian influence creeps back into Kosovo, protests have rocked the young nation -- and may bring its government to a grinding halt.

• By Valerie Hopkins
• February 4, 2015
•  
• 

PRISTINA, Kosovo — This is the winter of discontent in Kosovo. The lingering euphoria over independence in 2008 has given way to frustration with economic stagnation and political squabbling. Unemployment sits at 45 percent, and an estimated 500,000 of Kosovo's 1.8 million citizens — the vast majority of whom are ethnic Albanians — live on less than $2 a day. On Jan. 24 and Jan. 27, some 15,000 Kosovars took to the streets to protest corruption and poverty. But they also wanted to register their frustration with what they see as the outsized role Serbia still plays in the country more than 15 years after a war fought so that Kosovo could secede from its larger neighbor.

The protests were sparked by Aleksandar Jablanovic, an ethnic Serb minister in Kosovo's government, who called members of an ethnic Albanian association of war victims "savages" after they blocked the path of ethnic Serb pilgrims who were trying to celebrate Orthodox Christmas. The area where the pilgrims were traveling saw some of the strongest fighting in the 1998-1999 Kosovo War, and thousands of people from the region remain missing. Adding fuel to the fire, Jablanovic later publicly questioned the well-documented record of war crimes committed by Serbian forces, saying he "didn't know" whether they had occurred.

Shortly thereafter, Kosovo's recently installed prime minister backtracked on a plan to nationalize Trepca, a mine rich in zinc, silver, and lead, in the face of opposition from Serbia, which also has a claim to Trepca because Belgrade managed it during Yugoslavia's final years. The decision was seen as a blow to both the economic prospects and the national pride of Kosovo's Albanians.

"We're protesting against the general situation in the country, both economic and social, but also against the statements made by Jablanovic and for the protection of Trepca," protester Latif Selmani, 48, a salesman, said at the Jan. 27 protest. "Shame on the government for allowing the honor of the war martyrs to be desecrated," said Drita Berisha, a nurse. "We want the removal of Jablanovic!"

One hundred seventy people were injured on the second day of unrest as protesters threw rocks at the building housing the prime minister's cabinet and the Foreign Ministry. Police responded with tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets.

The scene reminded many of the massive protests of the 1980s and 1990s against the regime of Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic.

The scene reminded many of the massive protests of the 1980s and 1990s against the regime of Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. The recent protests, which occupied the center of Pristina, Kosovo's capital, represent the worst unrest since Kosovo declared independence seven years ago.

Kosovo is Europe's greatest experiment in post-World War II state-building. After the war ended in 1999, the country was administered by the United Nations until a unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008. Then, the European Union deployed its most expensive mission to date on the continent — the EU Rule of Law Mission — to run Kosovo's judicial system and oversee its rule of law. Until 2012, the tiny country remained supervised by an international diplomat. To date, it has been officially recognized by 110 countries, but tensions with Serbia, which argues vociferously that Kosovo remains within its sovereign borders, still run high.

In April 2013, Kosovo and Serbia signed an agreement, brokered by the European Union, that would finally put four northern municipalities, which seek unification with Serbia, under Pristina's control. Recently, Serbia received, via another Brussels-brokered deal that falls under the 2013 agreement, a renewed role in running Kosovo. (Kosovo and Serbia are in ongoing negotiations with the EU about their relations, and talks on implementation of the 2013 agreement are set to resume on Feb. 9 after a 10-month hiatus.) Kosovo's four northern municipalities, which are predominantly Serbian, participated in the country's elections for the first time, sending representatives whose allegiance remains with Belgrade to the central government in Pristina — and thus effectively giving Serbia a voice in Kosovo's administration.

The development has made the normalization of relations between the two countries — a key requirement for EU accession for both — highly unpopular in Kosovo. Pristina-based political analyst Leon Malazogu said Kosovars are losing hope of true independence. "As long as there is Brussels, and dialogue open, you can swallow it for a while, but … I don't think Kosovo has done all this to go from being a province of Serbia to a colony."

The agreement has also added fuel to the mission of Serbian List, a political party founded last year in Kosovo that refuses to recognize statehood. Supported by Belgrade and led by Jablanovic, the party won several municipal and national seats in elections last summer thanks to the ethnic Serb vote in Kosovo's north; members also hold ministerial positions, including the role of deputy prime minister.

Serbian List's presence in the government has spurred, in turn, a backlash all its own: Many ethnic Albanians are angry that they now have government ministers supportive of — and supported by — Belgrade, and they believe that Kosovo's government is kowtowing to Serbia in EU talks. "People have started to realize that with this never-ending dialogue with Serbia, Kosovo is just becoming worse and worse," said Visar Ymeri, a leader in the opposition party Vetevendosje ("Self-Determination"), the primary organizer of the recent protests.

Vetevendosje, considered a radical movement by many Western embassies because of its protest tactics, is against the Brussels-mediated dialogue and advocates closing the northern border with Serbia until Belgrade gives Kosovo full recognition. With echoes of Greece's Syriza party, Vetevendosje has rejected the meddling of big Western powers in Kosovo, opposing independence with international oversight and raising concerns over murky business dealings with Western corporations. Despite having placed third in national elections last year, its opposition to dialogue with Serbia, which has yet to bear much fruit for ordinary Kosovars, has contributed to its rising popular approval. And as anger over Serbian List grows, Vetevendosje's base has extended to older, more traditional voters. One of its key functionaries recently became mayor of Pristina.

"Serbian List is directly tied to the politics of [Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic's] Serbian Progressive Party," said Pristina-based political analyst Belul Beqaj. "It plays the role of the Trojan horse in the Kosovar political scene."

Jablanovic's "savages" remark gave an uncertain and scared population exactly what it feared — and expected — from the new party. If his remark was the spark, the announcement that Prime Minister Isa Mustafa was backtracking on a plan to nationalize the Trepca mine was the wind that stoked the fire.

Trepca is a rambling complex of 40 mines, including a few minor sites in Serbia; its deposits could be worth 10 billion euros, according to Kosovo's Independent Commission for Mines and Minerals. The mine is also steeped in the history of Kosovo's struggle for independence. Disputes over Trepca in 1989 resulted in 1,000 employees striking in pursuit of more autonomy for Kosovo, one of the first episodes of unrest as Yugoslavia began to unravel. "Yugoslavia started falling apart in those mines," said Beqaj, emphasizing the sentimental connection both Serbs and Kosovars have with Trepca.

The mine has floundered in the postwar era due to ownership disputes between Kosovo and Serbia and a lack of investment. It is a source of tension because both Pristina and Belgrade lay claim to it. Trepca's operational center is in the divided northern city of Mitrovica — Serbs live on one side of a bridge, Albanians on the other — and the mine remains one of the most potent symbols of Kosovo's schisms. Nationalization, many of Kosovars believe, would symbolize Pristina's power to counter Serbian economic and political influence.

Like the protests at Trepca in the 1980s, the unrest today "could serve as a catalyst for re-examination" of contemporary policies, Beqaj said.

Nenad Rasic, a Serb who recognizes Kosovo as his country and served in the last government as minister of labor and social welfare, said he worries that, because of the protests, ethnic relations will worsen and there may be a renewed flight of Serbs from the country. "For the first time, I am not optimistic for the maintenance of the Serb community in Kosovo," he said. Malazogu, the Pristina-based political analyst, shares his concern.

"We haven't seen retribution. Thankfully, no Serb has been attacked," he said. "But the climate will deteriorate."

"We haven't seen retribution. Thankfully, no Serb has been attacked," he said. "But the climate will deteriorate."

Vetevendosje delivered an ultimatum to Prime Minister Mustafa to dismiss Jablanovic by the afternoon of Tuesday, Feb. 3, or else a planned 48-hour protest would go ahead starting Wednesday. The minister was fired Tuesday, but he intimated that there would be trouble: "The Serbian List did not enter the government so it could consider the requests and stances of Vetevendosje," said Jablanovic, vowing that his party would respond after a consultation with the Serbian prime minister, on Thursday. The party may decide to leave the governing coalition, which could handicap Mustafa's ability to lead.

Ousting Jablanovic also didn't quell the anger that Vetevendosje has harnessed. Following his dismissal, the party said that the protests, while momentarily postponed, will ultimately continue until Serbia relinquishes its claim to Trepca. "Serbia's requests for Kosovo are never-ending," said Ymeri. "There must be a stopping point. Otherwise, we are not going to be an independent country."

Una Hajdari contributed reporting.

 

Holocaust commemoration marred by political posturing

Published time: January 27, 2015 09:45
Edited time: January 27, 2015 16:47

Get short URL

 

Oswiecim January 26, 2015 (Reuters / Laszlo Balogh)

Tags

Conflict, History, Politics

Many nations on Tuesday are commemorating the crimes of the Holocaust by Nazi Germany. An international gathering at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland is missing the leader of the nation, whose predecessor liberated its prisoners 70 years ago.

The event is being attended by 12 presidents, five prime ministers some 300 survivors of the camp, where more than 1.4 million people, most of them European Jews, were killed over five years of Nazi rule.

This year's commemoration of the Holocaust tragedy is of special significance, since it's likely to be the last major anniversary which most survivors will be able to attend. The youngest ex-prisoners of the death camp are now in their 70s.

Speaking on the eve of the anniversary, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stressed that Auschwitz is a reminder of where the path of hatred can lead to.

"Tomorrow is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau camp by Soviet troops," she said. "Today the word 'Auschwitz' is a synonym for a mechanism of mass persecution and murder used by the national-socialists."

 

"We Germans feel great shame for what happened. Germans are guilty of the suffering and the deaths of millions of people, and some Germans tolerated it. We don't want to hear slogans full of hatred against people who are believers or believe in different religions," the German leader added.

Merkel's speech blasted forces in Germany supporting the self-styled 'anti-Islamization' movement PEGIDA, thousands of members of which march in several German cities every week. The movement poses itself as countering hostile immigrants defying the German way of life. Many German politicians see them as xenophobic and leaning to an ideology not unlike that of the Nazis.

 

A survivor of the former German Nazi concentration and extermination camp Auschwitz reacts as he visits the camp in Oswiecim January 26, 2015 (Reuters / Laszlo Balogh)

The meeting of foreign dignitaries in Poland is marred by the political crisis which plunged relations between Russia and Western nations to their worst point since the Cold War. Poland chose not to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to Auschwitz in an apparent political move to highlight his position.

http://rt.com/news/226543-poland-auschwitz-commemoration-putin/

's invitation is awaiting your response

would like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond? Confirm you know You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn

Hi mika123., I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Miroslav Confirm that you know Miroslav Miroslav Antić Nuclear Operator at Ontario Power Generation Ontario, Canada You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe This email was intended for mika123. serbian. Learn why we included this. If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.

Inside Obama's Secret Outreach to Russia

3252 Dec 31, 2014 10:59 AM EST

By Josh Rogin

President Barack Obama's administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.

This month, Obama's National Security Council finished an extensive and comprehensive review of U.S policy toward Russia that included dozens of meetings and input from the State Department, Defense Department and several other agencies, according to three senior administration officials. At the end of the sometimes-contentious process, Obama made a decision to continue to look for ways to work with Russia on a host of bilateral and international issues while also offering Putin a way out of the stalemate over the crisis in Ukraine.

"I don't think that anybody at this point is under the impression that a wholesale reset of our relationship is possible at this time, but we might as well test out what they are actually willing to do," a senior administration official told me. "Our theory of this all along has been, let's see what's there. Regardless of the likelihood of success."

Leading the charge has been Secretary of State John Kerry. This fall, Kerry even proposed going to Moscow and meeting with Putin directly. The negotiations over Kerry's trip got to the point of scheduling, but ultimately were scuttled because there was little prospect of demonstrable progress.

In a separate attempt at outreach, the White House turned to an old friend of Putin's for help. The White House called on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to discuss having him call Putin directly, according to two officials. It's unclear whether Kissinger actually made the call. The White House and Kissinger both refused to comment for this column.

Kerry has been the point man on dealing with Russia because his close relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represents the last remaining functional diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow. They meet often, often without any staff members present, and talk on the phone regularly. Obama and Putin, on the other hand, are known to have an intense dislike for each other and very rarely speak.

In several conversations with Lavrov, Kerry has floated an offer to Russia that would pave the way for a partial release of some of the most onerous economic sanctions. Kerry's conditions included Russia adhering to September's Minsk agreement and ceasing direct military support for the Ukrainian separatists. The issue of Crimea would be set aside for the time being, and some of the initial sanctions that were put in place after Crimea's annexation would be kept in place.

"We are willing to isolate the issues of Donetsk and Luhansk from the issue of Crimea," another senior administration official told me, naming two regions in Eastern Ukraine under separatist control. "If there was a settlement on Donetsk and Luhansk, there could be a removal of some sanctions while maintaining sanctions with regard to Crimea. That represents a way forward for Putin."

Meanwhile, Kerry has been proposing increased U.S.-Russian cooperation on a wide range of international issues. Earlier this month, he invited Lavrov to a last-minute diplomatic confab in Rome to discuss the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After one meeting with Lavrov in Paris in October, Kerry announced that he had discussed potential U.S.-Russian cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Yemen. But the apparent warming was overshadowed by Lavrov's quick denial of Kerry's claim that Russia had agreed to assist in the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State in Iraq.

Kerry has seemed more enthusiastic about mending ties with Russia than Obama himself. After the president gave a blistering critique of Russian behavior in a major United Nations speech, saying that "Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition," Kerry urged Lavrov to ignore his boss's remarks, according to Lavrov. "Kerry said we have so many serious things to discuss that of course that was unfortunate, let's not focus on that," Lavrov told Russian reporters.

State Department officials insist that Kerry is clear-eyed about the challenges of trying to work with Russia, but that he believes there is no other responsible option than to see what can be accomplished.

"Secretary Kerry is not advocating internally or with Russia for a reset in the relationship, and in fact in meetings he has taken a strong and at times skeptical stance," one senior State Department official told me. "As the nation's chief diplomat he is simply always exploring ways to make relationships more productive."

There is also a belief among many both inside the State Department and the White House that sanctions are working. The Russian economy is tanking, albeit due largely to collapsing oil prices and not targeted punishments. One senior administration official argued that absent the sanctions, Putin might have been even more aggressive in Ukraine. Moreover, this official said, the sanctions need time to work and might yet prove to have greater effect on Putin's decision-making in the months ahead: "We'll see how they feel as their economy continues to deteriorate and the Ukrainian economy refuses to collapse."

If the Russians are getting ready to cave, they aren't showing it. Putin remains defiant and Russian military assistance to the Ukrainian rebels continues. The Russian leadership has been rejecting Kerry's overtures both in public and private. Diplomatic sources said that Lavrov has refused to even discuss Kerry's conditions for partial easing of sanctions. And Putin has made a hobby of bashing the U.S. in public remarks. 

To many of the administration's critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, pursuing engagement with Moscow is based on naivety and wishful thinking.

"It's a strategy worthy in the finest tradition of Neville Chamberlain," incoming Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain told me. "I think the Russians are doing fine. Meanwhile, what price has Vladimir Putin paid? Very little."

The legislative branch has also been active on Russia this year, but its efforts run counter to the administration's policy and sometimes have the indirect effect of putting more roadblocks in front of the Obama-Kerry push to find a way forward.

On Dec. 18, Obama reluctantly signed a bill authorizing new Russia sanctions and military aid to Ukraine that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Afterward, the White House awkwardly said that the legislation did not signify any change in policy. 

And this week, the State Department sanctioned four more Russian officials, but not over Ukraine. The officials were added to a list of human rights violators under the Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2012, named after the anti-corruption lawyer who died in a Russian prison. In response, the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement saying that the Magnitsky Act sanctions "place in question the prospects for bilateral cooperation in resolving the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian crisis, and other acute international issues."

These latest punishments show that it may be impossible to de-link the problems in the bilateral relationship from the opportunities, as the Obama administration wants to do. They also show that there will always be chances for those in Washington and Moscow who want to stoke the tensions to do so, jeopardizing any progress.

Some experts believe that any plan to warm U.S.-Russian relations is unlikely to succeed because it doesn't have the full support of either president.

"It's very clear that between the Putin Kremlin and the Obama White House there is a very bad chemistry. Its not a question of simply distrust, it's a question of intense dislike between the two leaders," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest.

Also, some experts feel, placing the diplomacy in the Kerry-Lavrov channel dooms its outcome, because the Russians know that Kerry himself has no power to make major decisions and Lavrov has to be careful not to be seen as cozying up to the U.S.

"The more Kerry creates a perception he has a special relationship with Lavrov, the more he puts Lavrov in a difficult position with officials in his own capital, starting with Putin," said Simes. "It's clear that when Kerry deals with Lavrov and hopes that because they have overlapping interests, that would allow cooperation where useful, that is not a model of relationship that Putin is prepared to accept."

Obama has made it clear that in his last two years in office he is prepared to make big moves on foreign policy even if they face political or legislative opposition, such as normalizing relations with Cuba or pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran. But when it comes to Russia, he is unwilling to place his own credibility behind any outreach to his nemesis Putin.

The administration's cautious engagement with Moscow is logical: Why not seek a balance in a complicated and important bilateral relationship? But by choosing a middle ground between conciliation and confrontation -- not being generous enough to entice Russia's cooperation yet not being tough enough to stop Putin's aggression in Eastern Europe -- Obama's policy risks failing on both fronts. 

To contact the author on this story:
Josh Rogin at joshrogin@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-31/inside-obamas-secret-outreach-to-russia

Vojislav Seselj, dirigeant du Parti Radical de Serbie, récemment libéré de la prison du TPIY donne une interview exclusive à Eurasie Express

Browse: Home » Vojislav Seselj, dirigeant du Parti Radical de Serbie, récemment libéré de la prison du TPIY donne une interview exclusive à Eurasie Express

express 31 December 2014

Vojislav Seselj, une course de vitesse avec le temps…

Pendant douze ans, alors qu'avec Slobodan Milosevic il était le plus célèbre des prisonniers embastillés dans la forteresse du Tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie, Seselj avait une bonne longueur d'avance. Les événements tels qu'ils se déployaient confirmaient en tous points ses vues essentielles sur la corruption constitutive du Tribunal, les conséquences fatales du globalisme et les machinations coloniales ourdies par les Occidentaux dans sa Serbie natale. Mais maintenant, alors que le Tribunal, pressé par ses maîtres de lui trouver à tous prix un motif de culpabilité, se trouve dans l'impossibilité de formuler le moindre argument en ce sens au terme d'un combat judiciaire inéquitable de plus d'une dizaine d'années, Vojislav Seselj a vraiment peu de temps pour confirmer son triomphe.

Comme Hugo Chavez, Seselj est sérieusement atteint d'un cancer qui s'est déclaré dans d'étranges circonstances. Le calcul du Tribunal et de ses maîtres est clair : le nouveau décès d'un haut dirigeant dans leurs geôles, comme celui de Milosevic, serait sérieusement embarrassant. Après que le détenu Seselj ait lui-même démoli la machine impitoyable de l'accusation, un verdict de culpabilité juridiquement crédible semble très peu probable. Mais il ne peut y avoir d'acquittement pour l'homme qui sur le plan politique incarne une menace majeure pour les intérêts globalistes occidentaux dans une Serbie géopolitiquement vitale. Un cancer du foie avec un pronostic vital de trois à six mois, qu'il soit spontané ou provoqué, est précisément la solution idéale que Ponce Pilate eût volontiers approuvée. Laissons le donc revenir en Serbie, causer un peu d'agitation, et quitter ensuite ce monde dans des circonstances dont ses geôliers puissent se laver les mains. L'affaire close, il sera inutile d'écrire un jugement forcément condamné au ridicule.

Les difficultés à affronter pour celui qui s'efforcerait de renverser les marionnettes solidement installées dans le système néo-colonial imposé à la Serbie après la "révolution orange" du 5 octobre 2000 sont énormes. Dans la Serbie humiliée de l'après-2000, le concept de "domination globale absolue" a atteint son apogée. Les services de renseignements occidentaux infiltrent ses institutions officielles et les dirigent de l'intérieur. Des agents d'influence étrangers ont pénétré le moindre recoin des médias et tous les pores de la vie publique. Des O"NG" occidentales richement dotées décident des paramètres de ce qu'il est permis de penser et intimident les dissidents en toute impunité.

La nation serbe, qui s'est vaillamment opposée aux agresseurs otaniens il y a tout juste quinze ans, est maintenant exténuée, sans illusions et à la dérive. On l'entend à peine respirer. Sa seule chance de revenir à la vie tient dans la rencontre sincère avec un homme passionné, sorti du ventre de la bête à la Haye en vainqueur incontestable de l'une des incarnations du Monstre voué à la destruction de la Serbie :

Eurasie Express : Vojislav Seselj, quel est votre statut actuel ? Vous avez été relâché pour raisons de santé en attente de votre jugement : envisagez-vous de reprendre une activité politique ?

Vojislav Seselj : J'ai littéralement été expulsé par le Tribunal de La Haye. S'ils avaient eu la moindre raison de me trouver coupable, ils en auraient déjà fait état depuis longtemps. Ils n'ont pas pu parce qu'ils ont été incapables de démontrer mon implication dans quelque crime de guerre ou contre l'humanité que ce soit. J'ai été relâché par La Haye sans conditions aucunes et bien sûr j'ai immédiatement repris mes activités politiques. En fait, je ne les avais jamais interrompues à La Haye. La politique est ma meilleure thérapie.

E.E. : Vous avez bénéficié d'une faveur qui a été refusée à Slobodan Milosevic, pourquoi à votre avis ?

V.S. : Ma libération temporaire n'a rien à voir avec mon état de santé. Il ne savaient tout simplement plus que faire de moi plus longemps. J'ai démoli le Tribunal de La Haye, j'ai rendu vain l'acte d'accusation produit contre moi en 2003, j'ai ridiculisé le ministère public et ses faux témoins. Que leur restait-il donc à faire ? Leur seule échappatoire était de me mettre à la porte de Scheveningen, et c'est ce qu'ils ont fait le 12 novembre 2014.

E.E. : Le président Milosevic a-t-il été délibérément assassiné ? Pouvez-vous nous donner votre témoignage à ce sujet et quelles étaient vos relations avec lui ?

V.S. : J'ai traversé plusieurs phases dans mes relations avec Milosevic. Je me suis opposé à lui lorsqu'il était évident qu'il prenait de mauvaises décisions. J'étais son opposant politique et il m'a fait incarcérer. Lorsqu'il agissait dans l'intérêt de la nation, je le soutenais, mais nous n'avons jamais été amis. C'est seulement à La Haye que nous le sommes devenus. Milosevic a été l'un des Serbes qui ont perdu leur vie au Tribunal de La Haye. Le Tribunal est responsable de sa mort. Ne serait-ce que parce qu'ils ne se sont pas assurés qu'il disposât des soins médicaux dont il avait besoin.

E.E. : Quelles étaient vos conditions de détention ?

V.S. : Scheveningen est une prison hollandaise dont une partie est louée aux Nations Unies pour pourvoir aux besoins du Tribunal de La Haye. Je n'ai aucun commentaire à faire sur les conditions de vie dans le bloc de détention. Une prison est une prison.

E.E. : Quelles étaient vos relations avec les autres détenus du TPIY, notamment avec les Albanais Haradinaj et Limaj ?

V.S. : Chacun en prison se trouve dans une position très spéciale. Il faut vous y adapter. J'avais de bonnes relations avec tout le monde à mon étage. Avec certains je jouais aux échecs, ou à différents jeux de cartes, mais je préférais la compagnie de ceux qui aimaient lire. C'est avec eux que j'avais le plus de sujets en commun.

 

E.E. : Votre libération provisoire préjuge-t-elle du jugement qui sera rendu à votre égard ?

V.S. : Qu'un jugement soit rendu ou pas dans mon cas ne me concerne plus du tout. Je n'y retournerai jamais volontairement. J'ai été à leur disposition pendant douze années et ils ont eu suffisamment de temps pour rendre un jugement. S'ils décident mon retour à Scheveningen, alors Tomislav Nikolic et Alexandar Vucic, qui ont été mes plus proches collaborateurs dans la réalisation de tous ces crimes de guerre supposés, devront m'arrêter et me transférer là-bas.

E.E. : Y a-t-il un lien entre la décision du TPIY de vous libérer et la marche de la Serbie vers l'intégration à l'Union européenne ?

V.S. : Bien sûr que non, et le Parti Radical de Serbie et moi-même ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour arrêter la marche fatale de la Serbie vers l'Union européenne. L'Union européenne est un mal et n'existe que que pour opprimer les petits Etats-nations. Nous allons résister à ce mal et nous utiliserons tous les moyens démocratiques à notre disposition dans ce but.

E.E. : Vous connaissez le TPIY de l'intérieur, quel jugement portez vous dessus ?

V.S. : Je savais avant même d'aller à La Haye que le Tribunal était un instrument américain et que c'était une cour illégale créée principalement pour condamner les Serbes, de façon à déclarer les Serbes responsables des crimes commis sur le territoire de l'ex-Yougoslavie et détourner l'attention des USA et des autres grandes puissances occidentales qui sont en fait coupables de la désintégration sanglante de l'ex-Yougoslavie. J'en ai parlé avant de partir pour La Haye, et aussi quand j'y étais, et ma position n'a pas changé. Je suis fier de ce que devant l'opinion mondiale j'aie réussi à démolir ce pseudo-tribunal.

E.E. : Que pensez-vous de la politique du gouvernement serbe actuel dirigé par d'anciens radicaux qui ont fait scission en 2008 pour créer le Parti Progressiste de Serbie ?

V.S. : En 2008 un coup a été tenté à l'intérieur du Parti Radical de Serbie. Un grosse quantité d'argent a été investie dans ce projet et le régime du Parti Démocratique alors au pouvoir, dirigé par Boris Tadic, a également donné un coup de main pour la formation du Parti Progressiste de Serbie. Nous savions que l'Occident avait besoin d'un tel parti pour accomplir ses basses oeuvres en Serbie. Alexandar Vucic et Tomislav Nikolic ont apporté la preuve concernant le Kosovo et Métochie qu'ils étaient prêts à faire tout ce que Boris Tadic n'avait pas osé faire. Et ils l'ont fait. Avec Ivica Dacic (1) ils ont signé l'accord de Bruxelles qui a de facto livré le Kosovo et Métochie aux Albanais. A cause de la soi disant "voie européenne" ils ont plongé le pays et les gens dans la crise économique et la misère sociale. Ils conduisent une politique félonne et servile à laquelle le Parti Radical de Serbie va s'opposer par tous les moyens légitimes. L'Occident va se servir de Vucic et Nikolic et ensuite en disposer comme du papier toilette. Ils sont tout juste bons à cet unique emploi et ceux qui les ont mis au pouvoir les ont déjà passés aux profits et pertes. Leur mort politique est déjà programmée.

E.E. : Que pensez-vous du rapprochement récent entre le gouvernement serbe et la Russie, notamment au sujet du gazoduc South Stream auquel Bruxelles s'est opposé et des sanctions contre la Russie auxquelles la Serbie a refusé de s'associer ?

V.S. : Le régime d'Alexandre Vucic essaye de jouer un double jeu. Leur orientation essentielle est l'Union européenne, tandis que la coopération avec la Russie n'est pas sincère. S'ils y sont contraints, ils vont adopter les sanctions contre la Russie parce qu'ils sont des marionnettes des Occidentaux. En ce qui concerne South Stream, le Parti Radical de Serbie pense que c'est le meilleur accord que la Serbie ait conclu, et que même si South Stream n'est pas construit la Serbie recevra d'importants bénéfices économiques grâce à cet accord.

E.E. : Pensez-vous que la Serbie puisse rejoindre l'Union douanière avec la Russie tout en étant associée d'une manière ou d'une autre avec l'Union européenne ?

V.S. : Nous sommes pour une étroite collaboration avec la Russie et nous sommes opposés à l'Union européenne. Le comité exécutif du Parti Radical de Serbie a adopté une résolution appelant à la dissolution de l'Union européenne. La Serbie a signé un accord de libre-échange avec la Russie et jusqu'à présent aucun régime n'en a tiré tous les avantages pour que la Serbie puisse pleinement en bénéficier. Nous sommes pour l'Union douanière avec la Russie et pour la participation au système de sécurité collective (2) qui s'est formé autour d'elle, comme pour toutes les autres formes de coopération. La coopération avec la Russie va renforcer la Serbie dans tous les domaines, politique, économique, culturel…

E.E. : Sur quelles forces politiques pouvez-vous compter en Serbie, combien de députés radicaux vous sont-ils restés fidèles ?

V.S. : Le Parti Radical de Serbie connaît à l'heure actuelle une phase de renforcement significatif de nos unités de base. Nous sommes ouverts à tous ceux qui ont été trompés en abandonnant notre parti et en rejoignant le Parti Progressiste de Serbie. Nous nous attendons à ce que tous les patriotes sincères rejoignent nos rangs parce que le Parti Radical de Serbie est la seule option patriote en Serbie.

E.E. : Allez-vous rejoindre l'alliance des forces patriotiques d'opposition favorable au rapprochement avec la Russie (3) ?

V.S. : Nous sommes prêts à discuter avec des gens sérieux. Dveri n'est pas encore enregistré en tant que parti politique et le PDS s'est divisé en plusieurs fractions. Celle qui se trouve sous la direction de Sanda Raskovic-Ivic a été créée par Alexandar Vucic et nous n'avons rien à dicuter avec eux. Nous pouvons néanmoins dicuter avec Nenad Popovic, Slobodan Samardzic et Sinisa Kovacevic. Mais il est encore trop tôt. Nous pensons que chaque parti doit se présenter individuellement aux élections et que les coalitions peuvent être formées seulement après.

E.E. : Votre libération n'a-t-elle pas des motifs de politique intérieure ?

V.S. : Ma libération provisoire n'a rien à voir avec cela, mais elle a des conséquences sur la scène politique serbe. Nous nous préparons sérieusement à organiser des meetings à travers toute la Serbie pour expliquer aux gens le caractère désastreux du régime d'Alexandar Vucic et Tomislav Nikolic. Je suis convaincu que dès 2015 nous réussirons à provoquer des élections législatives anticipées et que nous réaliserons des gains importants à cette occasion. J'ai déjà rendu visite à de nombreuses villes en Serbie. J'ai été invité dans des émissions de télévisions locales et dans les municipalités j'ai été accueilli par une foule énorme. L'opinion publique est manifestement favorable au Parti Radical de Serbie, en dépit du fait qu'Alexandar Vucic se soit arrangé pour que je ne sois entendu sur aucun média de fréquence nationale.

Interview du 29 décembre 2014. Présentation et réalisation : Stephen Karganovic. Questions et notes : Frédéric Saillot. Traduction : Stephen Karganovic et Frédéric Saillot.

(1) Dirigeant du Parti Socialiste de Serbie, il est vice-premier ministre et ministre des Affaires étrangères de Serbie. Tomislav Nikolic et Alexander Vucic, ex-radicaux et dirigeants du Parti Progressiste de Serbie sont respectivement président et premier ministre de Serbie.
(2) L'OTSC, Organisation du traité de sécurité collective, qualifiée d'OTAN russe, regroupe l'Arménie, la Biélorussie, le Kazakhstan, la Russie, le Tadjikistan, le Kirghizistan ainsi que la Serbie comme Etat observateur.
(3) Dveri (Les Portes), mouvement non parlementaire, et le Parti Démocratique de Serbie (PDS), présidé par Sanda Raskovic-Ivic, ont annoncé le 16 novembre 2014 la création d'une alliance de forces patriotiques d'opposition favorable au rapprochement avec la Russie (Dépêche Ria Novosti du 18/11/2014).

http://www.eurasiexpress.fr/Seselj/

How the CIA Launched the «Financial Pearl Harbor» Attacks on Russia and Venezuela

Wayne MADSEN | 20.12.2014 | 00:00

Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan's long familiarity with Saudi Arabia, owing to the time he spent there as the CIA station chief in Riyadh in the 1990s and his knowledge of Saudi oil operations, has paid off. Petroleum industry insiders claim that Brennan's agents inside Saudi Aramco convinced the firm's management and the Saudi Oil Ministry to begin fracking operations in order to stimulate production in Saudi Arabia's oldest oil fields. The Saudis, who are not known for their hands-on knowledge of their nation's own oil industry, agreed to what became an oil pricing catastrophe which would not only affect Saudi Arabia but oil producing nations around the world from Russia and Venezuela to Nigeria and Indonesia. By pumping high-pressure salt water into older wells, some at a depth of three to six thousand feet, an inordinate amount of pressure was built up. The CIA's oil industry implants knew what would occur when the fracking operations began. Due to the dangerously high water pressure, the Saudis were forced continuously pump oil until the pressure became equalized. That process is continuing. If the Saudis ceased pumping oil, they would permanently lose the wells to salt water contamination. In the current "pump it or lose it" situation, the Saudis are forced to pump at a rate that may take up to five years before they can slow down production rates to pre-glut levels. The corporate media, including the Bloomberg and Dow Jones virtual business news monopolies, issued news reports claiming that the Saudis agreed to keep production high at the November meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in order to retain their market share amid increased U.S. oil production from fracking.  The net result of the CIA-inspired fracking operations, which the Saudis were warned not to pursue by petroleum engineers working for some foreign-based firms like Schlumberger, is that there will be an oil supply glut for the next 5 years. The glut will be followed by a reduction in Saudi oil production unless new oil fields are brought on line. There is now a major push by U.S. and Canadian oil companies to bring online the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the United States to offset the expected sharp rise in oil prices in four to five years. But with Canada suffering financially from the drop in oil revenues, the Keystone XL project is also on financially shaky ground. The CIA operation to frack Middle Eastern oil fields was not only limited to Saudi Arabia. Oil industry sources have revealed that similar fracking caused over production problems in Kuwait and Iraq. The CIA's sabotage of Saudi and other oil fields is not a first for the agency. In 1982, a massive and devastating explosion of the Trans-Siberian Pipeline was said to have been the work of Trojan horse software implanted by a Canadian company on behalf of the CIA. Former U.S. Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, who served in the Ronald Reagan White House, confirmed the CIA's role in the industrial sabotage. The CIA cooperated with the Israeli Mossad in creating the Flame computer virus that crippled Iran's nuclear enrichment equipment. Another CIA-Mossad virus, Stuxnet, had wreaked havoc on nuclear power plants around the world. The CIA is believed to have played a part in the crash of the Russian-made Sukhoi Superjet 100 in May 2012 in Indonesia. A Russian military intelligence spokesman said that U.S. industrial sabotage in downing the flight, which killed 45 Indonesian and Russian nationals, was considered a likely cause. The crash came after the head of the Russian space agency, Roskosmos, said he believed that it was possible that the failure of the Phobos-Grunt mission to the moons of Mars may have been caused by American sabotage. The CIA's use of industrial sabotage against the Cuban sugar industry, the Chilean and Zambian copper industries, and the Haitian rice industry is legendary. Explosions at oil refineries in Iran, Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador, and Venezuela, pipeline explosions in Syria and Libya, and a Brazilian Petrobras marine oil rig collapse, have been attributed to CIA proxy terrorist groups. The result of the sudden decline in oil prices has resulted in heavy damage to the economies of the CIA-targeted countries of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Brennan and his economic warfare operatives absolutely banked on the Saudi over-production to harm the economies of all three countries and the CIA has not been disappointed. The CIA figures that «regime change» would bring to power pro-U.S. governments in Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Already, from his base in Switzerland, exiled Russian tax evader billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky has called for President Vladimir Putin's violent overthrow and even his assassination. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress took its cues from the CIA and voted to impose devastating economic sanctions on both Russia and Venezuela. President Barack Obama approved the congressional sanctions. Similar congressional legislation to increase sanctions on Iran is pending. Russia has been harmed the most by the CIA's Saudi oil production scheme. The Russian ruble fell 56 percent in value against the U.S. dollar while Russian interest rates climbed to 17 percent. The price of shares of Russia's largest lending bank, Sberbank, fell 18 percent. Although the Russian economic collapse has resulted in financial ripples around the world, with Austrian and French banks losing their stock values and the value of the Polish zloty and Hungarian forint falling against the dollar, the Obama administration says that there will be no easing on economic sanctions imposed on Russia over Ukraine. Obama has also put the individual and institutional investments of American holders of Russian bonds in dire jeopardy. The Pacific Investment Management Company's (PEBIX) Emerging Markets Bond Fund, which holds over $800 million in Russian bonds, has lost almost 8 percent in value in the past few weeks.  Meanwhile, basic staples in Venezuela, including cooking oil, rice, and corn flour, are becoming hard to obtain. On the Venezuelan black market, the U.S. dollar has jumped 1700 percent in value against the Venezuelan bolivar. The CIA is using the financial collapse to push for an undemocratic overthrow of the Venezuelan government and CIA operatives are providing cash payments to Venezuelan opposition politicians and provocateurs. Iran, which has been under punitive Western economic sanctions for a number of years over its nuclear power program, is probably best able to weather the storm. Iran has built up a rather impressive domestic food production, telecommunications, and oil industry infrastructure to survive the sanctions. However, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears very aware of the Saudi role in the conspiracy to drive down oil prices. Recently, Rouhani said of the drop in oil prices, "The main reason for [it] is political conspiracy by certain countries against the interest of the region and the Islamic world and it is only in the interest of some other countries . . . Iran and people of the region will not forget such conspiracies.» The economic hardships imposed on oil-producing Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, has resulted in an opportunity for the Islamic State to gain adherents in the country, especially among the young and unemployed population. The economy of China, which is hoping to begin pumping oil from lucrative marine reserves in the South China Sea, is feeling the strain of lower oil prices. Mexico, wracked with social instability, has also suffered from the CIA's machinations. However, instability in Mexico has always been advantageous for the CIA, which continues to benefit from the illegal drug trade that keeps the agency's slush fund accounts flush with cash. Brennan's and the CIA's industrial sabotage of the Saudi industry will continue to have far-reaching effects on the world economy. Oil industry insiders fear that the CIA has unleashed something that may deal a devastating blow to the global economy from which it will be difficult to recover.

 

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/12/20/how-cia-launched-the-financial-pearl-harbor-attacks-russia-venezuela.html

Krugman Joins the Anti-Putin Pack

December 19, 2014

Exclusive: Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

When America's opinion-making herd gets running, it's hard for anyone to get in the way regardless of how erroneous or unfair the reason for the stampede. It's much easier – and career-wise safer – to join the pack, which is what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has done regarding Russia, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin.

In the latest example of the New York Times' endless Putin-bashing, Krugman begins his Friday column with what you might call a "negative endorsement" of the Russian president by claiming that ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has "an embarrassing crush on the swaggering statesman."

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. (Photo credit: David Shankbone)

But Krugman misleads his readers. Giuliani wasn't really praising Putin when he said "that is what you call a leader" in commenting on Putin's decisiveness. Some liberal defenders of President Barack Obama simply cherry-picked the quote to counter Giuliani's attempt to disparage Obama by comparing Obama's chronic indecisiveness to Putin's forcefulness.

In the fuller context, Giuliani was not expressing a fondness for Putin at all. Indeed, he disparaged the Russian leader as "a bully" and urged a tough-guy response to Putin over Ukraine. "Instead of him pushing us around, we push him around," Giuliani said in the Fox News interview. "That's the only thing a bully understands."

So, why did Krugman begin his Putin-bashing column by misrepresenting what Giuliani was saying? It may have been a form of "negative endorsement." Since many American liberals hate Giuliani, Giuliani's praise is supposed to translate into liberal hatred for Putin.

But "negative endorsements" are inherently unfair. Just because Josef Stalin might have liked Franklin Roosevelt and because we may hate Stalin, that doesn't mean we should hate Roosevelt, too. The use of "negative endorsement" is akin to guilt by association. And, in this case, Krugman was playing fast and loose with the facts as well

Krugman also opts for some of the most hyperbolic language that has been used in the U.S. mainstream media to distort events in Ukraine. For instance, Krugman claims that "Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine without debate or deliberation." But that really isn't true either.

The Ukraine crisis is far more complicated and nuanced than that, as Krugman must know. If he doesn't, he should consult with fellow Princeton professor Stephen F. Cohen, who has bravely challenged the prevailing "group think" on both Ukraine and Russia.

Cohen, one of America's premier Russia experts, has even warned that "American media coverage of Vladimir Putin … has so demonized him that the result may be to endanger U.S. national security. …

"[M]ainstream press reporting, editorials and op-ed articles have increasingly portrayed Putin as a czar-like 'autocrat,' or alternatively a 'KGB thug,' who imposed a 'rollback of democratic reforms' under way in Russia when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president in 2000. He installed instead a 'venal regime' that has permitted 'corruptionism,' encouraged the assassination of a 'growing number' of journalists and carried out the 'killing of political opponents.' Not infrequently, Putin is compared to Saddam Hussein and even Stalin."

Yet, Cohen said, "there is no evidence that any of these allegations against him are true, or at least entirely true. Most seem to have originated with Putin's personal enemies, particularly Yeltsin-era oligarchs who found themselves in foreign exile as a result of his policies – or, in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison. Nonetheless, U.S. media, with little investigation of their own, have woven the allegations into a near-consensus narrative of 'Putin's Russia.'" [For details from Cohen's article, click here.]

'Shock Therapy'

Indeed, much of what Krugman finds so offensive about Putin's Russia actually stemmed from the Yeltsin era following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 when the so-called Harvard Boys flew to Moscow to apply free-market "shock therapy" which translated into a small number of well-connected thieves plundering Russia's industry and resources, making themselves billionaires while leaving average Russians near starvation.

When Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin in 2000, Putin challenged some of the oligarchs and pushed others out of the political arena, while also moderating some of the extreme policies and thus making life somewhat better for the average Russian, thus explaining Putin's broad popularity. Putin could be fairly criticized for not going further, but economist Krugman must surely know this history regarding how the Russian "kleptocracy" got started.

Yet, Krugman slides into the now common demonization of Putin. "Mr. Putin never had the resources to back his swagger," Krugman smugly writes.

"It's quite a comedown for Mr. Putin. And his swaggering strongman act helped set the stage for the disaster. A more open, accountable regime — one that wouldn't have impressed Mr. Giuliani so much — would have been less corrupt, would probably have run up less debt, and would have been better placed to ride out falling oil prices. Macho posturing, it turns out, makes for bad economies."

In other words, Krugman buys into the "group think" that blames Putin's "macho posturing" over Ukraine for the current financial crisis in Russia, which has resulted from falling oil prices as well as the U.S.-led sanctions punishing Russia for its alleged "aggression" in Ukraine.

That puts Krugman in the same camp as the neocons who have pushed the bogus narrative that the megalomaniacal Putin is trying to reconstitute the Russian Empire. The actual facts, however, disprove that narrative. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Crazy US 'Group Think' on Russia."]

Putin himself has a much better understanding of recent Russian history – and what Official Washington's goals are regarding him and Russia – as he explained in an end-of-year news conference on Thursday.

Asked if the economic pain was the price for accepting Crimea back into Russia, Putin responded: "No. This is not the price we have to pay for Crimea. … This is actually the price we have to pay for our natural aspiration to preserve ourselves as a nation, as a civilization, as a state. …

"I gave an example of our most recognizable symbol. It is a bear protecting his taiga. … [M]aybe it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and boars around the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left alone.

"But no, he won't be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he's chained they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will be taken over. … And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use at all. Perhaps they'll stuff it and that's all.

"So, it is not about Crimea but about us protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our right to exist. That is what we should all realize."

The Neo-Nazi Reality

There is another unpleasant reality about Ukraine that Krugman ignores — its neo-Nazi element — apparently not wanting to be out of step with his New York Times colleagues who have studiously looked the other way. Again, Krugman could learn something from his fellow Princeton professor Cohen, who has recounted the grim facts about neo-Nazism in Ukraine, facts that would put Putin's supposed "invasion" in defense of Ukraine's ethnic Russians in a different light.

In an article for The Nation magazine, Cohen wrote: "Independent Western scholars have documented the fascist origins, contemporary ideology and declarative symbols of Svoboda and its fellow-traveling Right Sector. Both movements glorify Ukraine's murderous Nazi collaborators in World War II as inspirational ancestors. Both, to quote Svoboda's leader Oleh Tyahnybok, call for an ethnically pure nation purged of the 'Moscow-Jewish mafia' and 'other scum,' including homosexuals, feminists and political leftists.

"And both hailed the Odessa massacre [on May 2 when ethnic Russian protesters were trapped in the Trade Union building and burned alive]. According to the website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was 'another bright day in our national history.' A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, 'Bravo, Odessa…. Let the Devils burn in hell.'

"If more evidence is needed, in December 2012, the European Parliament decried Svoboda's 'racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views [that] go against the EU's fundamental values and principles.' In 2013, the World Jewish Congress denounced Svoboda as 'neo-Nazi.' Still worse, observers agree that Right Sector is even more extremist. …

"In December 2012, a Svoboda parliamentary leader anathematized the Ukrainian-born American actress Mila Kunis as 'a dirty kike.' Since 2013, pro-Kiev mobs and militias have routinely denigrated ethnic Russians as insects ('Colorado beetles,' whose colors resemble a sacred Russia ornament). More recently, the US-picked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, referred to resisters in the Southeast as 'subhumans.' His defense minister proposed putting them in 'filtration camps,' pending deportation, and raising fears of ethnic cleansing.

"Yulia Tymoshenko — a former prime minister, titular head of Yatsenyuk's party and runner-up in the May presidential election — was overheard wishing she could 'exterminate them all [Ukrainian Russians] with atomic weapons.' 'Sterilization' is among the less apocalyptic official musings on the pursuit of a purified Ukraine."

By leaving out this troubling context, it's much easier to mislead Americans about what is actually happening in Ukraine. Instead of understanding Russia's interest in protecting ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from these brutal neo-Nazis, the crisis can simply be presented as Putin's "aggression" or – as Krugman says – how "Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine." [For an earlier case of Krugman's distortions on Ukraine, click here.]

More fitting Krugman's expertise about the dangers of free-market extremism, he might do better looking at the consequences of those strategies on both Russia and Ukraine, where corrupt oligarchs also took power and have now moved to the center of Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime.

And, if Krugman wants some current example of cronyism, he might look at the curious case of Natalie Jaresko, a former U.S. diplomat who parlayed $150 million in U.S. AID funds designed to help Ukraine develop an investment-based economy into a personal fortune and now into the post of Ukraine's new Finance Minister.

According to corporate records, the U.S. government-funded investment project for Ukraine involved substantial insider dealings by Jaresko, including $1 million-plus fees to a management company that she also controlled. Meanwhile, the $150 million stake provided by the U.S. taxpayers appears to have dwindled to less than $100 million. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's Made-in-the-USA Finance Minister."]

But critical reporting about the U.S.-backed Ukrainian regime would violate Official Washington's narrative that prefers the Kiev authorities to be dressed in white hats while Vladimir Putin wears the black hat.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/19/krugman-joins-the-anti-putin-pack/