Az ukrán válság igazi, pro és kontra megvitatása Nyugaton–nem az, ami zajlik a hivatalos politikai színtéren

A britt parlament mai, “Oroszország megbüntetésével” kapcsolatos “vitája” után éreztem sűrgős szükségét annak, hogy megkeressem a valódi nyugati helyzetelemzéseket. Olyanokat, ahol pro és kontra szerepelnek vélemények, nem egyszerűen a tögeknek szóló etetések. Nem utolsó sorban pedig arról is szó esik, hogy az USA 5 milliárd dollárt költött Ukrajna destabilizációjára.

 

Hogy mindenkinek világos legyen az etetés jellege, íme miről is volt a britt parlamentben hozzávetőleg (hiszen ez csak egy MTI hír) szó a mai napon:

Nagy-Britannia-Ukrajna-Oroszország
Ukrán válság – Cameron: “napokon belül” szankciódöntések születhetnek

Kertész Róbert, az MTI tudósítója jelenti:
London, 2014. március 10., hétfő [19:12] (MTI) – “Napokon belül” döntés születhet orosz kormányilletékeseket sújtó “célzott szankciókról”, ha Moszkva nem ad érdemi választ az ukrajnai fellépésével kapcsolatos nyugati aggályokra – mondta hétfőn a brit miniszterelnök.

David Cameron a londoni alsóház képviselőinek tartott tájékoztatójában kijelentette: kedden Londonban EU-tisztviselők tanácskoznak egy szankciótervezetről, amely 18 olyan személyt érintene, akik “az orosz kormányhoz kötődnek”. Cameron szerint a lehetséges ellenlépések között szerepel a beutazási tilalom és a külföldön tartott pénzügyi eszközök befagyasztása. A brit kormányfő mindazonáltal nem tárta fel, hogy e szankciók pontosan kik ellen irányulnának.
Hangsúlyozta ugyanakkor: Moszkvának “meg kell mutatni, hogy nem taposhat át csak úgy Ukrajnán”. A Krím hovatartozásáról március 16-ára kiírt népszavazás Cameron szavai szerint “törvényellenes és bohózatba illő”, mivel nem volt idő semmiféle kampányra, emellett a katonai jelenlét korlátozza az utazási lehetőségeket a Krímben.
A brit kormányfő kijelentette: Nagy-Britannia biztonsága és jóléte is veszélybe kerülne, ha egyes országok következmények nélkül megsérthetik a nemzetközi szabályokat.
Cameron szerint Ukrajnának lehetővé kell tenni, hogy maga dönthessen jövőjéről, és azt is, hogy a híd szerepét tölthesse be Oroszország és Európa között.
“Európában az elmúlt hetven évet azzal töltöttük, hogy megpróbáljuk megőrizni a békét, és tudjuk a történelemből, hogy ha becsukjuk a szemünket, amikor más országokon áttaposnak, abból hosszabb távon baj lehet” – fogalmazott hétfői parlamenti felszólalásában a brit miniszterelnök.
Cameron szerint a Krím félsziget destabilizálását célzó bármilyen további lépésnek “messze ható következményei” lennének.
William Hague brit külügyminiszter már előző nap is szankciók lehetőségéről beszélt. Hague a BBC televízió vasárnapi politikai magazinműsorának nyilatkozva kizárta a külső katonai válaszlépést, hangsúlyozta ugyanakkor: helytelen lenne azt gondolni, hogy “Oroszország bármilyen értelemben győzött volna”, és “idővel ki fog derülni, hogy Moszkva súlyosan elszámította magát” a krími katonai akcióval.
Hague kitérően válaszolt arra a riporteri kérdésre, hogy Oroszországot kizárhatják-e a legnagyobb ipari gazdaságok alkotta G8-csoportból. Kijelentette azonban, hogy a csoport hét nyugati tagja, vagyis a G7-országok “minden további nélkül” tarthatnak találkozókat egymás között is. Felidézte, hogy a júniusra tervezett oroszországi G8-csúcs előkészületi tárgyalásait már felfüggesztették. Hague szerint ha az ukrajnai válságban nem történik diplomáciai előrelépés, akkor “egyértelműen a lehetőségek között van” a csúcstalálkozó végleges lemondása is.

Hasonló “etetés” a Chatham House alábbi diszkussziója (akit érdekel a sablonszöveg): Insights into Ukraine’s Political Crisis [ChathamHouse10 YouTube channel, Feb 28, 2014]

The expert panel discusses the current political situation in Ukraine and how relations between the government and opposition leaders, as well as the state and society more broadly, have developed.

Ld. meghírdetését itt, ahol leiratokat is lehet találni.

Ezzel szemben a valós nyugati diszkusszióhoz ebből tudtam kiindulni: Az USA és az EU készítette elő az államcsínyt Ukrajnában (Oroszország Hangja, 2014. március 5.)

Az Egyesült Államok és az Európai Unió készítette elő Ukrajnában az Majdant több éven át – hangoztatta a Press TV nemzetközi csatornának adott interjújában az amerikai hírszerzés volt munkatársa, Scott Richard Rickard.

Richard Rickard elmondása szerint az USA közvetlen állami kiadásai a kijevi tiltakozóakciókra 5 milliárd USA-dollárt tettek ki. az államcsíny fő szponzorai közt a volt CIA-munkatárs a eBay internetes árverés alapítóját, Pierre Omidyarre-t, valamint Soros György amerikai milliárdost nevezte meg.

Richard Rickard véleménye szerint az ukrajnai eseményeknek gazdasági és geopolitikai okai vannak. A Nyugat megpróbálta a NATO-ba csalni Ukrajnát, mint több más volt szovjet köztársaságot is.

Majd megkerestem azt a nyilatkozatot amire hivatkoznak. Ebből csak egy rövid kivonatot tudok ide beágyazni (lévén csak ez a részlet van a YouTube-on): Former U.S. intelligence officer: West preparing revolution in Ukraine for several years [GordonTV Novosti YouTube channel, publikálva: March 10, 2014] ⇒ ÚJ FORRÁS: Scott Rickard about Ukraine overthrow 

“Unrest” in Kiev, the West had been preparing for several years, said a former U.S. intelligence officer Scott Rickard in an interview on Press TV. According to him, the United States alone have invested in protests over $ 5 billion, and this is not counting the money that American businessmen identified.

A teljes videó ezen a webhelyen tekinthető meg: US orchestrated overthrow in Ukraine: Analyst [Press TV, March 3, 2014], amiből ide még bemásolnám a Scott Rickard féle rész durva leiratát (angol nyelvű): ⇒ alternativ videó 08:08-ik időpontjától

Press TV: Your take, sir. Our guest in Washington basically said that Russians absolutely have no right to be in Ukraine. Your take, Mr. Rickard.

Rickard: Well, it’s typical coming out of Frederick Peterson. He’s obviously had a lifetime of supporting the [US] State Department rhetoric, you know. No doubt there were some referendums in the early 90s that did cause a major change in the Ukraine that was a benefit to the people there. At the same time, a lot of the individuals that were living up in the Russian sort of central area that were really moved as a part of World War II were also allowed to return to the Crimea and Ukrainian regions.

Now, you have to take a look at the Ukraine, its 50 million people that live in this country, and about 60 percent are Russian, and outside of that, there is probably only about maybe 12 to 20 or 15 percent that are in the Crimean sort of Tatar range. So this is a small minority of the individuals in the Ukraine that did actually have some small protests in Kiev that were very violent. These protests were extremely violent. They were lots of Molotov cocktails, a lot of activity going on that was being supported by the outside, by the West. You know the West has invested over five billion dollars in – the US government alone – alongside of what Victoria Nuland was talking about and got caught talking online with the ambassador from the Ukraine.

The US has been orchestrating this overthrow in the Ukraine for quite some time. And you have an individual, you know, the founder of eBay; you’ve got Pierre Omidyar who has invested money alongside George Soros. So, this is a scenario that has been played out here for several years in creating what they call an uprising that has been fabricated by the West.

Now the reason for doing this is purely economic and geopolitical. The West has been trying to pull the Ukraine, as well as other former Soviet states, into NATO. At the same time, they are also trying to pull them into the European Union (EU). And many people in the EU don’t even want the Ukraine in. It’s actually a legacy for them because they are getting another IMF-failing state.

Press TV: Well, let’s look at that, Mr. Rickard, you just brought up something. You said that many people in the European Union really do not want them in the European Union, because of the economic situation in general in the EU.

In general, why is the West, not only the Europeans but also we see the Americans as you’ve just talked about Victoria Nuland and that leaked conversation… though the Americans continue to deny that they have anything to do with the situation in Ukraine. However, why is it so important for Washington to be so involved in a situation in Ukraine?

Rickard: That’s a great question. What you have here is you have… The Ukraine has been taking quite a bit of loans from the IMF. The gentleman that they have running as the “prime minister” now, their man in office, he’s been basically the finance minister, orchestrating a lot of very unhealthy and very criminal-based loans coming out of the IMF.

So they are going to have to implement some sort of austerity plans. So, that’s what they’re looking to do. They can financially cripple Russia and at the same time and also create another payment state for the failed IMF global financial debacle.

What they’re looking at as well is this strategic area. I mean this area is heavily strategic. You look at the port where you just had your first reporter coming out of. That port is the most strategic port for the Russians in the south of Russia and taking away that port also weakens Russia, whereby it is a good distraction for Russia. They are actually having some pushback from Russia in Syria and this would be a great distraction.

It would weaken Russia even further and make the West more successful in their endeavors against both Syria and Iran. So it’s strategic from both a military perspective and an economic perspective.

Press TV: Mr. Rickard, your take on our guest in Washington’s resigns on regional hegemony, talking about Russia and yet as you had mentioned earlier the US is very much involved in this situation. Your perspective on Russia and why Russia’s doing what it is. Is it because actually the proximity to its own country and as far as looking at it from a security perspective or… how do you see it?

Rickard: Well, obviously it’s a national security perspective, both from a commercial perspective. Many of the actual pipelines for taking gas to Europe, as well as transportation lines and from a military perspective. Crimea has been… because of its nature of its geography, has been an extremely strategic military location for centuries as Mr. Peterson just described.

But the more important thing is we talk about hegemony and you talk about responsibility, I mean the Americans march through Afghanistan and basically militarized jihad in the 80s and have been dealing with that ever sinse and they have taken no accountability for that. In fact, they have taken advantage of that to expand their hegemony, not just in that region but in other regions throughout Africa and the Middle East. So, talk about expanding hegemony, I think take a look in the mirror Mr. Peterson, there’s a quite a bit that you have not noticed and talked about. At the same time, there’s a whole lot going on from the criminal perspective.

You have to look at guys like Semion Mogilevich, who is on the FBI’s most wanted list and I highly recommend that you look at this, Mr. Peterson. I’ll be in Washington on Friday next week and I’d be happy to sit down in your office and show you what it’s all about. This guy, Semion Mogilevich… he was our number one arms dealer when we were going to war against the Russians in the 80s and Semion Mogilevich is from the Ukraine. He actually runs the mafia that is basically across Russia and the Ukraine. So, take a deep look into what the Americans have been doing in that region for well over 30 to 40 years and let’s have a real discussion on the actual corruption that has been going on in that region, because from what you’re talking about, it’s very unclear as to where it’s going.

Press TV: Mr. Rickard, your take. If we look at the situation, for example, if we had the Occupy Movement that are taking place in the US and if we had had some Russian politicians going out there in various cities in addressing these protesters who were in the United States, what type of reaction do you think we would have seen from Washington?

Rickard: That is a great point. What if you had Russian influence here in the Occupy Movement, here in the United States and you had Russians over here funding billions of dollars to the Occupy Movement? Give me a break, Mr. Peterson. I mean the facts remain that you have a society, look at the Krugerrand. The Krugerrand was created back in the 70s that was manipulating not only that area that we’re talking about today but the same guys that we’re dealing with today, the result of those Nicolas Deak and his son Leslie Deak, who work as CIA think tanks downtown Washington DC. I’d love to come and educate you on how incredibly corrupt your government is today and has been for the last 40 years. Take some responsibility. Of course you can’t defend [US Secretary of State John] Kerry. It’s indefensible.

Ezek az MTI közlemények is mind bizonyítják, hogy nem légből kapott és netán orosz oldalról manipulált dolgokról van itt szó:

Ukrajna-EU-Oroszország
Ukrán válság – Orosz hírportál: nem Janukovics, hanem az új ukrán hatalom egy tagja bérelhette fel a Majdan orvlövészekeit – FRISSÍTETT (új: észt reagálás)

    Moszkva, 2014. március 5., szerda [18:52] (MTI) – Az észt külügyminiszter egy kiszivárgott telefonbeszélgetés szerint nem tartja kizártnak, hogy valaki a korábbi ukrán ellenzéki vezetők közül bérelte fel azokat az orvlövészeket, akik a kijevi Majdanon tüntetőket és rendőröket öltek meg a tüntetések idején – legalábbis ezt írta szerdán hírportálján a Russia Today (RT) nevű angol nyelvű orosz állami televízió. Az észt külügyminisztérium utóbb megerősítette a kiszivárogtatott felvétel hitelességét. Azt az értelmezést viszont cáfolta, hogy az észt diplomácia vezetője megállapította volna az ellenzéknek az erőszakos akciókban való részvételét.

Az RT szerint a telefonbeszélgetés Catherine Ashton, az Európai Unió kül- és biztonságpolitikai főképviselője és Urmas Paet észt külügyminiszter között zajlott le, azután, hogy az észt miniszter február 25-én, az EU-párti tüntetők és az ukrán biztonsági erők összecsapását követően látogatást tett Kijevben.
“Egyre erősebb az a vélekedés, hogy nem Janukovics állt a mesterlövészek mögött, hanem valaki az új koalícióból” – mondja Paet a felvételen. Ashton erre ezt mondta: “Azt hiszem, vizsgálódni akarunk. Úgy értem, én nem hallottam erről, ez érdekes. Istenem!”
Paet hozzátette, hogy egy, a sérülteket kezelő kijevi orvosnő ezt mondta neki: minden jel arra utal, hogy ugyanazok a mesterlövészek végeztek rendőrökkel és tüntetőkkel is. Erre utal az orvos szerint az, hogy a sebek alapján ugyanolyan típusú lövedékekre lehet következtetni. Paet azt mondta Ashtonnak, a civil aktivisták zavarónak tartják, hogy az új ukrán vezetés “nem akarja kivizsgálni, mi is történt pontosan” a Majdanon. Azt tapasztalta, hogy a civilek nem bíznak az új koalíció politikusaiban.
“Az észt külügyminiszter mélységesen sajnálja, hogy kiszivárgott a közte és Ashton között lezajlott telefonbeszélgetés, mindazonáltal megerősítjük a felvétel hitelességét” – mondta szerda délután a politikus szóvivője. Korábban Paet annyit mondott, hogy bár valóban megtörtént a beszélgetés, még nem hallgatta meg az internetre felkerült hanganyagot, így elzárkózik a további kommentároktól.
A szóvivő egyben arról tájékoztatott, hogy Paet a beszélgetés során aggodalmát fejezte ki az ukrajnai helyzettel kapcsolatban. “Visszautasítjuk azt az állítást, amely szerint a külügyminiszter úr megállapította volna az ellenzéki erők erőszakban való részvételét” – tette hozzá.
A beszélgetést állítólag az Ukrán Biztonsági Szolgálat (SZBU) Viktor Janukovics volt elnökhöz hű tisztjei töltötték fel az internetre. Az SZBU lehallgatta Paet és Ashton beszélgetését.
Az orosz külügyminisztérium szerdán csodálkozásának adott hangot amiatt, hogy az Európai Unió nem hajlandó kommentálni a kiszivárgott Paet-Ashton beszélgetést, hiszen “az EU-országok vezető tisztségviselői nem is olyan régen sűrűn kommentálták a Nuland-hangfelvételt”. (Victoria Nuland európai ügyekért felelős amerikai külügyi államtitkár-helyettes egy február elején kiszivárgott beszélgetés során – amelyet Geoffrey Pyatt kijevi amerikai nagykövettel folytatott – nyomdafestéket nem tűrő kifejezéssel mondott véleményt az Európai Unió Ukrajna-politikájáról.)

Ukrajna-Ausztria-visszhang
Ukrán válság – Osztrák lapok Janukovics időhúzásáról és az EU tétlenségéről írnak

    Budapest, 2014. február 20., csütörtök (MTI) – A Die Presse című konzervatív osztrák napilap Janukovics időhúzásáról és az Európai Unió (EU) eddigi tétlenségéről írt az ukrajnai belpolitikai válsággal kapcsolatban. A liberális Der Standard publicistája a kijevi válságra adott európai uniós reakciókat elemzi.

Janukovics az időre játszott: kompromisszumkészség helyett kivárt – emelte ki csütörtöki vezércikkében a Die Presse online kiadása. Az Itt az ideje kiközösíteni Viktor Janukovicsot című írás szerzője, Jutta Sommerbauer rámutat: az elnök soha nem állt készen a valódi párbeszédre, holott az ellenzék folyamatosan igyekezett előmozdítani az egyeztetéseket. A “kompromisszum” szó nem szerepel a vezetés politikai szótárában – összegzett a cikk szerzője. Kitért az EU szerepére is, kiemelve: “Az EU most már nem maradhat tétlen.”
A Der Standard online kiadása a szerdán közölt “Shame on you, EU” (Szégyelld magad, Európai Unió) című írásában azt hangsúlyozza: elérkezett az idő, hogy az EU határozott lépéseket tegyen az ukrán válság kapcsán. Idézi Tomasz Rózycki lengyel költőt, aki nyílt levelében az európaiak felelősségét firtatta és feltette a kérdést: “Emberek halnak ott meg, mire várunk még?” A cikk szerzője közli a kijevi Majdan egyik aktivistája, Jurij Andruhovics ukrán költő szavait is: “Az ukránok szó szerint vérüket adják az európai értékekért, egy szabad és igazságos társadalomért. Remélem, hogy ezt Önök is értékelni tudják.”
A szerző a cikk címére utalva kifejti: nem csoda, hogy a “Shame on you, EU” felkiáltás a Majdanon most már egyre hangosabb lett. Hozzáteszi: nem kell azonban olyan drasztikusan fogalmazni, mint az amerikai diplomata, Victoria Nuland tette, aki (nyomdafestéket nem tűrő) “Fuck the EU” jelzővel illette az európai semmittevést.
Az írás emlékeztet arra, hogy Azarov január végén, a lemondása után Ausztriába látogatott, és felidézi a média értesüléseit, melyek szerint az osztrák bankokban milliós vagyona van a volt kormányfőnek. A cikk szerzője szégyennek nevezi, hogy az osztrák politika némán vette tudomásul, hogy egy rezsim vezetője osztrák bankszámlán tartja a pénzét.
A cikk Martin Pollack osztrák író szavaival zárja az összegzést: “Az “Euromajdan” tüntetéseken nem csak Ukrajna sorsáról van szó. Hanem egész Európáról. Európa lelkéről, amely nem ér véget a schengeni határoknál”.

Botrányt kavart egy amerikai diplomáciai vezető EU-val szembeni kifakadása

    Washington, 2014. február 6., csütörtök (MTI) – Nemzetközi botrányt kavart egy Victoria Nuland európai ügyekért felelős amerikai külügyi államtitkár-helyettesnek tulajdonított kijelentés, amelyben a diplomata keresetlen szavakkal illette az Európai Unió Ukrajna-politikáját.

A YouTube videómegosztóra kedden töltöttek fel egy orosz nyelven
feliratozott hangfelvételt, amely a jelek szerint Nuland és Geoffrey
Pyatt kijevi amerikai nagykövet telefonbeszélgetése. Ebben a két
diplomata – a hanganyagot az ő fotóikkal illusztrálták – a válságban
érintett ukrán politikusokról és az Európai Unió Ukrajnával
kapcsolatos politikájáról folytatott párbeszédet. Ez utóbbit
(Brüsszel törekvéseit) a dialógus női részvevője szerint figyelmen
kívül kellene hagynia az Egyesült Államoknak
.

B… meg az EU-t!” – fakadt ki keresetlen szavakkal a Nulandnak
tulajdonított női hang tulajdonosa a felvételen
, amelynek
hitelességét az amerikai külügyminisztérium nem erősítette meg.

A sajtónak névtelenül nyilatkozó amerikai illetékesek
Oroszországot sejtik a telefonbeszélgetés lehallgatása és
kiszivárogtatása mögött. Ezt azzal támasztották alá, hogy Dmitrij
Rogozin orosz miniszterelnök-helyettes egyik munkatársa, Dmitrij
Loszkutov az elsők között kommentálta a Twitteren a kendőzetlen
vélemény-nyilvánításokkal tarkított párbeszédet.

Jay Carney, a Fehér Ház szóvivője nem nyilatkozott sem a
YouTube-videó lehetséges eredetéről, sem annak tartalmáról, de ő is
úgy vélekedett: “Oroszország szerepéről mond el valamit” az, hogy a
felvételt ilyen hamar felfedezte és kommentálta az orosz kormány.

Jen Psaki külügyi szóvivő szerint ha az oroszok lehallgattak,
majd posztoltak egy diplomaták között lefolytatott
magánbeszélgetést, az egy “új mélypontot jelent” az orosz
módszerekben. Kijelentette, hogy Nuland kapcsolatba lépett európai
partnereivel, és bocsánatot kért a jelentésekben szereplő
megjegyzések miatt.

“Nem mondtam, hogy nem hiteles” – jelentette ki Psaki a
hangfelvételről, miután kérdések kereszttüzébe került annak
eredetiségével kapcsolatban
.

Ukrajnai tüntetések – Nuland: van még esély a válság demokratikus rendezésére

    Kijev, 2013. december 11., szerda (MTI) – Még van esély az ukrajnai belpolitikai válság békés rendezésére – jelentette ki Victoria Nuland, az amerikai külügyminisztérium európai ügyekben illetékes államtitkár-helyettese Kijevben szerdán, miután tárgyalt Viktor Janukovics államfővel.

Hangsúlyozta, hogy Ukrajnának még van lehetősége visszatérni “az
európai útra”. Ehhez azonban Kijevnek fel kell újítania a
párbeszédet “Európával és a Nemzetközi Valutaalappal” – fűzte hozzá.

Az amerikai diplomata “nyomatékosan értésére adta” Janukovics
elnöknek, hogy a kijevi belvárosban tüntetőkkel szembeni éjjeli
rendőri fellépés “elfogadhatatlan egy modern európai társadalomban
és államban”.

“Az ukrán népnek tudnia kell, hogy az Egyesült Államok velük
van” – hangoztatta.

Az ukrán elnökkel folytatott kétórás megbeszélését “nehéznek, de
realisztikusnak” nevezte. Szavai szerint a találkozó után az a
benyomása, és reméli, hogy Janukovics “tudja, mit kell tennie”.

Éjjel a belügyi egységek elkezdték kiszorítani az Ukrajna
európai integrációjáért és hatalomváltásért tüntetőket a
Függetlenség teréről. Ezután délelőtt kísérletet tettek arra, hogy
rohammal behatoljanak a demonstrálók által elfoglalt városházára. A
roham hírére mintegy 25 ezres tömeg gyűlt össze a téren és a
Hrescsatik nevű főutcán, ahol a városi adminisztráció épülete áll.

A rohamrendőrök ekkor visszavonultak, a tüntetők pedig ismét
birtokukba vették a “Majdant”, azaz a “Teret”. A közbeszédben így
nevezik az ukránok rövidítve a híres kijevi Függetlenség terét, ami
ukránul teljes nevén Majdan Nezalezsnostyi. A november 24-e óta
tartó tüntetéssorozat a “Jevromajdan” elnevezést kapta, mivel az
első utcai megmozdulásokat az európai uniós társulási folyamat
leállítása váltotta ki.

És a veterán CIA elemzők közül Rickard nincs egyedül véleményével:

Who Is Provoking the Unrest in Ukraine? A Debate on Role of Russia, United States in Regional Crisis [Democracy Now! YouTube channel, March 3, 2014]

1/2

2/2
Russia is vowing to keep its troops in the Ukrainian region of Crimea in what has become Moscow’s biggest confrontation with the West since the Cold War. Ukraine’s new prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, said Russian President Vladimir Putin had effectively declared war on his country. Concern is growing that more of eastern Ukraine could soon fall to the Russians. Earlier today, Russian troops seized a Ukraine coast guard base in the Crimean city of Balaklava. On Sunday, the new head of Ukraine’s navy defected to Russia. To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine, we speak to Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder. His latest article for The New York Review of Books is “Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda.” We also speak to retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. He focused on Russian foreign policy for the first decade of his 27-year career with the agency. He recently wrote an article titled “Ukraine: One ‘Regime Change’ Too Many?” Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University, author of Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. His latest article for The New York Review of Books is titled “Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda.” Ray McGovern, former senior CIA analyst whose duties included preparing the President’s Daily Brief and chairing National Intelligence Estimates. He was an analyst of Russian foreign policy for the first decade of his 27-year career with the CIA. McGovern is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

1/2

Russia is vowing to keep its troops in the Ukrainian region of Crimea in what has become Moscow’s biggest confrontation with the West since the Cold War. Ukraine’s new prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, said Russian President Vladimir Putin had effectively declared war on his country. Concern is growing that more of eastern Ukraine could soon fall to the Russians. Earlier today, Russian troops seized a Ukraine coast guard base in the Crimean city of Balaklava. On Sunday, the new head of Ukraine’s navy defected to Russia. To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine, we speak to Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder. His latest article for The New York Review of Books is “Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda.” We also speak to retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. He focused on Russian foreign policy for the first decade of his 27-year career with the agency. He recently wrote an article titled “Ukraine: One ‘Regime Change’ Too Many?”

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Russia is vowing to keep its troops in the Ukrainian region of Crimea in what has become Moscow’s biggest confrontation with the West since the Cold War. Russian troops seized part of the Crimea Peninsula without firing a shot as the Parliament in Moscow gave President Vladimir Putin a green light Saturday to proceed to protect Russian interests following the ouster of Ukraine’s pro-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. Crimea houses a major Russian naval base and is the only Ukrainian region that has an ethnic Russian majority. It was a Russian territory until it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954, during the Soviet era. Ukraine’s new prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, said Putin had effectively declared war on his country.

PRIME MINISTER ARSENIY YATSENYUK: This is the red alert. This is not the threat. This is actually the declaration of war to my country. And we urge President Putin to pull back his military and to stick to the international obligations and bilateral and multilateral agreements that were signed between Ukraine and Russia.

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier today, Russian troops seized a Ukraine coast guard base in the Crimean city of Balaklava. On Sunday, the new head of Ukraine’s navy defected to Russia. Concern is growing that more of eastern Ukraine could soon fall to the Russians. Putin sent troops into Crimea in defiance of President Obama, who addressed the crisis Friday.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We are now deeply concerned by reports of military movements taken by the Russian Federation inside of Ukraine. Russia has a historic relationship with Ukraine, including cultural and economic ties, and a military facility in Crimea. But any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interest of Ukraine, Russia or Europe. It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people. It would be a clear violation of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, and of international laws.

AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration is still debating how to respond to the Russian troop movement. In an initial step, the United States and other G7 nations said they are suspending preparations for this year’s G8 summit in Russia, due to take place in Sochi in June. Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. is considering placing sanctions on Russia and kicking Russia out of the G8. Ukraine’s envoy to the United Nations said Kiev may ask for international military support if Russia’s military action expands.

To talk more about the crisis in Ukraine, we’re joined by two guests. Timothy Snyder is back with us, professor of history at Yale University, author of Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. His latest piece for The New York Review of Books is titled “Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda.” He’s joining us from Vienna, Austria.

Joining us from Washington, D.C., is Ray McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. He was an analyst of Russian foreign policy for the first decade of his 27-year career with the agency. His later duties included preparing the President’s Daily Brief and chairing National Intelligence Estimates. McGovern is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He recently wrote an article for Consortium News called “Ukraine: One ‘Regime Change’ Too Many?”

Let’s start with Professor Snyder. Can you explain what’s happened until this point?

TIMOTHY SNYDER: Well, revolution and then counterrevolution. Ukraine was governed by probably the most financially corrupt regime in the history of the world, which by the end of its rule was not only physically oppressing, but finally killing its citizens as they attempted to exert pressure by way of exercising their rights to speech and assembly. This president left after an agreement, according to which presidential elections were going to be called, leading to a change of power where power shifted in Ukraine from the streets to the Parliament, where it resides now. The constitution in Ukraine has been changed such that Ukraine has now become, instead of a super-presidential authoritarian regime, a parliamentary democracy, and elections have been called for this coming May.

What happened immediately after that was an entirely unprovoked Russian military intervention on part of Ukrainian territory. The goal of this seems to be twofold—first of all, defensive, from Putin’s point of view, to prevent this sort of thing from happening again in Russia. If you can create the image of chaos in Ukraine—and, of course, invasions have a way of creating such images—then you came make Russians believe that what’s happened in Ukraine is entirely unattractive. The second goal, the long-term goal and the more offensive goal, is to propound an alternative idea of what European civilization means. Putin and his advisers and the Russian press have made very clear that they understand Ukrainian events not just as an expression of Ukrainian interests or ideas or aspirations, but as part of a decadent European civilization. And by decadence, they mean rejection of Christianity, advocacy of the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities. They’re making it very clear that this is what they oppose, and they seem to be trying to draw a line in Ukraine. Of course, these issues are not central to Ukrainians themselves. What Ukrainians were campaigning for was something like the rule of law. And what they’re concerned about now is also very simple: namely, the territorial integrity of their own state as it’s being invaded by an outside force.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about moving forces into Crimea? How significant is this, Professor Snyder?

TIMOTHY SNYDER: Well, it’s probably the worst thing that has happened in Europe since the Yugoslav wars. It’s a desperately dangerous thing to do. For one thing, it’s a violation of all conceivable international law and standards. It’s a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. It’s a violation of the Helsinki Final Act. It’s a violation of multiple treaties between Ukraine and Russia, including the one by which Russia has basing rights in Ukraine. It’s a violation of the 1994 agreement between Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and the United Kingdom, according to which Ukraine, which was then the third-largest nuclear power in the world, gave up all of its nuclear weapons, filled up its silos and planted daisies on the top of them. So, what this precedent shows, among other things, is if you give up your nuclear weapons, you’re inviting invasion from neighboring powers. That’s a horrible lesson, apart from anything else.

But what this is is an entirely unprovoked act of military aggression in the middle of Europe between—where one very large military power is engaging or provoking another very large state. What has already happened is quite bad. For no reason whatsoever, one state is being asked to concede part of its territory. But Russia, the aggressor, is asserting for itself the right to continue to invade the country to protect the ill-defined rights of very flexibly defined people, who, by the way, are not asking for any intervention. On the contrary, there’s a very long petition by Russian-speaking Ukrainians going on now in which they explain that they do not need any external interference, especially armed interference, to protect their rights. The governors of Ukraine’s eastern provinces, who are themselves Russian speakers, are also making this point very clearly. So, what we have now is one of the worst things that’s happened, and it threatens to get very, very, very much worse.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re speaking with Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University and Ray McGovern. Ray McGovern is a former senior CIA analyst whose duties included prepping the President’s Daily Brief for President George H.W. Bush. We’ll be back with them in a minute.

[break]
2/2

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue our discussion about Ukraine with Ray McGovern, former senior CIAanalyst, whose duties included preparing the President’s Daily Brief and chairing the National Intelligence Estimates. He was an analyst of Russian foreign policy in the first decade of his 27-year career with the CIA. So, Ray McGovern, your assessment of what’s happening now? And talk about it in the context of your background.

RAY McGOVERN: Well, thank you, Amy. I think Professor Snyder was quite right in talking about the haze surrounding what’s going on inside the Ukraine. What I can speak to is how the Russians look at the Ukraine and how incredibly sensitive they are to what they perceive as threats to its frontier, to its near frontier, and particularly to republics that were once a constituter part of the Soviet Union, back in the days when I started analyzing the U.S.S.R. So the Ukraine is something special, not only historically, not only economically, politically, but for all kinds of strategic reasons.

Now, the question is: Who’s provoking this unrest? And, you know, what I know is that you really have to stick close to the evidence. And in this case, we have incredible evidence, based—based on an intercepted telephone conversation. And who’s speaking? Well, it’s the assistant secretary for European affairs, Victoria Nuland, talking to the ambassador—our ambassador in Kiev. And what she’s saying here—and I’ll just read one sentence: “Yats,” Yats, Yatsenyuk, “he’s the guy. He’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy you know”—I guess as opposed to the guy you don’t know. Now, guess what. A few weeks after that, Yats—that’s Yatsenyuk—has become the interim prime minister of the Ukraine. Well, if I were a Russian, I would look at that and say, “Hmmm, who’s responsible for a lot of this?” I’m not saying that the National Endowment for Democracy is completely responsible, but they are a catalyst.

And when you have 65—count them, 65—projects in the Ukraine funded with $100 million, if I were a Russian, I would say, “Hmmm, looks like they’re trying to do with the Ukraine what they did to the rest of Eastern Europe,” what the U.S. pledged not to do, and that is to pluck these countries off one by one and have them join not only the European Community, but NATO. The Russians aren’t going to stand for that. And, you know, the people advising Obama might have warned him that you go a bridge too far when you threaten a strategic interest the Russians consider so sensitive as the Ukraine.

AMY GOODMAN: Timothy Snyder, your response?

TIMOTHY SNYDER: I guess a lot depends on what you think Russia’s strategic interests are. I would say that Russia’s strategic interests would involve trade with Ukraine, stability in Ukraine. These are not things that are going to be improved by the military occupation of all or part of the country.

I would draw attention to the basic fact that Ukraine and Russia are different countries. Americans and Canadians have a lot in common, a lot of Americans and Mexicans have a lot in common, but that doesn’t mean that we start speaking about frontier zones. We know what borders are. It doesn’t mean that we start speaking about the interests of English-speaking people in Canada or Spanish-speaking people in Mexico, then claim we have a right to invade, or vice versa. Ukraine is a sovereign state. Russia’s direct military interest in Ukraine is its base in Crimea. That base is secured by international treaty until 2042. One of the provisions of that treaty is that Russian forces are not to move beyond the borders of that base, which they have now done. That’s one more agreement that they violated.

In terms of the question, who is provoking what, I’m very happy to hear that telephone call cited. Imagine just how much evidence the Russians have of what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine, given that they had access to that telephone call. That was the best bit they could come up with. And in the context of the time, what that telephone conversation showed was that the Americans were, A, not up to date about what was happening in Ukraine and, B, unable to influence events happening in Ukraine, because at that time, as opposed to weeks later, what was being discussed in that phone call was an offer by the then-president of Ukraine to Klitschko and to Yatsenyuk, which they refused. The Americans were telling them to accept it, and they refused it. If you just read the transcript of that phone call, that’s very clear, what was actually happening. And remember, that’s the best thing the Russians could come up with to show that the Americans were behind the scenes.

The answer to the question, what provoked this—and this is very important—is Russian foreign policy doctrine. Russia wanted Ukraine to become a member of something called the Eurasian Union. The Eurasian Union is a dictatorship club. In order for Ukraine to be a member, Ukraine had to become an authoritarian regime like Russia. Russian financial aid preceded, and seems very likely to have been the cause of—and Russian financial aid is in the billions, it dwarfs anything the National Economic—the National Endowment for Democracy is doing in Ukraine—was made contingent upon Ukrainians’ authorities oppressing and killing their own citizens. If that were not the case, if there weren’t huge Russian money backing the killing of Ukrainian citizens, there would not have been a revolution in Ukraine. Russia would still have a leader it liked in Ukraine. Russia brought this on itself by overreaching. And one of the reasons why Russia is invading Ukraine now is to make sure that we forget all about that. If Russia had not overreached in Ukraine, it wouldn’t have provoked the revolution which it’s so unhappy about now.

AMY GOODMAN: Ray McGovern, your response?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, I’m glad that Professor Snyder mentioned Canada and Mexico. Flip this over and consider Putin or Lavrov, the foreign minister, handing out chocolate chip cookies to violent demonstrators in Mexico City or in Ottawa or in Toronto. You know, our near frontier is sacred to us. We even used to have something called the Monroe Doctrine. And so, mirror-image that to how Russia looks at things and how they feel tricked, really tricked, when in a position of weakness in 1990, 1991, Gorbachev said, “All right, all right, East Germany, we’ll pull our troops out of East Germany. You can have a reunited Germany, if that’s what you really want. But, you know, let’s stop there. Let’s not get the Warsaw Pact countries into NATO.” And, of course, that’s precisely what we did.

And so, you don’t have to be paranoid to be a Russian and say, “Now, wait a second. Here’s this conversation.” I’d say it’s a very telling conversation. It goes on to say, this fellow, Yats, you know, Yatsenyuk, he knows about economics: He used to be head of the central bank, and he knows he’s got to do suicide politically because he’s got to—he’s got to cut back on things—no more food stamps, equivalent, that kind of thing—so that they can meet the conditions of the IMF and Western Europe. You know, it’s not so hazy. It’s a choice between the EC and Western Europe and the Western Ukraine and the Soviet Union. And in this case, the Soviet Union has all the cards. And so, somebody [inaudible] should say to the president, “Look, Mr. President, you know, however much we would like to have regime change according to our own wishes, there are strategic realities that we have to remind you of, Mr. President. And one of them is that Putin and no Soviet leader is going to abide NATO infringing on the Ukraine.”

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to a part of the recording, the intercepted phone conversation between the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and Victoria Nuland, the top U.S. diplomat for Europe.

VICTORIA NULAND: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.

GEOFFREY PYATT: Yeah. I mean, I guess, you think—in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys. And, you know, I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of—

VICTORIA NULAND: I think—I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy—you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk. It’s just not going to work.

AMY GOODMAN: So that’s Victoria Nuland speaking to—and Victoria Nuland is the top U.S. diplomat for Europe, speaking to the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. And that conversation, to the shock of many, ended up on YouTube—not clear who hacked that phone conversation. We’re talking to former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and Yale University Professor Timothy Snyder. Professor Snyder, you said the conversation showed sort of how out-of-control the U.S. was, but there she is talking about who should be the next leader, and that’s exactly who ended up being the next leader, Yatsenyuk.

TIMOTHY SNYDER: Yeah. The reason that Yatsenyuk became the prime minister of Ukraine is that he received the majority of votes in the Ukrainian Parliament. That’s how things normally work. It’s not so difficult to predict who’s going to be the next president of the United States, for example. Other countries look on; they have their favorites; they make estimations.

The other things that she said in the phone conversation that you just cited did not happen. Klitschko is not kept out of politics. He’s most likely going to be the next president of Ukraine, providing that the Russian military occupation doesn’t prevent presidential form elections. He’s the overwhelming favorite. So he’s not going to be at home doing his political homework. He is going to be the most important person in the country. On the other things which she described as should happen, aren’t happening, either. So, if this is our piece of evidence that the Americans control everything, it’s a very, very thin piece of evidence. And remember, whoever is collecting that evidence—I don’t think we really doubt who that is—had much more than that, and this was the very best thing that they could find.

I think it’s very important that we Americans, or we people on the American left, don’t reduce everything to being the Americans did this or the Americans did that. This revolution happened because Ukrainians made it happen. Ukrainians are actual people living in an actual country. They believed that what we did, by the way, was far too little. The complaint that Ukrainians on the Maidan had about both the Americans and the Europeans was that we were way too hands-off. They complained that we were far—they complained that we were far too close to the Russians, that in effect we were helping the Russians hurt them. And that, I’m afraid, is much closer to the reality.

I was struck—I was struck that—we just heard talk about the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has not existed for a quarter century. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. In December of 1991, the authorities of what became Russia accepted the borders with Ukraine. This has happened before. Other states have fallen apart. Legally, you draw up borders. You don’t then, 25 years later, talk about how you might want those borders to be a little bit different. You have to respect the agreements that you’ve actually made. The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. Whether it seems to exist in people’s minds, now, that’s a problem. It’s a problem whether it’s there or a problem whether it’s here. But international law in these questions is absolutely clear, and there’s just no way in the world that somebody giving out cookies on the Maidan justifies invading a country.

AMY GOODMAN: Ray McGovern?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, I appreciate the lesson as to how the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. Russian interests exist, and they have since the ninth century, OK? That’s where Russia began, you know, Kievan Rus’, in Kiev. And so, this goes back a long way.

Now, fast-forward to today. Who is Geoffrey Pyatt? Well, Geoffrey Pyatt is one of these State Department high officials who does what he’s told and fancies himself as a kind of a CIA operator, because now the CIA doesn’t do much of this stuff, and so State Department have to do it. Now, who is he? He was in Vienna. What was he doing in Vienna? He was orchestrating the election of Amano, Amano to be head of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, because they didn’t like Baradei, the guy that they tried to get rid of earlier. But they knew that Amano—and it’s clear from cables from Vienna, from Pyatt, released by WikiLeaks, that Pyatt was glowing and saying, “Amano is so happy for all our support in making him head of the IAEA, and now he’s asked us for a little bit more money, because he’d like to fix up his office.” I mean, it’s so apparent what State Department types now are doing, in a self-styled sort of covert action, political action sort of thing, so to create the right results. And the IAEA is a big deal, OK? Pyatt played a very crucial role in that, and now he’s doing the bidding of the likes of Victoria Nuland, who I would describe as a neocon, prima donna assistant secretary of state for European affairs who is doing our country—doing no one any good, cookies or not.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to comments made by Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations over the weekend. This is Vitaly Churkin.

VITALY CHURKIN: The best way to resolve the crisis is to look hard again at February the 21st agreement and try to do things the way they were described there. They need to have a constitutional dialogue and process of forming a new constitution. They need to refrain from conducting a hasty presidential election, which most likely is going to create more friction within the country. They need to stop trying to intimidate other regions and other political forces. They need to show—not just to declare, but to show—in their actual policies that this is about national reconciliation, this is about national unity, this is about territorial integrity of Ukraine. They need to work towards establishing a common ground there. But unfortunately, so far, we don’t see that in practice. We hear some decorations to that effect, but we don’t see that in practice.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin. Professor Snyder, your response?

TIMOTHY SNYDER: Well, very briefly on what was just said, this business that Russia started in the ninth century, and therefore Russia has interests, strikes me as very strange. I mean, if we take our history back to the ninth century, then we’re in—you know, then we’re in England or wherever. In the ninth century, Kievan Rus’ was in Kiev. That’s the history of Ukraine, as well as Belarus and Russia. Certainly things that happened in the ninth century are not a reason why Russian soldiers have to be bearing weapons in Ukraine today. If one is concerned about the control of atomic energy, one should be more concerned about the control of nuclear weapons. In 1994, Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons. In exchange, Russia promised not to intervene on Ukrainian territory. This has now been violated. And this is bad in itself, and it’s a very bad precedent.

In terms of what the Russian—the quotation from the Russian diplomat, first of all, I think it’s for us rather than the Russians to judge whether the Ukrainians are making progress in these directions. By “us,” I mean all observers around the world. The Russians have intervened with military force, which makes them questionable observers of stability. They’ve intervened on the grounds that they have the right to attack any country and change—and I’m quoting now from what the Russian Federal Duma said, its Parliament—”until the social and political order is satisfactory.” That’s an extraordinary, extraordinary mission.

But as far as what’s actually happened in Ukraine, it has been restored to parliamentary democracy. Presidential elections are scheduled. The only thing that will stop them from happening is the Russian military intervention. And in terms of bringing everyone together, in Eastern Ukrainian cities, people are speaking Russian—speaking Ukrainian as a gesture to the West. In West Ukrainian cities, people are speaking Russian as a gesture to people in the east. The governors of the eastern provinces are speaking about the necessity of keeping the country together.

This was a revolution. This is something very unusual, and it’s all going to be passed over now because all we’re talking about is intervention. This revolution was started by a Muslim civil society activist. It has ended with a Jew as prime minister of the country. Along the way, Ukrainians, but also Russians, Belarussians, Armenians, Poles, others, have taken risks and died. This was a popular revolution, which included all kinds of people from all over the country, most of them ordinary people. And it’s resulted in the possibility of pushing Ukraine forward towards what Ukrainians themselves actually want, which is a rule-of-law society. It seems that rather than being distracted by our slightly self-obsessed notions of how we control or don’t control everything, we should pay more attention to the actual political progress that has been made and then defend the very standard and normal standards of international law. That part isn’t very complicated.

AMY GOODMAN: Ray McGovern?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, a couple of things. You know, it really depends more on who seizes control of these uprisings. If you look at Bahrain, you know, if you look at Syria—even Egypt, to an extent—these were initially popular uprisings. The question is: Who took them over? Who spurred them? Who provoked them even more for their own particular strategic interests? And it’s very clear what’s happened to the Ukraine. It used to be the CIA doing these things. I know that for a fact. OK, now it’s the National Endowment for Democracy, a hundred million bucks, 62 projects in the Ukraine. So, again, you don’t have to be a paranoid Russian to suggest that, you know, they’re really trying to do what they—do in the Ukraine what they’ve done in the rest of Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

The other thing is, you know, Professor Snyder talks about the parliamentary vote, voting in the new government. Well, he must know that that was a rump vote. I think it was—I think it was unanimous, something like 253 to nothing, which, you know, really is sort of a nostalgic look back at the votes that I used to count in the Soviet Union. There’s something very smelly here. And people should realize that it is murky, but Russian interests are paramount here, and if the president thinks that he can face down Vladimir Putin on this issue, he’s in for a sorry miscalculation.

AMY GOODMAN: So I guess the question is where this is all headed now. Speaking on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry strongly condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine and threatened punitive political and economic measures by the international community.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: It’s really 19th-century behavior in the 21st century. And there is no way, to start with, that if Russia persists in this, that the G8 countries are going to assemble in Sochi. That’s a starter. But there’s much more than that. Russia has major investment and trade needs and desires. I think there’s a unified view by all of the foreign ministers I talked with yesterday, all of the G8 and more, that they’re simply going to isolate Russia, that they’re not going to engage with Russia in a normal, business-as-usual manner, that Russia is inviting opprobrium on the international stage. There could even be, ultimately, asset freezes, visa bans. There could be certainly a disruption of any of the normal trade routine. There could be business drawback on investment in the country. The ruble is already going down and feeling the impact of this.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Secretary of State John Kerry on Meet the Press. Professor Snyder, so where do you see this headed, and the response of Putin to perhaps the possibility that they won’t go to Sochi, that Russia could be thrown out of the G8?

TIMOTHY SNYDER: It’s very hard to predict political systems that are tyrannies. I will just point out a couple of things. The first of these is that every step that Russia has taken thus far in Ukraine has turned out to be a miscalculation that has turned against it. The calculation that if you pay $15 billion and then ask your Ukrainian ally to oppress and kill people, that didn’t turn out the way that Russians expected. And the reason it didn’t turn out that way is because Ukrainians resisted. And then Russia ended up having to face a revolution, which it provoked, although it didn’t mean to provoke.

I take it that the goal of intervening in Crimea was to show the world how unstable and chaotic Ukraine is. That’s not working. The Ukrainians have accepted this with remarkable calm. They’ve asked for help. They’ve declared, quite understandably, its legitimacy. But they’ve remained remarkably calm. And now you see more pro-government and more pro-Ukrainian protests all around the country, by everyone, which is understandable. When you get invaded, that tends to promote national unity. I think what Putin was counting on was the creation of bloody pictures on the—for television cameras, so that Russians would understand just how horrible things are. What I worry about now is that in order to get those pictures, he’s going to have to use even more violence. The problem with Russia protecting what we so casually call its interests is that Russia keeps pushing itself forward and forward and forward into situations that Putin himself has not anticipated, and then he finds himself doing things which are probably even worse than he actually planned.

Where this is going for Russia is not good. It’s certainly—whether or not the Western states get it together to impose sanctions, this is going to be a disaster for the Russian economy. It’s very possible that Russians are going to be denied normal visas, and therefore travel around Europe. It’s very likely, indeed, I think, that the Russian elite is going to feel a hit, with freezing of accounts and things like this. Putin will try to argue that all of this just confirms his own view that Russia is all alone as a kind of superior national civilization facing a world conspiracy which, depending upon the mood and depending upon the audience, is either made up of Nazis or gays. The international response will only make him try to confirm that kind of ideology. But in the long run, this is not something which most Russians, I think, are going to see as very sensible. Most—even most Russian strategists were saying the kinds of things that I’m saying right now, that it didn’t make sense to use military force in Ukraine. When the consequences of this go beyond the immediate exuberance of this temporary victory, when the consequences of this begin to reach the Russian population, I think Putin is going to have a problem. I don’t know exactly what’s going to happen. I would just repeat: Everything that he has done in this crisis thus far has had the opposite consequence of what he himself has intended.

AMY GOODMAN: Ray McGovern, The New York Times is reporting that Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, spoke to President Obama after she spoke to Putin. And reports of that call, she said she was not sure he was in touch with reality. She’s talking about Putin here. She referred to Putin as “in another world.” Ray McGovern, if you could respond to what Professor Snyder said and where this is all headed? Could we see a new Cold War?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, you know, a lot of the people looking on what’s happened in Ukraine and how the EU and the IMF were trying to sort of wean the Ukraine, taking advantage of its basket-case economy—you know, a lot of people remember the old Pravda saying about the forces in the United States, wall-streetski krvopijci, OK? “Wall Street bloodsuckers.” Well, they know what’s happened in Greece. They know what’s happened in many other parts of Western Europe. And whether the Ukrainians, when they come to their senses, really think that the harsh measures that Yats has already threatened to introduce serves their economic and their political best interest, that’s a big question for me.

Now, the rest of it, it seems to me that we need to realize, number one, that the Russians hold very high cards here, not only military cards, but Western Europe is still largely dependent on gas from—natural gas from Russia, that goes through the Ukraine, and that Russia has lots of leverage on this kind of thing. Another thing is that Western Europe is not slavishly devoted to the United States the way it used to be, despite what Angela Merkel said yesterday. They had the NSA scandal. There’s been permanent damage done to the trans-Atlantic relationship. And I don’t think that we’re going to have a very willing coalition of the willing to impose economic sanctions against the United—U.S.S.—against Russia.

Now, the last thing I’ll say is that when these kinds of things happened, you know, in the old days, we used to get the stakeholders around the table, OK? And it’s got to be Putin, and it’s got to be Obama, and it’s got to be the head of Ukraine, past and present, and the stakeholders in the immediate vicinity. We should be able to work this kind of thing out. That seems to have been just kind of washed away from the considerations of politicians. Once that’s done, once you remove the neocons like Kerry, who almost got us in a war with Syria, and Putin bailed us out, OK, once you get away—get the tchinovniki, the bureaucrats, out of the picture, then you have a chance to sit down and say, “OK, now, what are the real interests here? Do we really want an acrimonious relationship because of the Ukraine? Let’s work things out.” It’s a really difficult situation. There’s the Western Ukraine. There’s the Eastern Ukraine. But before, we were able to work this kind of thing out. Let’s do it again.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both for being with us. Of course, we’ll continue to follow this issue. Ray McGovern, former senior CIA analyst, whose duties included preparing the President’s Daily Brief and chairing National Intelligence Estimates. He daily briefed President George H.W. Bush. He was an analyst of Russian foreign policy for the first decade of his 27-year career at theCIA. And I want to thank Professor Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University, author ofBloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. We’ll link to your latest piece in The New York Review of Books called “Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda.” He was speaking to us from Vienna, Austria.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we go to Washington, D.C. There was a major protest against the Keystone XL pipeline outside of the White House. More than 400 people were arrested. We’ll find out who. Stay with us.

Minden ettől a beszédtől kezdődően válik érthetővé:

Victoria Nuland: Ukrainians Deserve For Respect From Their Government  [Ukraine in Washington: US-Ukraine Foundation YouTube channel, Dec 18, 2013]

Csak ezt az utolsó bekezdést kell előre hozni a szónak mibenlétének megértéséhez:

Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper “Doughnut Dolly” for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made “Orange Revolution II” than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland. Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America’s “Three Stooges” of ex-boxer and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg Tyagnibok.

Meet Neocon “Doughnut Dolly” Victoria Nuland [by Wayne MADSEN

on Strategic-Culture.org – Strategic Culture Foundation, Dec 18, 2013]

During America’s many overseas wars, volunteer women of the United Services Organization (USO), a group designed to boost the morale of U.S. troops in combat zones, served coffee and doughnuts to American soldiers. These women, called “doughnut dollies,” were on the scene in the South Pacific, Korea, and Vietnam.

The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, has reprised the role of the “Doughnut Dolly” by distributing snacks to anti-government protesters on Maidan square in central Kyiv. Armed with a white plastic shopping bag full of biscuits, Nuland was trying to boost the morale of the protesters in what has become a virtual proxy war between the United States and Russia. Control of Ukraine by NATO has long been a gleam in the eye of American neo-conservative war hawks like Arizona Republican Senator John McCain who followed Nuland by a day among the Maidan protesters.

Following the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008, many Americans believed that the age of the neo-cons was over. Neo-cons, nostalgic for the Cold War, put their own imprimatur on the George W. Bush presidency by having it adopt all the principles of neocon policy dogma, most notably a document known as the Project for the New American Century or “PNAC.” With fresh policy guidance from within the neo-con policymaking lairs of the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, neocons like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and Robert Kagan set about to plunge the United States into senseless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond in a never-ending “global war on terrorism.”

Kagan, although not as well-known as the others, continues to steer America into foreign policy fiascos such as U.S. involvement in the domestic affairs of Ukraine. Kagan has an ace-in-the-hole in stirring up tensions in Ukraine because his wife is none other than Victoria Nuland…

Nuland’s career has been one of ensuring that the underpinnings of the Cold War never completely died out in Europe. Her State Department career began as the chief of staff to President Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State and close friend, Strobe Talbott. It was under Talbott that Nuland helped completely fracture Yugoslavia and ensured that the U.S. slanted against the interests of Russia’s ally, Serbia. After helping to lord over the final end of Yugoslavia, Nuland moved to develop U.S. foreign policy for the former Soviet Union. Ukraine landed right in the middle of Nuland’s target scope.

After the Clinton administration, Nuland went on to become Vice President Dick Cheney’s principal foreign policy adviser. Impressed with her anti-Russian and neo-con stance, Cheney recommended Nuland to be the U.S. ambassador to NATO. After the Bush administration, Nuland ensured that the neo-con apparatchiks continued to have a say in the new president’s foreign policy. Nuland was appointed as the special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in a further bid to confront Russia. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Nuland as her press spokesman after Philip J. Crowley was forced to resign after he publicly complained about the military prison treatment of Army Private Bradley Manning, arrested and jailed for releasing classified State Department cables to WikiLeaks. Nuland, unlike Crowley, would ensure that neo-con swagger would dominate Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. That swagger became abundantly clear in the CIA’s coup against President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, the U.S.-led overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and U.S. support for uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with “talking points” explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland’s husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.

Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife’s continued presence in a Democratic administration when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign policy.

With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife, inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife’s activities from his perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain’s top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan’s influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.

Kagan’s writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia’s southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.

But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan’s brother, Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute, Fred Kagan was an “anti-corruption” adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan’s wife is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans. And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.

Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper “Doughnut Dolly” for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made “Orange Revolution II” than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland. Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America’s “Three Stooges” of ex-boxer and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg Tyagnibok.

Wayne MADSEN

Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. Has some twenty years experience in security issues. As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club. Lives in Washington, D.C.

About us [Strategic-Culture.org – Strategic Culture Foundation, Oct 20, 2010]

Strategic Culture Foundation provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors from the US, Canada, India, Russia and Europe. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.

Now Strategic Culture Foundation introduces the updated version of the site. We have made the interface user-friendly, dynamic and clean. We provide easier and more logical access to the content. We have opened Facebook, Twitter and LiveJournal accounts to gather SCF communities. You are warmly encouraged to join them, take part in conversations, think, doubt, argue and perfect.

Welcome to Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal.

Sincerely Yours,

Editor-in-Chief Vladimir MAXIMENKO

Phone Wrecks: The Secret Agenda of Ashton and Nuland Revealed

[by Wayne MADSEN on Strategic-Culture.org – Strategic Culture Foundation, March 7, 2014]

Two war-mongering women who represent the West’s foreign policy apparatus, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and EU official and onetime British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament activist Catherine Ashton, have seen their secret agenda for Ukraine revealed as a result of leaked phone conversations. Ashton, whose phone conversation with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet was the second revealing phone call to be leaked, holds the lofty titles of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the European Union and the quite feudalistic and meaningless Baroness Ashton of Upholland.

Ashton’s supporters have an exaggerated view of her accomplishments. As the EU’s de facto foreign minister, Ashton was caught on video in 2012 at the EU’s Brussels headquarters in a fluster because neither she nor her British envoy to the Balkans, Robert Cooper, knew what the president of Serbia, Tomislav Nikolic, looked like moments prior to their official welcoming ceremony for him in Brussels. Ashton is married to former British journalist Peter Kellner. Kellner is an executive of the British polling company YouGov, which feeds not only political polling numbers but also polls on favorites to win on such inane British television programs as Pop Idol and X-Factor to a panting infotainment media.

In a February 26 phone call between Paet and Ashton, the Estonian foreign minister told her that Ukrainian protesters and policemen were shot by the same snipers. Paet visited Kiev on February 25 during violent clashes said to be between protesters and government security forces on Maidan Square. It is now apparent that the violence was fueled by snipers and other provocateurs, including neo-Nazi gangs and foreign mercenaries, on the payroll of the Ukrainian political opposition.

Paet told Ashton that a Ukrainian medical doctor who he also said was a leader of the Ukrainian «civil society,» Dr. Olga Bogomolets, convinced the visiting Estonian official that the bullets that struck protesters and policemen all came from the same weapons and that the opposition was covering up for the snipers. Bogomolets is far from a cipher for the exiled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. She was the personal physician to the «Orange Revolution»-installed President Viktor Yushchenko and she received an award from the CIA- and George Soros-funded Radio Liberty. Moreover, Bogomolets urged her medical students to take part in the Euromaidan protests in Kiev.

Bogomolets convinced Paet that the bullets that struck protesters and policemen, alike, on Maidan Square, were fired from the same guns and that the opposition was behind the attacks. It is also noteworthy that Bogomolets said she turned down an offer by opposition leaders to serve in the position of Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine for Humanitarian Affairs in the new government.

According to the phone call, said to have been intercepted and transcribed by officers loyal to Yanukovych in the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), Ashton feigns «shock» over the notion conveyed by Paet that the Ukrainian opposition likely killed over 70 of their own supporters as well as Ukrainian policemen. The sniper attacks amounted to a «false flag» operation by the Ukrainian opposition, along with their Western sponsors, to engender sympathy and support from the public.

Paet: «All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. . . . Some photos that showed it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it is really disturbing that now the new coalition they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened. So there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition».

Ashton: «I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh».

Paet: «It already discreditates [sic] this new coalition».

Ashton, in response to Paet, begins to throw cold water on his and Bogomolets’s information on the opposition being behind the shootings of protesters and policemen. Ashton defends the opposition members of the Ukrainian Rada, the parliament, against «doctors and She said of the protest leaders, «I mean this is what they’ve got to be careful of, as well, but they need to demand great change but they’ve got to let the Rada function. If the Rada doesn’t function then you’ll have complete chaos. So, if you thought being an activist and a doctor is very, very important but you’re not a politician and somehow they’ve got to come to a kind of accommodation for the next few weeks».

Essentially, Ashton is telling Paet that Bogomolets, in her role as a civil society activist or doctor, had no business questioning the Machiavellian policies of the opposition in the Rada led by the troika of boxer Vitali Klitschko, World Bank veteran Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok. In other words, Ashton implied that a boxer, a World Bank technocrat, and a neo-Nazi street thug had more say in the future of Ukraine than a woman questioning the opposition’s role in shooting to death their own «cannon fodder» street protesters as well as policemen trying to restore order.

Immediately, the Western corporate media began questioning the authenticity of the Ashton-Pate transcript and tossed around the usual pejorative «conspiracy theory» label. However, the Estonian Foreign Ministry confirmed that the transcript was authentic in the following press release that stated the recording of:

«Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and EU foreign policy Chief Catherine Ashton uploaded to the Internet today, a phone call is authentic.

Paet and Ashton conversation took place on 26 February, following Estonia’s Foreign Minister’s visit to Ukraine, and immediately after the end of the street violence.

Foreign Minister Paet communicates what he had said about the meetings held in Kiev last day and expressed concern about the situation.

‘It is extremely regrettable that such an interception is occurring at all,’ said Paet».

Az Észt Külügyminisztérium [Välisministeerium] webhelyén valóban ez van:

Regarding the telephone conversation between Foreign Minister Paet and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton [Välisministeerium]

05.03.2014

The recording of a telephone conversation between Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and High Representative Catherine Ashton that has been leaked online is authentic.

The conversation between Paet and Ashton took place on 26 February after the Estonian Foreign Minister’s return from his visit to Ukraine. His visit took place last week, soon after the end of street violence in Kyiv.

Foreign Minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard the previous day in Kyiv and expressed concern over the situation on the ground. We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition’s involvement in the violence.

“It is extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted,” said Paet. “The fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence,” added Paet.

It is clear that from the very beginning, the events in Ukraine were planned by professional provocateurs, agitators, and «themed revolution» specialists within the bureaucracies of the U.S. State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, British MI6, and the European Union.

Ashton’s agenda complements that of Nuland whose January phone call with U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt revealed that the Obama administration was hand picking the future government of Ukraine even while Ashton, as well as Nuland’s co-ideologue Jeffrey Feltman, the United Nations Undersecretary General for Political Affairs, were feigning interest in a negotiated solution with Yanukovych, the democratically-elected president of Ukraine. Nuland, who expressed support for Yatsenyuk to be the future leader of Ukraine, said «Fuck the EU» after she told Pyatt that the U.S. would achieve its political aims with the support of America’s «bought-and-paid for» UN team of Feltman; his boss, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who was known to South Korean journalists as the «slippery eel» when he served as South Korean foreign minister; and the Special UN envoy to Ukraine, Dutch diplomat Robert Serry. Nuland expressed great confidence in the Calcutta-born Serry, a former Dutch ambassador to Ukraine with a very uncommon Dutch name. While serving as United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Serry said Israel «suffered» bias and discrimination at the UN. Such language would certainly ingratiate Nuland and Feltman to Serry, since both American diplomats are well-known dual loyalists who place Israel’s interests on par with those of the United States.

It is clear that neither the Ashton nor Nuland phone calls were meant to be overheard by the «unwashed masses». However, thanks to the intercept capabilities of loyal and proficient Ukrainian security agents, the world now understands the perfidy of two chattering women who are helping lead Europe and, possibly, the rest of the world, into a massive conflagration…

US-Ukraine: Nuland Comes Clean with Dirty Language [by Wayne MADSEN on Strategic-Culture.org – Strategic Culture Foundation, February 10, 2014]

The leaked private phone conversation between senior US State Department officialVictoria Nuland and the American ambassador to Ukraine – in which Nuland is heard to disparage the European Union with a vulgar expletive – comes as a welcome relief. It is a moment of clarity, in which the US government inadvertently comes clean on its hidden agenda…

All the elusive speculation about what Washington’s agenda in Ukraine is now laid to rest. Nuland’s own words make it clear that the US agenda is all about orchestrating regime change in Kiev. Needless to say, that constitutes an infringement of that country’s sovereignty and should now be a matter of applying sanctions under international law against the US.

It also undermines the political cause of protesters in Maidan Square. They are now seen, more than ever, as a Trojan Horse for external political interference in Ukraine. This is not a cause of patriotism, as we have been led to believe in the Western media, but rather more like grubby treachery to serve a foreign agenda.

For nearly three months, the American and European governments have been playing a frustratingly devious game of piously pretending to support «the people of Ukraine» in their bid for attaining EU integration and democracy. The charade has been frustrating because there is abundant evidence to show that both Washington and Brussels are engaging in regime change by subterfuge, but all the while the West maintains that it is simply acting as an honest broker to resolve a regional political crisis.

Now, thanks to Nuland’s foul-mouthed indiscretion, the speculation is over. Washington is in the business of orchestrating a coup d’état – just as many Ukrainian and Russian politicians have been claiming all along but couldn’t quite pin down as fact.

Of course, the term of regime change is given a politically correct-sounding label of «facilitating a technocratic government». But it is a Washington-orchestrated coup nonetheless whereby a governing authority is imposed by fiat on a foreign nation.

Adding to the authenticity of the covert plan is the anger with which Washington responded to the embarrassing disclosure of Nuland’s conspiratorial briefing with the US ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. Both the White House and the State Department denounced the leak as a «new low» in Russian diplomacy without denying the content of the phone call and its spellbinding revelation. In other words: we have been caught with our pants down, and that exposure is «an outrage».

It is not clear which party actually exposed the American naked agenda of regime change – whether it was the Ukrainian or Russian secret service or some other source. The ethics of intruding on a private diplomatic communication can be debated. But this is unequivocally a case of the ends justifying the means because the ends in this case is the public interest to know what the US and its European allies are really up to in Ukraine.

Nuland’s imperious discussion on the composition of a new US-backed technocratic government in Ukraine – Washington prefers the Homeland Party leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk over the ADAR leader Vitaly Klitscho – puts everything in a new light.

American Vice President Joe Biden’s repeated phone calls to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich urging him to «take immediate steps to resolve the crisis»; and similar high-profile public calls from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, EU chiefs Herman Van Romquy and Jose Manuel Barroso, as well as NATO and the American and European media, all criticising the Kiev government while lionizing the protesters in Maidan Square – this is clearly now seen as a concerted campaign to destabilize the elected Ukrainian authorities. Nuland has confirmed it.

These are not the interventions of some helpful bystander, but rather they are all complementary efforts at regime change.

Interestingly though, Nuland’s disparagement of the EU («f..k the EU,» she is heard to say) also reveals a sharp rivalry between Washington and Brussels in trying to mould the new Ukrainian governing junta. Obviously, these «allies» have their own national interests in play.

Last week, a Financial Times headline read: ‘West steps up bid to woo Ukraine as hryvnia falls to five-year low’. The report told how the International Monetary Fund and the EU were putting together a financial bailout for the embattled Ukrainian economy and its sliding hrynia currency. Clearly, the economic woes of Ukraine have been exacerbated by the ongoing street protests that the West has had a hand in fomenting, and now the West is using the crisis as a leverage on the government of Yanukovich.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton – speaking from Kiev on yet another official visit as an uninvited broker between the government and protesters – said that any financial aid was contingent on IMF-sponsored economic reforms.

The IMF economic reforms that Ashton alluded to are part of the long-term agenda of the US and the EU for opening up the Ukraine economy to Western capital. This goes back to the Western-sponsored Orange Revolution of 2004, which ushered in disastrous IMF-style shock therapy for the majority of Ukrainians. Those reforms under the former President Viktor Yushchenko were abandoned when Yanukovich was elected in 2010. Now it seems Washington and Europe want to turn the clock back to an era that the electorate had rejected.

But let’s return to the shadowy role of Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State. She has visited Ukraine on at least four occasions in recent weeks, each time pretending to act as interlocutor with the Kiev government, but whose partisan politics evidently lie with the Maidan protesters, who have used wanton violence to forcibly occupy government buildings and disrupt civilian administration in the Ukrainian capital.

Such seditious conduct by a Russian dignitary on the streets of Washington DC would spark an international incident. But Nuland and American arrogance seems to know no bounds.

Prior to her recent phone indiscretion, Nuland made another telling public remark on Washington’s involvement. On 13 December, she addressed a little publicised summit in the US capital, entitled the US-Ukraine Conference.

The event was sponsored by Chevron and ExxonMobil. Nuland told the partisan audience (her speech is available on YouTube) of how the US government has invested $5 billion in Ukraine since its independence in 1991 to «promote good governance and democracy». This is Washington-speak for infiltrating its political agenda on a foreign government under the auspices of the CIA-linked USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and various other so-called think tanks. Think about it: $5bn. That’s a serious «investment».

In her address to that Washington gathering, Nuland stipulated that the official US «vision» for Ukraine was for the former Soviet Republic to have a «European future» and that «IMF reforms were necessary».

The senior US diplomat swooned about «feeling the energy» of the crowds at Maidan Square and how they were «protesting peacefully» with «enormous restraint». This is the same crowd that later killed one policeman in Kiev, injured hundreds more officers and have set public property alight with petrol bombs.

But it was the following slip-of-the-tongue admission by Nuland to the Washington conference that bears close attention. At the event – dated December 13 – she tells the audience that she had just returned from Kiev on her «third trip in five weeks». That puts her first visit to the Ukrainian capital some time in early to mid-November. So Nuland was in Kiev up to three weeks before the «spontaneous outbreak of protests» that apparently occurred after November 24, when the Yanukovich government rejected the EU trade agreement. Western politicians and media claim that these protests erupted in popular response to Yanukovich’s decision to decline the EU trade pact.

This begs the questions: what was Nuland doing in Ukraine three weeks before the protests apparently erupted; whom did she meet; and what were they discussing?

Ukrainian security sources are now claiming that they have evidence from computer files obtained after a raid on Yatsenyuk’s Homeland Party last month, which show that the protests had been planned long before the Kiev government dropped the EU pact at the Vilnius conference at the end of November.

Certainly, there are other signs of a premeditated insurgency in Kiev. The deployment of paramilitary riot techniques and methodical sabotage of government offices strongly suggest that the public demonstrations are being orchestrated by professional agents.

When Vitaly Klitscho returned from the Munich Security Conference last week, during which he briefed various Western political figures, including US Secretary of State John Kerry, his first port of call in Kiev was to inspect ranks of masked paramilitaries. Klitscho urged supporters to «set up vigilantes in every yard and on every street».

Days later, the former heavyweight boxer was seen in the Ukrainian parliament wearing a suit and tie, along with his fascist political partner, Oleg Tyahnybok of the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party. They unsuccessfully tried then to introduce new legislation curtailing the power of President Yanukovich.

Having failed in parliament, Klitscho and Tyahnybok were once again back on the streets rallying the vigilantes again to assert their political agenda.

Ironically, these same protesters claim they want to join the EU because they yearn for the «rule of law».

But to paraphrase their Washington mentor, Victoria Nuland, it would seem that the only credo the Kiev agitators have is: «F..k the law!»

Végezetül még egy nyugati nyilatkozat, ami egybe cseng a fentiekkel:

Gerald Celente – RTTV – February 20, 2014 [Gerald Celente YouTube channel, Feb 21, 2014]

Celente: America’s overt actions destabilizing Ukraine as never before At least 75 people have died in the street violence, as the broken truce between the government and the opposition has turned the Ukrainian capital into bloody turmoil. Gerald Celente, trends forecaster and publisher of The Trends Journal, joins RT to discuss this issue. http://www.TrendsJournal.com Official Gerald Celente channels: “Gcelente” & “TrendsJournal”.

GERALD CELENTE on the KIEV RIOTS – Hidden AGENDA as U.S. Spends $5 BILLION Destabilizing UKRAINE

Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy are working with other members of Congress to get the United States more deeply involved in the internal affairs of Ukraine.

The move follows an escalation of violence in the country. Reports Thursday indicate 100 people have died and 500 were injured as gunfire erupted in Kiev’s Independence Square where anti-government demonstrations have taken place since November. CNN crews reported the gunfire erupted after protesters threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at security forces.

McCain and Murphy announced “targeted sanctions” aimed at the Ukrainian government. The Obama administration on Wednesday said it is blocking around 20 Ukrainian officials from entering the United States. It says they are linked to the government’s response to violence in Kiev.

The duo said they are busy working on legislation including “targeted sanctions on government officials and other persons who have committed, ordered, or materially supported acts of violence against peaceful citizens in Ukraine, or who are complicit in the rollback of Ukraine’s democracy.” They reportedly “remain in contact with the Administration and look forward to working together on this legislation.” The State Department has announced it will work with the European Union on more extensive sanctions against Ukrainian government officials if the violence worsens.

In December McCain met with Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the Ukrainian nationalist Svoboda party.

In Ukraine, US-backed rebels seize weapons from a military depot and begin firing on police — killing at least ten. The rebel groups occupy and torch government buildings, trade union headquarters, the central post office, and political party headquarters. They occupy local government facilities in other cities and physically attack local authorities. Their goal is to overthrow the elected government.

Reports of rebel reinforcements arriving, with “bulky backpacks near the scene of the latest protests,” are suspiciously reminiscent of the “Internet in a Suitcase” project funded by the US government to provide tools for “activists” in regime-change candidate countries. The US has similarly trained and equipped the Syrian rebels.

US-backed rebels are photographed all over Ukraine with weapons, sometimes photographed shooting at police. In Syria, the US covertly provided the weapons and approved Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other “friends of Syria” to provide even more. A Russian official has accused the US of arming the Ukrainian opposition.

Washington is engaged in a dangerous act of regime change that could spark a new cold war.

If there’s one thing that should be clear, it’s that nothing the government or their banking partners have done to solve the economic crisis has been for your benefit. They’ve enriched themselves, yet again, on the backs of the American people. “gerald celente” kiev ukraine situation latest news media trends government truce peace sanctions violence american u.s. “united states” usa america action country west east russia russian oil gas speech “eastern europe” europe “european union” power elite mafia control agenda war “world war 3” victim bank banking future humanity media constitution business deal domestic obama entertainment viral crazy usd dollar collapse crisis prepare survive survival “agenda nwo” saudi arabia oil running dry bilderberg george soros funind paid to protest evil civil war police riots nwo lindsey williams global currency reset trends in the news david icke alex jones infowars glenn beck coast to coast am jim rogers end game jsnip4 All the while, they’ve told us that everything is getting better. But anyone who’s paying attention know that nothing of the sort has happened.

We continue to shed jobs. Hundreds of thousands of people are still losing their homes. Personal debt is rapidly approaching 2007 levels. The U.S. government has borrowed more money than what we can ever hope to repay. We are still in the middle of it and it’s only going to get worse.

Trend forecaster Gerald Celente predicted the collapse of 2008 in remarkable fashion. And now he’s warning of a similar crisis to come next year.

The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was “fuck the EU,” as she proceeded to describe the members of the Ukraine government that Washington tended to impose on a people so unaware as to believe that they are achieving independence by rushing into Washington’s arms. I once thought that no population could be as unaware as the US population. But I was wrong. Western Ukrainians are more unaware than Americans.

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Trackbacks

Vélemény, hozzászólás?

Adatok megadása vagy bejelentkezés valamelyik ikonnal:

WordPress.com Logo

Hozzászólhat a WordPress.com felhasználói fiók használatával. Kilépés / Módosítás )

Twitter kép

Hozzászólhat a Twitter felhasználói fiók használatával. Kilépés / Módosítás )

Facebook kép

Hozzászólhat a Facebook felhasználói fiók használatával. Kilépés / Módosítás )

Google+ kép

Hozzászólhat a Google+ felhasználói fiók használatával. Kilépés / Módosítás )

Kapcsolódás: %s

%d blogger ezt kedveli: