Monday, March 03, 2014

Conflict Between Russia and Ukraine! (Part 1)

The Crimean Crisis and US Hypocrisy. “War of Words” to Justify Outright Aggression
By Kourosh Ziabari
Global Research, March 31, 2014
Url of this article:
The war of words between Russia and the United States is soaring these days over the sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula, and the White House officials are constantly directing accusations and excruciating verbal attacks against Kremlin in what seems to be the most serious dispute between Moscow and the West in the recent years.
The United States has pulled out all the stops to defeat and isolate Russia diplomatically, and has even gone so far as to impose economic sanctions against the Russian individuals and companies, and excluding Russia from the G8 group of the industrialized nations. The 40th G8 summit was slated to be held in Sochi, Russia on June 4-5, but following the suspension of Russia’s membership in the G8, the summit relocated to Brussels, Belgium, and it would be the first time that a G8 leaders’ convention is going to take place in a non-member state country. Some of the Western media outlets have even started to refer to G8 as G7, implying that Russia does not have any position in this influential group of the affluent, developed nations.
But as always, when it comes to flexing the muscles and showing political prowess, the United States and its partners are behaving in an intolerant, duplicitous and hypocritical manner. In a statement, the newly-termed G7 leaders reaffirmed that Russia’s “occupation of the Crimea” was against the principles of the G7 and contravened the United Nations Charter.
It’s interesting that the innumerable violations of the international law, the UN Charter and Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War by the United States in the recent years have never caught the attention of the G8 leaders and never compelled them to at least consider warning the United States to behave more responsibly and respect the internationally recognized conventions and regulations or refraining from destroying and annihilating other nations through its “humanitarian” missions.
If Russia should be punished for sending troops to Crimea, while it’s legally entitled to do so, and if its military intervention in Crimea represents a violation of the UN Charter in the eyes of the Western leaders, then it will be taken for granted that all violations of the international law and the United Nations Charter should be reprimanded and responded appropriately and the wrongdoers should be penalized in a fair manner. If Russia has occupied a sovereign entity – which is of course not the case, and should bear the burden of sanctions and diplomatic isolation, it’s ok, but why shouldn’t the United States be castigated and prosecuted for the same reason? What makes the military intervention of Russia different from the wars the U.S. offhandedly wages across the world?
For those of us who willfully ignore the historical facts, it’s noteworthy that the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet signed between Russia and Ukraine on May 28, 1997, permits Russia to lawfully maintain up to 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems, 132 armored vehicles and 22 military planes on the Crimean peninsula. This agreement will be effective until 2017, and so it can be the most convincing logical justification for Russia’s military action in Crimea.
So, what has happened is not an “occupation” as the U.S. leaders claim, but that Russia has exercised its legal right for sending troops to a geographical area where the majority of inhabitants are ethnic Russians and don’t want to remain under the Ukraine autonomy and are overwhelmingly inclined to join Russia.
What every neutral and unbiased observer of the international political developments can easily note is that it’s the United States which is renowned for its hegemonic policies and its imperialistic modus operandi, not Russia. Russia’s intervention in Crimea took place after it felt that its national interests are being seriously endangered on its borders, where 58% of the population is consisted of indigenous Russians who prefer to be reunited with Russia, rather than being seen as an asset and prize for the United States under the leadership of a new government in Ukraine which has neo-fascist backgrounds.
The prominent American syndicated columnist and journalist Ted Rall has recently written on his website that there are traces of neo-fascism and neo-Nazism in the government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk who has just come to power: “There’s no doubt that a Ukrainian nationalist strain runs deep in the new regime. It has been estimated that roughly 1/3 or more of the supporters of the new government come out of xenophobic, anti-Semitic, neo-fascist movements that draw much of their ideological heritage from the Nazi puppet regime that governed Ukraine under German occupation during World War II.”
So, on March 16, the Crimean parliament and the local government of Sevastopol held a public referendum in Crimea to give the citizens two choices for the future of their territory; either to remain associated with Ukraine or reunite with Russia. With a high turnout of 83.1% of the eligible voters, 96.77% of the participants in the plebiscite voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation. The United States and its allies didn’t hesitate to call the referendum as rigged and invalid, as they usually does with the elections in countries with which they are at odds. Washington even drafted
a resolution in the United Nations Security Council to call the referendum null and void, but Russia used its veto power, while China abstained, and the United States simply pushed the General Assembly member states to pass a non-binding resolution, declaring the referendum invalid, which doesn’t seem to have any certain impact on the future of Crimea.
The policy of de-Russanization was long underway in the Crimean peninsula, and many other former Soviet Union republics, as Ted Rall elaborately details. Perhaps the fact that the Ukrainian Parliament Verkhovna Rada voted on February 23 to repeal the 2012 language law that had declared Russian an official language in Ukraine and allowed it to be used in the schools, media and official correspondence, was a driving force for the Crimean people to rise up and call for independence from Ukraine that they believed didn’t respect their cultural and lingual background.
The future of Crimea and the prospects of the marred relations between Russia and the West remain blurred and unknown, but the United States’ accusations that Russia is “occupying” Crimea and exerting military aggression and so should be punished with economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation sound gravely outrageous and entirely hypocritical. The United States has the biggest war machinery in the world, has been directly or indirectly involved in more than 50 wars and military strikes on other countries without the approval of the UN Security Council, and has incontestably perpetrated war crimes and crimes against humanity.
As the prominent American lawyer and legal expert Marjorie Cohn has noted in a recent article, the United States is the largest user of unconventional and forbidden chemical weapons in the illegal wars it has waged across the globe. “The U.S. militarily occupied over 75% of the Puerto Rican island of Vieques for 60 years, during which time the Navy routinely practiced with, and used, Agent Orange, depleted uranium, napalm and other toxic chemicals and metals such as TNT and mercury. This occurred within a couple of miles of a civilian population that included thousands of U.S. citizens,” wrote Prof. Cohn.
“The use of any type of chemical weapon by any party would constitute a war crime. Chemical weapons that kill and maim people are illegal and their use violates the laws of war,” she added.
She also goes on to explain the use of chemical weapons by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and also underlines that the majority of wars in which the United States has taken part were not ever approved by the Security Council. Aren’t these crimes a contravention of the UN Charter? Why don’t the G7 leaders and European Council and European Commission officials ever react to these violations? Does the United States have the prerogative to attack other countries and maim their people without any legal or moral justification and then get away with its crimes?
The United States is imparting a clear message by adopting this insincere and hypocritical approach toward Russia, which is also a message to other countries: We can invade your countries, we can kill your citizens, we can rule you tyrannically, we can behave in any way we desire, but if you do something which doesn’t please us, we will impose sanctions on you, we will banish you from international organizations, and we will come down on you like a ton of bricks. This is how the American hypocrisy works...
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
Rex Murphy Says The Reason Putin Invaded Ukraine Is Because Obama is a Disappointing POTUS
US extends sanctions to Russia over Crimea vote
The Ukraine Crisis and Vladimir Putin: A New Financial System Free from Wall Street and the City of London?
Global Research, March 22, 2014
The following are excerpts from a March 19 2014 interview with Umberto Pascali, Macedonian TV program, "The People’s Voice" directed by Slobodan Tomic.
Approximate Transcript of Interview
The Ukrainian crisis? It is basically the opposite of what the media and politicians keep repeating both in the US and Europe. They say that the so-called International community have isolated Russia and Vladimir Putin.
In fact it is the real sponsors of the coup d’état and the violence in Ukraine who are isolated not only morally but also strategically.
And it is Putin, the first leader who resisted and defeated the strategy of world domination, who is enjoying the enthusiastic support of his people and the growing admiration of the world. The well financed media and politicians do not want to hear this, but this is the reality. Without exaggeration, one can compare this resistance to that against Napoleon and Hitler... Only few know precisely how dangerous the situation has been. How close to a real war.
The incompetent representatives of the ‘international community’ lost any sense of reality and deployed the weapons of social destabilization, armed insurrection, assassination by snipers, a fascist March on Kiev reminiscent of Mussolini’s March on Rome, targeting of the Russian population.
They intended to give Russia the Libya treatment, and they did not make a secret of it.
After the assurances given by George H W Bush to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO couldn’t be used for a push toward East, successive US governments did exactly that. Their objective is to surround Russia. With the smiling hypocrisy of hyenas, they made clear that there was no alternative but to surrender to the military power and propaganda capabilities of NATO.
No compromise, no negotiations. Or better when negotiations took place like on Feb 21, the neo-Nazi gangs in Kiev were incited to escalate the armed violence and take over the Parliament and Government buildings, beating and intimidating whoever did not agree.
The Western "diplomats" immediately recognized the neo-Nazi coup d’état as the legitimate government. Yatsenyuk, the candidate of Victoria Nuland, declared himself Prime Minister while members of the parliament were brutally beaten in the street, their houses invaded and violated, their families terrorized... to ensure their support for the democratic process…
These criminal politicians even pushed the situation close to a real nuclear war. Putin made clear that Russia — which had lost a large percentage of its population in the war against Nazism and accepted to see Moscow in flames in order to defeat the superior forces of Napoleon — was not going to surrender. That moment was more dangerous than the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Putin called their bluff... Then, while the Crimean (and not only Crimean) population asked for protection against the NATO-supported armed gangs, the propaganda machine went into full speed in the West, but it was too late. In this sense Putin not only saved Russia, but gave a chance to the whole of Europe... like in WWII
The fascist armed insurrection and the Kiev coup were not simply a war against Russia, they were also a war against Europe. Not the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, whose loyalty lies with the big financial institutions, but the Europe of the various countries reduced to misery and despair by austerity measures and the economic looting of Wall Street and the city of London.
Ukraine has been destabilized in order to make sure that Europe would be in a perennial war with Russia.
In fact, both, the interests of Europe and that of Russia, lie in a common economic plan for the development of the whole area. This is what was
proposed by Putin and by several leaders such as former German chancellors Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schroeder. This is exactly what had to be prevented with the Victoria Nuland $5 billion ‘to help democracy.’ And now, despite all the noises and rhetoric, this is the most obvious direction to go.
The most important point to understand is that this war and looting policy is not in the interest of the Europeans or even of the Americans.
This is the big secret that now cannot be covered anymore. The governments of the US and the European countries are NOT independent entities, they are not sovereign. They do not have the will or even the ability to act on behalf of their people. They are controlled by powerful banking interests. They have been taken over by two financial centers that do not care for the real economy. They pursue only speculation and looting.
In response on 04 March the economic adviser to Putin, Sergey Glazyev declared openly that if the financial vultures persisted, Russia would create on the spot an independent financial system which is separate from that of the US dollar.
Glazyev explained to the vampires:
‘We have wonderful economic and trade relations with our Southern and Eastern partners. We will find a way not just to eliminate our dependence on the US but also profit from these sanctions.... . If sanctions are applied against Russia’s state structures we will have to move into other currencies and create our own settlement system. We will be forced to recognize the impossibility of repayment of the loans that the US banks gave to Russian state structures. Indeed, sanctions are a double-edged weapon, and if the US chooses to freeze our assets, then our equities and liabilities in dollars will also be frozen...’
This strategy is known as the Financial Nuclear Option. It could lead to the end of the predatory looting system of Wall Street.
The ‘Southern and Eastern partners’ Glazyev is talking about are clearly the members of the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, the sane part of the world economy, the future.
And it is exactly what the official spokesman of the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov indicated in an interview to the BBC:
"Sanctions against Russia could be the final trigger that will force many countries to create a new independent financial system based on the real economy. The world is changing rapidly. How many civilizations grew and died in the course of history? Who will be able to resist the pressure of dying systems and indicate to the people the road toward the future?"
The possibility of a new financial system independent from the collapsing dollar empire, as consequence of anti Russia sanctions was also emphasized by an authoritative the Russian media including RT. (See: Western sanctions might push Russia to deepen cooperation with BRICS states, in particular, to strengthen its ties with China, which will possibly turn out to be a big catastrophe for the US
and the EU some time later.
On March 18, the spokesperson for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, stated that Russia would switch to new partners in case of economic sanctions being imposed by the European Union and the United States. He highlighted that the modern world isn’t unipolar and Russia has strong ties with other states as well, though Russia wants to remain in good relations with its Western partners, especially with the EU due to the volume of trade and joint projects.
Those "new partners" are not really new since Russia has been closely interconnected with them for almost 13 years. This is all about the so-called BRICS organization, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. BRICS represents 42 percent of the world’s population and about a quarter of the world’s economy, which means that this bloc of states is an important global actor.
The BRICS countries are like-minded in regard to supporting the principles of international law, the central role of the UN Security Council and the principles of the non-use of force in international relations; this is why they are so actively performing in the sphere of settling regional conflicts. However, the cooperation between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa goes beyond political aspects and is also demonstrated by dynamic trade and multiple projects in different areas.
Today, in total, there are more than 20 formats of cooperation within the BRICS which are being developing. For example, in February the member-states came to an agreement about 11 possible projects of scientific and technical cooperation, from aeronautics to bio- and nanotechnology.
In order to modernize the global economic system, at the center of which stand the US and the EU, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have created the BRICS Stock Alliance and are creating their own development bank to finance large infrastructure projects. On the whole, despite fierce criticism of BRICS as an organization with no future, it is developing and increasing cooperation with its members and, in fact, BRICS is showing pretty good results.
With the suspension of Russia’s participation in G8 and the strengthening of economic sanctions against Russia, specific industries may be targeted, including limits on imported commodities.
While the West seeks to hit Russia hard, it is important to notice that Russia is ready to switch to other markets, including BRICS, with a view to expanding its trade.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
West Using Crimea to Hide Real Intentions

by Jim W. Dean, VT Editor … with Press TV, Tehran
First published March 18, 2014
(Left: America’s new allies in the Ukraine)
Any competent military or Intel professional would tell you that the West knew that the result of it’s coup in Kiev would be for Russians in the Eastern part of the country to seek protection from Russia. Why? Because they do not want to fall under the control of the new axis of evil.
Why would they allow US missiles and military bases staged on their territory, ‘legalized’ Right Sector terrorists incorporated into Ukraine’s secret service and prosecutor’s offices, and becoming perpetual serfs to the EU and IMF as their curtain of exploitation descends upon them?
The West wants their money, and they are planning to get it. Their plan was to load Ukraine up with loans, watching it bankrupt itself via a combination of mismanagement and looting which is all to common in the region.
The West is just as corrupt, the difference being there was more to steal from their people…or I should say, there was until lately. They have been looking East for greener pastures to prop up their failing economies. The foreign bogeyman is the age old diversion for discontent at home.
We are getting reports of the Kiev coup government agreeing on the quick EU/IMF loan at lightening speed with no public input whatsoever. Those who have taken over know that Ukraine is going to be divided between the haves, and the have nots. And they plan to be among the haves, as literally occupation troops inside their own country.

(Right: Nuland doing her girl scout cookie routine)
With all the time the new leadership has been spending hobnobbing with Western guests for photo ops and trips to the White house and the Hague, there was hardly time to negotiate the IMF draconian loan terms.
That means the terms had already been agreed upon before hand as part of a planned attack to overthrow the government.
It also puts the West in violation of their own laws forbidding economic assistance for governments taken over via a coup.
What we have here is a long planned, wanton aggression, and a violation of the Nuremberg precedent of ‘waging an aggressive war’. This includes the economic one now in progress against Russia and Ukraine.
Details of Ukraine being sold down the river by the coup-meisters are starting to emerge. The price for European membership is basically to be foreclosed upon. Chevron is to get control of the nation’s pipeline giving them a choke hold on Russia’s gas exports to the West.
They are planning to foreclose on 50% of the East Ukraine industry to get that looted prior to the Russians going in. Why would they do that? Because NATO wants to put missiles in East Ukraine for a shorter strike time to Moscow, and then of course US air bases to protect them. No EU country would allow the Russians or Chinese to do such a thing as part of a ‘loan agreement’. 

The average Ukrainian is going to be squeezed like a grape. Gas prices are going up everywhere, increasing public transportation costs by half. For private use the cost will double. A VAT will be added for medicines, pensions halved and tax deductions canceled.
(Left: Ukraine corn harvest is way off this year)
Ukraine’s farmland will mostly end up in the hands of foreign agribusiness corporations as those who have land and find themselves destitute will be forced to sell out their holdings at depressed prices.
This is nothing more than an ‘Attila the Hun’ treatment from John McCain and his buddies at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
They have used this CIA front to subvert and loot targeted former Soviet states, who seceded from Russian by the way, back when we were a little more flexible about territorial integrity.
The sanctions talk up until now has just been media propaganda for conditioning the Western publics for what is coming. Freezing the assets of a few deposed leaders and some travel bans for ‘mismanagement of funds’ is a bad joke.
If the West was really concerned about government fraud and money laundering they would freeze the trillions of looted funds in the off shore accounts, replacing them with bonds that were redeemable upon completion of the account holders proving that the funds were accumulated via legal endeavors. A huge amount of these funds would become immediately abandoned.

So our world organization authorities are spitting in our faces with their phony concerns of financial impropriety. If the publics of these EU countries had a few brain cells to rub together they would be standing side by side with the Ukrainians now in the cross-hairs of the Western elitists who are not able to squeeze any more blood out of their own people.
The concept of criminal negligence and liability is generally a world wide one. But an exception has been left for countries to engage in this activity with immunity.
We are seeing now how this immunity loophole has become a thriving business for international crime organizations to work in conjunction with various Western country political gangsters to loot targeted countries and be protected from prosecution. The usual cover is to put the crime orgs under an intelligence umbrella and simply classify their criminal work.
(Right: Nationalista Banditos)
We saw stage one of this rolled out with the prime suspects for murdering the Kiev protestors and police having turned out to be the Right Sector thugs. There are witnesses now who saw about twenty of them exiting the building under Right Sector control after the shooting, and openly carrying their sniper rifles in shooting bags and cases.
Instead of the new government rounding up the killers, we see the nationalist terror squads purging the former ruling party members and threatening other political parties to disband under penalty of death.
And before the dead were cold in their graves, these prime suspect murders were being quickly incorporated into the new governments security services as a palace guard.
And the rank and file nationalist groups are being all pulled into a national guard unit as a backstop against loyal Ukrainian military not wanting to participating in the dismemberment and looting their country.
What I fear we will see is the loyal Ukraine troops used as a trip wire force to oppose the Russians coming in to block the coup-meisters take over of East Ukraine while the Right Sector national guard remains in the rear doing what they love best, terrorizing unarmed civilians.
Russian Spetsnas Red Berets have been active rounding up nationalist provocateurs. The Russians seem to have done a good job of communications interception to learn what the coup-meisters plans were. They have been quietly rounding many of them up for a ‘Jesus’ talk, not killing them…but sending them on their way with a guarantee of what will happen if they see them again.

Russian Spetsnaz Green Berets
The Russian Intel services are aware of the planned false flag operations to be blamed on them as part of the media vilification program, but which do not seem to be succeeding well. Europeans just can’t wrap their heads around the idea of Russian tank columns rolling through the capitals of Europe with their hammer and scyle flags flying. They have been lied to by the governments for so long they are pretty savvy and spotting war propaganda.
The next 48 hours will be critical. The West will use the Crimea vote to crank things up to the next level of sanctions, which will trigger Russian retaliation right away, where the public’s interest will go way up when their assets and investments are effected.
If the Right Sector and rogue American Special Ops people make a move in East Ukraine, we could see the Russian military move quickly to make sure they cannot get a civil war going in that part of the country to bog the Russian down.

It is a sad situation to watch happening. But we Westerners will not need a long investigation to know who the guilty are…our own governments.
Update 03-21-14: We have gotten through this OK so far. There has only been one provocation attack in the Crimea, what appears to have been a somewhat spontaneous one by a couple of hot heads with two killed and two wounded, with the story quickly growing cold.
Editing: Jim W. Dean


Against Ukraine War? Obama May Seize Your Assets

Written by Daniel McAdams

Friday March 14, 2014

Do you, like 56 percent of the US population, believe that the US should "not get too involved" in the Ukraine situation? Do you think that the US administration putting us on a war footing with Russia is a bad idea? Are you concerned that the new, US-backed leaders of Ukraine -- not being elected -- might lack democratic legitimacy? Are you tempted to speak out against US policy in Ukraine; are you tempted to criticize the new Ukrainian regime
Be careful what you say. Be careful what you write. President Obama has just given himself the authority to seize your assets
According to the president's recent
Executive Order, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine" (first reported by WND's Aaron Klein), the provisions for seizure of property extend to "any United States person." That means "any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Declaring a "national emergency" over the planned referendum in Crimea to determine whether or not to join Russia, the US president asserts that asset seizure is possible for any US person "determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State":
(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:
(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;
(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or
(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine;

The Executive Order is, as usual, so broadly written that it leaves nearly everything open to interpretation.
For example, what are "direct or indirect...actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine"? Could that be someone writing an article that takes issue with the US policy that the Crimea referendum is illegal and illegitimate? Could it be standing up in a public meeting and expressing the view that Ukraine would be better off with nationwide referenda to determine whether other regions should become autonomous or joined to neighboring countries? What if a Polish-American appears on a radio or television program suggesting that parts of Poland incorporated into Ukraine after WWII should be returned to Polish authority
Probably the president will not seize the assets of Americans in the scenarios above. But he says he can.
As the US government moves ever-closer to war with Russia, it is reasonable to expect these attempts to squash dissent and to remove "threats" to the administration's position. The historical pattern is clear.
Recall Eugene V. Debs sentenced to ten years in prison for his opposition to US involvement in WWI. Recall Japanese-Americans interned in camps during WWII because their loyalty to the United States was deemed suspect.
The stage is being set to silence dissent. It sounds alarmist to read this, agreed.
Probably the president will not use his Executive Order to seize the assets of Americans who disagree with his Ukraine policy. But he says he can.
Careful what you say.
What the Western Media Won’t Tell You: Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians Also Voted to Join Russia
"On the 16th of March We Choose" neo-Nazi Ukraine "Or" Russia
Global Research, March 18, 2014
Media reports acknowledge that 83.1 percent of eligible Crimean voters cast their ballot in the March 16th referendum.
The final tally of the vote was 96.77 percent in favor of joining the Russian Federation, and 2.51 percent against.
The Western media has underscored that both the Crimean Tatars as well as the Ukrainian population of Crimea were against joining the Russian Federation. The Non-Russian population constitutes 41.7 percent of the Crimean population.
According to official data, Russians constitute 58.32% of the population of Crimea, 24.32% are Ukrainians and 12.10% are Crimean Tatars.
The Guardian, in a slither of media disinformation intimated that the Tatars feared a wave of repression if Crimea were to join the Russian Federation:
Now, as Crimea faces a referendum that is likely to seal its fate as a province or satellite of Russia, ethnic tensions are reaching boiling point. In a chilling echo of history, Tatar houses in the Crimean city of Bakhchisarai have been marked with an ominous X, just as they were before the Soviet-era deportations. On Monday two Tatar businesses were firebombed.
…. The prospect of a return to living under Moscow’s rule is disturbing. "People are in panic. "We are trying to keep people calm but they are scared of the Russian soldiers and Cossacks that come here," he said." (Crimea’s Tatars fear the worst as it prepares for referendum | World news | )

Contrary to the reports of 135 international observers from 23 countries, the Western media in chorus has suggested without a shred of evidence that the elections were rigged and that Crimea was under Russian military occupation.

The observer mission reports which include members of theEuropean Parliament have been casually ignored by the mainstream Western media:

Mateus Piskorkski, the leader of the European observers’ mission and Polish MP: "Our observers have not registered any violations of voting rules."

Ewald Stadler, member of the European Parliament, dispelled the "referendum at gunpoint" myth: "I haven’t seen anything even resembling pressure… People themselves want to have their say."

Pavel Chernev: Bulgarian member of parliament: "Organization and procedures are 100 percent in line with the European standards," he added.

A woman is reflected in a mirror as she casts her ballot during voting in a referendum at a polling station in Simferopol March 16, 2014.(Reuters / Thomas Peter)

Johann Gudenus, member of the Vienna Municipal Council: "Our opinion is – if people want to decide their future, they should have the right to do that and the international community should respect that. There is a goal of people in Crimea to vote about their own future. Of course, Kiev is not happy about that, but still they have to accept and to respect the vote of people in Crimea".

Serbian observer Milenko Baborats "People freely expressed their will in the most democratic way, wherever we were… During the day we didn’t see a single serious violation of legitimacy of the process,"
Srdja Trifkovic, prominent and observer from Serbia: "The presence of troops on the streets is virtually non-existent and the only thing resembling any such thing is the unarmed middle-aged Cossacks who are positioned outside the parliament building in Simferopol. But if you look at the people both at the voting stations and in the streets, like on Yalta’s sea front yesterday afternoon, frankly I think you would feel more tense in south Chicago or in New York’s Harlem than anywhere round here," he said. (For more details see Crimean ‘Referendum at Gunpoint’ is a Myth – International Observers By Global Research News, March 17, 2014)

Yet according to Time Magazine, without acknowledging the reports of the international observers, the ballot had to have been rigged and the vote was held under the gun of the Russian military:
"95 percent voted in favor of becoming a part of Russia. That may seem like an impossible result, the mark of a rigged election. And in some ways it was. The vote was held during a Russian military occupation of Crimea and the ballot did not offer voters the option of keeping their current status in Ukraine. ( Time, March 17, 2014)

In chorus, Western media reports have stated that both Ukrainians and Tatars were firmly against seceding from Ukraine. They also intimated that the Tatar community had decided not to vote.

According to the Washington Post, "a vote in favor of seceding" was inevitable because "ethnic Russians make up 60 percent of Crimea’s population". But the result was not 60 percent in favor, it was 97 percent in favor, indicating that all major ethnic groups in the Crimea voted in favor of seceding from Ukraine.
The figures do not add up: The Russians constitute 58 percent of Crimea’s population, yet 97 percent of the vote was in favor of joining Russia. If Ukrainians and Tatars had refused to participate in the referendum, voter participation would have been substantially less that 83.1.
The referendum was also a vote against the US-EU sponsored Coup d’etat.
The results confirm that the Tatars and Ukrainians who did cast their ballot, also voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia.
What this 97 percent vote also indicates is a rejection of the illegal Neo-Nazi government in Kiev. The Election poster (image above) reads: 16 марта мы выбираем или
"On the 16 of March we choose": neo-Nazi Ukraine "Or" the Russian Federation?
Crimeans Choose Russia
Global Research, March 18, 2014
March 16 was historic. It was important. Crimean authorities showed how real democracy works. They shamed America’s sham process.
Monied interests control things. People have no say. Both major parties control a rigged process. They’re two sides of the same coin.
Not a dime’s worth of difference separates them. Independent candidates are virtually shut out. Americans get the best democracy money can buy.
Crimeans got the real thing. International observers praised the process. Voting went peacefully and smoothly.
It was scrupulously open, free, and fair. No irregularities occurred. None were seen. No pressure. No intimidation.
Not a single Russian soldier in sight. None invaded. None occupy Crimea. Claims otherwise are false. They’re Western propaganda. They’re malicious lies.
Turnout was impressive. It was unprecedented. It exceeded 83%. In Sevastopol, it was 89.5%.
Over 1.274 million Crimeans voted. Plus Sevastopol residents excluded from this total.

An astonishing 96.77% chose Russia – 95.6% of Sevastopol voters. A previous article said Russians comprise about 60% of Crimea’s population. Ukrainians around 25%. Tatars 12%.

Results show Crimeans overwhelmingly reject Kiev putschists. Russians, Ukrainians and Tatars agree. Claims otherwise are false.

Referendum Commission chairman Mikhail Malyshev said:

"We were receiving protocols from the 27 district commissions all night long. The last one came at around 6:00AM."

"After that, our commission compiled the final protocol." Commission members signed the official document. It certified election results.

A scant .72% of ballots were declared invalid.

Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksionov addressed a Simferopol rally, saying:

"No one can take away our victory. We are going to Russia." He spoke accompanied by the Russian national anthem.

"We are going home," he added. "Crimea within Russia. Hooray, comrades."

Parliament Speaker Vladimir Konstantinov added: "We have done it! You have done it! This is our victory, and nobody can take it away from us."

Crimeans celebrated their landslide victory. Ludmila Balatskays is a 72-year-old former Sevastapol city government deputy.

"Today is the greatest day of my life," she said. "We are returning to mother Russia."

"I was just a little girl when they just informed us that Crimea was now Ukraine. Everything fell down around me."
"We are Russia. We have always been Russian people in our souls here in Crimea, but today that becomes a practical reality again."
She spoke with tears in her eyes. Most other Crimeans share her joy.
Gennady Basov chairs the Sevastopol Russian Block party. He said choosing Russia gives Crimea "protection from the neo-Nazis and fascists in Kiev."
On Sunday, Putin and Obama spoke. Russia’s president correctly called the referendum legal. It complies with international law and UN Charter provisions. They uphold self-determination rights. A Kremlin statement said:
"Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin drew attention to the inability and unwillingness of the present authorities in Kiev to curb rampant violence by ultra-nationalist and radical groups that destabilize the situation and terrorize civilians, including the Russian speaking population."
He urged steps taken to change things. Regional stability depends on responsible policies. An official White House statement said Obama called the referendum illegal.
He accused Russia of "military intervention." He lied saying so. Moscow didn’t intervene. Claims otherwise are false.
Obama said "the United States and the international community…would never" recognize referendum results.
"(W)e are prepared to impose additional costs on Russia for its actions," he added.
Russian State Duma Speaker Sergey Naryshkin highlighted Western hypocrisy. On the one hand, its officals reject Crimean self-determination rights.
On the other, they call Kiev putschists legitimate. They ignored their brazen coup d’etat.
On March 17, Crimea asked UN authorities and international community countries to recognize their self-determination.
A resolution was adopted doing so. "The Republic of Crimea seeks equality, peace, and good-neighborliness as well as political, economic and cultural cooperation," with all other nations, it said.
On Monday, Russian State Duma Vice Speaker Sergei Neverov said parliamentarians will complete all necessary legislative procedures on accommodating Crimeans at the earliest possible time.
"The results of the Crimean referendum have clearly indicated that the residents of Crimea see their future only as part of Russia," he said.
"They voted for reunification of the people who always lived together." The number of people who came to polling stations and supported Crimea’s re-unification with Russia speaks for itself."
"It’s a reply to all those who attempted, throughout the past weeks, to prevent the residents of Crimea from determining their own destiny, their own future and the future of their children."
Russian upper house Federation Council Foreign Policy Committee deputy chairman Andrei Klimov praised Crimea’s democratic process, saying:
"(W)hat we saw in Crimea was a direct expression of citizens’ will – a system that the Americans might stand to benefit from."
"(T)he people of any territory on the globe should have the right to determine its destiny independently."
"Whatever the situation, the people of Crimea didn’t give the right to choose destiny-making options for themselves either to Washington or to Brussels."
"A statement by White House press secretary that the referendum in Crimea stands at variance with the Ukrainian Constitution and hence the US rejects it is all too obvious."
"The thing is the White House is playing on the side of the new coalition in Kiev, and the US always supports only the ‘democracy’ that serves its national interests."
On March 21, Federation Council and State Duma members will vote up or down on letting Crimea join the Russian Federation. Sentiment in both houses suggests overwhelming approval.
Days earlier, Federation Council chairwoman Valentina Matviyenko said so. Russian State Duma Speaker Sergey Naryshkin echoed her sentiment.
Russia has been losing people for years, he said. "(A)t last, we’re getting our compatriots back. So that’s a historic moment for Russia." Putin has final say.
Crimean Parliament Speaker Konstantinov said Crimea can join Russia in weeks. Perhaps by end of March, he added.
Crimea will draft a new constitution. "We will send it for approval to the Russian parliament," he explained.
Steps are underway to shift from Ukraine’s hryvnia to Russia’s ruble. Next week, the ruble will be introduced as a second official currency.
Dual currencies will continue for about six months. Thereafter, Ukraine’s hryvnia will be discontinued.
According to Crimea’s Prime Minister Aksyonov, integrating Crimea fully into Russia may take up to a year. Perhaps sooner, he added.
At the same time, Crimea wants good relations with all nations, he stressed. On Monday, EU foreign ministers met in Brussels.
Sanctions were discussed. Asset freezes and visa bans on 21 Russian officials were imposed. Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Linas Linkevcius said "more EU measures (will be forthcoming) in a few days."
According to an unnamed diplomatic source, Brussels "reached agreement on a list of names which is quite limited both in terms of their rank and the number of people."
A second unnamed source said Brussels "might reopen discussion" in further talks.
"At this late stage, I think they will focus instead on sending out a unified EU message," the source added.
Reuters said an initial list of up to 130 senior Russian officials would be reduced to perhaps "tens or scores" for final consideration.
Washington readied its own list. White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said "(y)ou can expect sanctions designations in the coming days." Perhaps sooner.
Similar asset freezes and travel bans on Russian officials were announced. Putin was excluded.
Washington imposed sanctions on 11 Russian and former Viktor Yanukovych government officials. Moscow’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was named.
A White House statement said sanctions target officials who "undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine." None exist except in Crimea.
On March 6, Obama’s Executive Order authorized "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine."
It applies to foreign nationals and Americans. Property belonging to Russian nationals can be seized.
The same applies to "any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States."
Ahead of Crimea’s referendum, Obama declared a national emergency. He considers Crimean self-determination a "threat to US national security."
For sure it’s a threat of a good example. It runs counter to Washington’s imperial ambitions.
Obama usurped the right to seize (read steal) assets belonging to anyone (including US citizens) "determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:
(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;
(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or
(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine."
Wiggle room language permits circumventing fundamental rule of law principles.
So-called "direct or indirect…actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine" aren’t defined.
Nor is how Crimean self-determination threatens US national security. The claim is absurd on its face.
It’s outrageous. It’s offensive. It turns logic on its head. It reveals lawless US governance.
Obama can act any way he wishes. He can do so by diktat. He can act lawlessly. He can enforce Washington rules.
He’s playing with fire. British MP George Galloway is right saying Western leaders created a Frankenstein monster in Ukraine.
It’s "a very serious threat," he said. The damn fools in Washington and Brussels perhaps didn’t "read the novel Frankenstein to the end," said Galloway.
"If they had, they’d have known that the monster Dr. Frankenstein created quickly got out of control. That’s why it’s called a monster."
"And this monstrous" Kiev neo-Nazi threat poses potential grave problems for Europe. Perhaps for humanity if war erupts.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Crisis in Ukraine: Russia Extends its Control over the Black Sea and Strategic Waterways

Global Research, March 18, 2014
Url of this article:
The decision of the people of Crimea to join the Russian Federation has strategic and geopolitical implications.
The union of Crimea with Russia redefines the geopolitical chessboard in the Black Sea Bassin.
It constitutes a major setback for US-NATO, whose longstanding objective was to integrate Ukraine into NATO with a view to undermining Russia and extending their military presence in the Black Sea bassin.

With the March 18, 2014 Treaty signed between Russia and Crimea, the Russian Federation will extend its control over the Black Sea as well over the Sea of Azov, the West coastline of which borders on Eastern Ukraine and the Donesk region. (see map below)
Under the agreement between Russia and Ukraine announced by president Putin, two "constituent regions" of Crimea will join the Russian Federation: the "Republic of Crimea" and the "City of Sevastopol". Both will have the status of "autonomous regions".
The status of Sevastopol as an autonomous entity separate from Crimea is related to the location of Russia’s Naval base in Sevastopol.
Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia retained its naval base in Sevastopol under a bilateral agreement with Ukraine. With the signing of the March 18th Treaty, that agreement is null and void. Sevastopol including the naval base becomes an autonomous region within the Russian federation.
Strategic Waterway: The Kerch Straits
Russia now formally controls a much larger portion of the Black Sea, which includes the entire Crimean peninsula.
The Eastern part of Crimea –including the Kerch straits– are now under Russian control. On the Eastern side of the Kerch straits is Russia’s Krasnodar region and extending southwards are the port cities of Novorossiysk and Sochi.
Novorossiysk is also strategic. It is at the cross-roads of major oil and gas pipelines between the Black Sea and Caspian sea.
Historically, the Kerch straits have played a strategic role. They constitute a gateway to Russia’s major waterways.
During World War II, the Kerch peninsula occupied by Nazi Germany (taken back by the Red Army) was an important point of transit by land and water. In the coldest months of Winter, it became an ice bridge linking Crimea to the Krasnodar region.
The Kerch straits are about 5 kilometres in length and 4.5 km. wide at the narrowest point between the tip of Eastern Crimea and the peninsula of Taman, Kerch is a major commercial port linked to railway, ferry and river routes.
[image right: Kerch straits, photo taken from Crimean side, narrow width]
The Sea of Azov: New Geopolitical Hub
Of significance, the integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation means that Moscow is now in full control of the Kerch Straits linking the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov. The Ukrainian authorities are no longer in control of the port of Kerch. The bilateral agreement between Russia and Ukraine governing the maritime route through the Kerch straights has been scrapped.
The straits constitute an entry point into Russia’s major river waterways. The Sea of Azov connects with the Don River and the Volga, through the Volga Don Canal. In turn, the Volga flows in the Caspian sea.
The Kerch straits are strategic. The Kerch-Yenikalskiy Canal allows large vessels (215 meters long) to transit from the Black sea to the Sea of Azov.
Moreover, the Kerch Straits link the Black Sea to the Volga which in turn connects to the Moscow river through the Volga-Moskva canal.

Full control of the narrow Kerch straits by Russia ensures unimpeded maritime transit from the Black Sea to Russia’s capital as well as the maritime route to the Caspian Sea. (Black Sea- Sea of Azov -Don- Volga Don Canal -Volga -Caspian sea)

In December 2013 Moscow signed a bilateral agreement with the Yanukovych government in Kiev pertaining to the construction of a bridge across the Kerch Straits, connecting Eastern Crimea (which was part of Ukraine) with Russia’s Krasnodar region.

That agreement has also been scrapped. Crimea’s union to Russia was already in the pipeline: Less than two weeks before the March 16 Referendum, at the height of the crisis in Ukraine, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ordered the state-road building corporation Avtodor, or "Russian Highways" "to create a subsidiary company that will oversee the building of a bridge across the Kerch Strait".

Needless to say, the project will now be fully under Russian ownership and control.

The Sea of Azov, Eastern Ukraine and the Donbas Region

The Eastern Ukraine and the densely populated Donetz basin (Donbas region) of Ukraine -in which the Russian population constitutes a majority– borders on the Western coastline of the Sea of Azov, which is now in large part under Russian control.



"Ripple Effect" of the Crimean Referendum. How will the Crisis Evolve?

Will the referendum in Crimea set the stage for the integration of part of Eastern and Southern Ukraine into the Russian Federation?

The geographic and geopolitical changes discussed above have a direct bearing on unfolding events in Eastern Ukraine. (see map above)

Throughout Eastern Ukraine as well as in Odessa in southern Ukraine, the legitimacy of the interim neo-Nazi government in Kiev has been questioned. Municipal and local levels citizens’ committees are challenging the authority of Kiev appointed officials.
In the port city of Odessa on the Black Sea, a protest movement demanding a referendum has unfolded.
Thousands held a Pro-Russian rally in support of Crimea’s referendum in Odessa, despite calls from the city’s authorities not to participate in meetings. Organizers claim more than 5,000 people joined the demonstration.
"Odessa is against the coup in Kiev, paid for by the West and Ukrainian oligarchs who remained in power with the help deceitful extremists and militants. We are tired of living in poverty and we are no longer going to tolerate the tyranny of oligarchs and officials," ….
The people were chanting "Ukraine and Russia – one country," and "Odessa, be bold, drive the fascists out," as they gathered in the center of the city. (RT, March 16, 2014)

Reported by RT, protests have developed in Kharkov and Donetsk demanding the holding of a referendum similar to that of Crimea.
Protesters, on behalf of Kharkov’s assembly, asked Putin to "guarantee their rights and freedoms" and pass to the United Nations their demands regarding a referendum on the federalization, which they plan for April 27, reported Ukrainian National News (UNN) website. Additionally, activists asked to deploy Russian peacekeepers to Kharkov region, adding that they fear for their lives and property.
The demonstrators then marched to the nearby consulate of Poland, protesting against Western interference into Ukrainian affairs.
Kharkov protesters also looted the building housing offices of radical-nationalist organizations, including the Right Sector group, reported Interfax-Ukraine. The activists broke into the building, took out books and nationalist symbols and burnt them.

Pro-Russian activists hold giant Russian flags during their rally in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on March 16, 2014.(AFP Photo / Alexander Khudoteply)
In Donetsk, pro-Russian protesters questioned the legitimacy of the interim coalition government:
Meanwhile, Kiev sent heavy military hardware to the borders with Russia. Activists in eastern Ukraine regions, including Donetsk and Lugansk, were reportedly blocking trains delivering military equipment from the central and western parts of Ukraine.
Similar rallies were held in Dnepropetrovsk and Lugansk. In Lugansk the campaign focused on a ‘people’s referendum’ directed against the Kiev interim government:
In Lugansk, several thousand anti-coup activists were conducting a public poll by handing out "ballot papers" of "people’s referendum" of Lugansk region. The poll raised questions of trust in the authorities in Kiev, the possibility of joining the Customs Union following the federalization of Ukraine.
One of the questions was about the international bailout: "Do you support reduction of social benefits and cancellation of benefits at the request of the IMF?"
"This is for all an opportunity to officially announce their choice. Now we have run out of 5,000 forms, we are rushing to print more," organizer Irina Gotman told UNIAN. (RT, op cit)
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
Obama Declares a National Emergency: Crimea Self-Determination Constitutes a "Threat To US National Security"
Global Research, March 17, 2014
In his March 6 Executive Order, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine," Obama declares that support for Crimean self-determination constitutes "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."
Obama and the lawyers who drafted his executive order did not notice that the way the order is drafted it applies to Obama, to the unelected coup government in Kiev, and to the Washington and EU regimes. The order says that any person "responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly . . . actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine" is subject to having his assets frozen.
Washington and the EU are the only two governments whose personnel have undermined democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine by overthrowing the elected government and imposing an unelected one.
Obama worshippers–yes there are still people that stupid–object when I call Obama the White House Fool. Yet, here is Obama or his lawyers proving that he is a fool by issuing an executive order that requires the property of Obama, Victoria Nuland, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, the UK prime minister, the German chancellor, the French president, the EU Commission and any number of associated persons to be frozen by the US government.
Of course, Obama’s executive order will not be applied to those to whom it is applicable. It will be applied to those to whom it is not applicable–authorities who permitted the Crimean population to exercise democratic processes in order to determine their own fate.
Washington has stood democracy on its head. Overthrowing Ukraine’s democratic government and installing a puppet regime does not undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine, but anything that allows self-determination to go forward in Crimea does undermine democratic processes.
Clearly, the West can no longer be associated with democracy.
Ukraine Protests Carefully Orchestrated: The Role of CANVAS, US-Financed "Color Revolution Training Group"
Global Research, March 16, 2014 7 January 2014
The recent protests in Ukraine have the stench of a foreign-orchestrated attempt to destabilize the government of Viktor Yanukovych after he walked away from signing an EU Association Agreement that would have driven a deep wedge between Russia and Ukraine. Glamor-star boxer-turned political guru, Vitaly Klitschko, has been meeting with the US State Department and is close to Angela Merkel’s CDU political machine in Germany.
The EU association agreement with Ukraine is widely resisted by many EU member states with deep economic problems of their own. The two EU figures most pushing it—Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski—are both well known in the EU as close to Washington.
The US is strongly pushing the Ukraine EU integration just as it had been behind the 2004 failed "Orange Revolution" to split Ukraine from Russia in a bid to isolate and weaken Russia. Now Ukrainians have found evidence of direct involvement of the Belgrade US-financed training group, CANVAS behind the carefully-orchestrated Kiev protests.
A copy of the pamphlet that was given out to opposition protestors in Kiev has been obtained. It is a word-for-word and picture-for-picture translation of the pamphlet used by US-financed Canvas organizers in the 2011 Cairo Tahrir Square protests that toppled Hosni Mubarak and opened the door to the US-backed Muslim Brotherhood.[1] The photo below is a side-by-side comparison:
The photo left is from Tahrir Square; the right from Kiev and here below is the English original used by the Belgrade CANVAS NGO:
Canvas, formerly Otpor, received significant money from the US State Department in 2000 to stage the first successful Color Revolution against Slobodan Milosovic in then-Yugoslavia. Since then they have been transformed into a full-time "revolution consultancy" for the US, posing as a Serbian grass-root group backing "democracy." [2] Who would ever think a Serbian-based NGO would be a front for US-backed regime change?
The Strange Ukraine "Opposition"
Direct sources in Kiev that I have contacted report that the anti-government protestors have been recruited with money from among university students and unemplyed to come by bus into the heart of Kiev. The revealing aspect is the spectacular emergence of champion boxed Vitaly Klitschko as presumably the wise politician guiding Ukraine’s future. No doubt spending your career beating other boxers unconscious is a superb preparation for becoming a statesman, though I for one doubt it. It reminds of the choice of a low-grade Hollywood movie actor, Ronald Reagan as President. But more interesting about "opposition" spokesman Klitschko is who his friends are.
Klitschko is being backed by US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. Nuland, former US Ambassador to NATO, is a neo-conservative married to leading neo-conservative hawk, Robert Kagan, and was herself a former adviser to Dick Cheney. [3]
Klitschko is also very friendly with German Chancellor Merkel. According to a recent Der Spiegel report, Merkel wants to support Klitschko in his bid to become Ukraine’s president in 2015. [4]
More evidence that a darker agenda lies behind the "democracy" opposition is the fact that the demands of the protestors went from demanding accession to the EU to demanding the immediate resignation of the Yanukovich government. Klitschko and the opposition used an unfortunate police crackdown on protesters to massively expand the protest from a few hundred to tens of thousands. On December 18, the government took the wind partly out of the Klitschko sails by signing a major economic agreement with Moscow in which Russia agreed to cut the price of Russian gas exported to Ukraine by a third, down to $268.5 per 1,000 cubic meters from the current level of more than $400, and to buy $15 billion of Ukraine’s debt in eurobonds. That gives Ukraine breathing room to avoid a sovereign debt default and calmly negotiate over its future.
William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics in the New World Order. He is a contributing author at BFP and may be contacted through his website at where this article was originally published.
[1] SysAdmin, Pamphlets in Ukraine handed out during protests and pamphlets that were handed out in Egypt, December 12, 2013, accessed in
[2] Nebojsa Malic, Invasion of the Mind Snatchers: Empire’s Revolution Business,, June 24, 2011, accessed in
[3] NTDTV,Ukrainian Opposition Vitaly Klitschko Meets US Official Victoria Nuland, December 6, 2013, accessed in
[4] Die Zeit, Merkel unterstützt Klitschko, 8. Dezember 2013, accessed in
*******President Pantywaist Capitulates Again in Ukraine

Barack Boo-Boo: The Never Ready for Prime-time Socialist Star
By Kelly OConnell
Obama, the Dudley Do-Wrong of world politics, has made his next tremulous and stumbling maneuver by speechifying a warning vis-à-vis Kiev, then standing down to President Putin over his Ukrainian invasion. More, it’s utterly bizarre how the left in the American political spectrum refuses to either admit Barack is an astounding danger to the future of our democratic republic, or to stand up to him over his many shameful actions.
Doesn’t this therefore mean that the Democrat party, even upon continual hemorrhaging during election after election, ratifies Obama’s illogical, anti-American, condescending, contradictory, utterly inane, bizarre and suicidal policies? The question answers itself.
What can Americans do when our elected officials, from alpha to zed, in our putative democratic state, refuse to represent our opposition to Barack’s putrid policies and force his capitulation? President Obama warned “the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.” Huh? Charles Krauthammer commented on this, “What he’s saying is we’re not really going to do anything and we’re telling the world.”
“I’ve said it before, but if Barack Obama had been president instead of Ronald Reagan, I’d still be a citizen of the Soviet Union.”—Former World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov Tweet
On the alternative, what was the implied deal when Barack assured the Russians that, after his reelection, he could cut deals more easily? The LA Times reported March 26th, 2012... “Television footage shows Obama telling Russian leader Dmitri Medvedev that “after my election I will have more flexibility.”” Whatever Barack meant, it’s doubtful such secret promises to Russia’s leaders would benefit America, or they would not be seen by him as unacceptable by the US public before the election.
Whatever Obama’s foreign policy malfeasance, and despite the scent of American apostasy and outright treason trailing Barack everywhere he goes, the situation in the Ukraine is admittedly unseemly. Russian Ukrainians were targets of open prejudice. An unseemly band of Ukrainian neo-fascists, Aryan proselytizers, and outright Nazis openly politic against outsiders in this troubled land. More shocking, the UK Daily Mail claims the US helped the Ukrainian leader to escape to Russia, where he now appears on TV. Global Research states, “Ukraine was a Textbook CIA Coup d’etat.” If true, what business does America have in staging overthrows in foreign countries? Whether true, Obama represents a wholly Un-American face of leadership and ought to be impeached ASAP, before the entire smoldering globe finally bursts into flames from his failed ideas and actions.
I. Obama: A Clumsy Ukrainian Waltz With Russia
Barack peremptorily announced that America’s response to Russia’s Ukrainian invasion will follow global decisions. But why must this be our reaction? This is akin to a lion announcing to a passing herd of gazelles that he just had his teeth pulled!
What is America’s interest in telegraphing our refusal to act outside the “world’s response”? As any poker player will attest, laying one’s cards face up on the table before the game ends is an idiotic strategy. What can be gained by informing others that you do not plan a strong response to foreign intrigues, before one takes place?
How does any unrest in Eastern Europe aid America’s interests? And can Obama’s claim of following world opinion here, instead of leading the global response, do anything but give aid and comfort to our foes interested in future acts against US interests? Does a militarist and active Russia really aid the liberty, prosperity or safety of any other country? Who is Vladimir Putin, the kleptocrat worth $40 billion, who seeks to return Russia to its former glory? How can this man be America’s natural ally? And yet Barack promised him cooperation. Chilling!
According to the CIA Factbook, Ukraine has endured a painful past, which gave way to some independence:
During the late 18th century, most Ukrainian ethnographic territory was absorbed by the Russian Empire. Following the collapse of czarist Russia in 1917, Ukraine achieved brief independence (1917-20), but was reconquered and forced to endure a brutal Soviet rule that engineered two forced famines (1921-22 and 1932-33) in which over 8 million died. In World War II, German and Soviet armies were responsible for some 7 to 8 million more deaths. Although final independence for Ukraine was achieved in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR, democracy and prosperity remained elusive as the legacy of state control and endemic corruption stalled efforts at economic reform, privatization, and civil liberties. A peaceful mass protest “Orange Revolution” in the closing months of 2004 forced the authorities to overturn a rigged presidential election and to allow a new internationally monitored vote that swept into power a reformist slate under Viktor Yuschenko.
But now the Ukraine is on the verge of civil war and awaiting invasion by Russia. And Barack fiddles, while waiting for the UN to scold Putin, while doing nothing, so he can acquiesce to this abdication of power. Apparently, Obama enjoys pouring American moral authority and might down the toilet, with a smile on his face and a song in his heart.
II. Obama’s International Malfeasance
Is there any end to Barack’s trail of international failures? What was the point of Barack running for office if he had so little common sense or commitment to the rest of the globe, let alone America? Especially when he claimed he would right the wrongs of George W Bush’s foreign policy failure!
Perhaps the first bit of housekeeping is to decide whether Barack fails accidentally or on purpose? It now seems pointless to debate whether the smug and obtuse Barack is failed in foreign relations. So, as to why he fails, there are two schools of thought. The first claims the inexperienced and doctrinaire Obama, doesn’t `understand international leadership or crisis management. Also, Barack’s reluctance to champion Christianity, over Islam, and capitalism over the welfare state must hold him back from acting with conviction, globally.
The second reason given for Barack’s failure is that he is secretly working to help convert the globe over to socialism and an international ruling bureaucracy. So he is trying to destabilize America’s place in the world. The thinking here is that Obama is a socialist, and so must work to crush capitalism, which means America must be humbled and downsized to prepare for this transition. This means wherever US interests are outlined, Obama does the opposite. This choice is illustrated by military historian and classical scholar Victor Davis Hanson, in an article titled, Obama’ Recessional:
Summed up, the Obama Doctrine is a gradual retreat of the American presence worldwide—on the theory that our absence will lead to a vacuum better occupied by regional powers that know how to manage their neighborhood’s affairs and have greater legitimacy in their own spheres of influence. Any damage that might occur with the loss of the American omnipresence does not approximate the harm already done by American intrusiveness. The current global maladies—Islamist terrorism, Middle Eastern tensions, Chinese muscle-flexing, Russian obstructionism, resurgence of Communist autocracy in Latin America—will fade once the United States lowers its profile and keeps out of other nations’ business.
It would be exhausting to attempt to list all of Obama’s manifest foreign policy disasters. But consider some of these article titles from just the last year: Obama’s foreign policy in a tailspin; Top 10 U.S. Foreign Policy Blunders of 2013; Obama’s Many Foreign Policy Failures; Obama’s Multiplying Foreign Policy Failures.
One classic title announces: Cambridge Journal: Obama’s Callous, Ineffective Foreign Policy Blunders Onward. But perhaps the best title was one which summed up why Obama is a confounding combination of cockiness, lack of deep thought, indifference, and under-education, is here: Obama Foreign Policy Blunders Fueled by Unchecked Ideology. Why else, during a crisis of the magnitude of the Ukrainian coup, would Obama decide to avoid an opportunity to educate his self on the topic? Yet the latest headline states, Obama Skips National Security Team Meeting on Russia, Ukraine! Certainly a Marxist ideologue could consider orienting himself on the details of a crisis a waste of his time!
III. Lessons for a Blind Ideologue: Machiavelli’s The Prince
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, was written in 1513, and is considered the first modern work of political science. Some have regarded it an evil book. Yet, in an interview with the New York Times, Pulitzer Prize—winner Jared Diamond was queried which book he would require President Obama to read. Diamond replied—The Prince. Barack, the navØve, kingdom-wrecking tyro, could use some wisdom, along with a massive dose of common sense. This intellectual featherweight ought to consider the insights of Machiavelli:
A wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs, at least it will savour of it.
This quote might help Barack find his way back from the Marxist wilderness. For example, instead of imitating Mao, as many of his czars have cited, he should embrace Ronald Reagan’s revolution, and the ideas behind it. Machiavelli lists Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus as models. Barack should add such leaders as Charlemagne, Lord Nelson, Churchill, and Washington.
As Machiavelli mentions retaining kingdoms gained by sheer good fortune, Obama should include himself in this camp since he was not elected via leadership experience, and nor has he distinguished himself through success. Instead, Barack seems to cling to the belief he will go down as a hero by crushing the American state so the crippled behemoth will be rebuilt as a run-of-the-mill socialist tyranny. Tsk, tsk, Barack! Why not listen to Machiavelli, who offers this advice to a leader:
Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him.
Barack has America at the precipice of utter ruin. It might only be the prayers of Believers at this point saving us from a blind demagogue who only sees evil in the US. Let us pray he repents of his illiterate bias and childish convictions and turns his heart back to defending the red, white and blue and all it symbolizes.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Kelly can be reached at:
United Nations Calls for De-Escalation of Tensions in Ukraine Go Unheeded
Emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, virtually nothing was accomplished because the Ukraine has become ensnared in a geopolitical struggle between the West and Russia
By Joseph A. Klein
Tensions mounted this past weekend over the crisis in Ukraine as thousands of armed Russian soldiers, often wearing masks and uniforms without any national insignia, reportedly surrounded the regional parliament building and other government facilities in the Crimean capital city of Simferopol.
They also effectively closed the region’s two main airports and took control over key communications hubs. On Saturday morning, at Russian President Vladimir Putin’s request the upper house of the Russian Parliament formally granted him the authority to use military force, not just in Crimea but throughout Ukraine.
President Obama’s response to Putin’s maneuvers was to call the Russian leader on Saturday and urge him to pull back his military forces or risk isolation in the international community if he refused. Obama also laid out the initial “cost” of Russia’s provocative actions - the U.S. is suspending its participation in preparations for the upcoming Group of 8 economic summit in Sochi, Russia.
“President Obama expressed his deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law,” the White House said in its readout of the call. “The United States condemns Russia’s military intervention into Ukrainian territory. The United States calls on Russia to de-escalate tensions by withdrawing its forces back to bases in Crimea and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine.”
The Kremlin provided its own readout of the call. It said that Putin pointed out to Obama the “real threat to the lives and health of Russian citizens” currently in Ukraine, and referred to “the provocative and criminal actions on the part of ultranationalists who are in fact being supported by the current authorities in Kiev.”
In a statement issued on Saturday attributable to the Spokesperson for United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General called for “an immediate restoration of calm and direct dialogue between all concerned to solve the current crisis.”
Later in the day on Saturday, Ban Ki-moon called Putin. Here are Ban’s remarks describing the call:
“I have just spoken directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin by telephone. I told him that I am closely following the serious and rapidly unfolding developments in Ukraine. I am gravely concerned by some of the recent events in particular those that could in any way compromise the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. It is crucial to restore calm and proceed to an immediate de-escalation of the situation. Cool heads must prevail and dialogue must be the only tool in ending this crisis. I appealed to President Putin to urgently engage in direct dialogue with the authorities in Kiev.”Meanwhile, an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was held on Saturday afternoon to discuss the Ukrainian crisis – the second such meeting in two days. For the first two hours, the Security Council members wrangled behind closed doors on whether they should hold their discussions in public or in private consultations. They reached a compromise of sorts – a brief public meeting followed by much lengthier closed door consultations.
During the open meeting, UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson reported that “key sites such as airports, communications and public buildings, including the regional parliament, reportedly continue to be blocked by unidentified armed men. There are further reports of armed personnel taking control of regional administration buildings in several cities in the East and South of Ukraine.” He informed the Council that the new Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov had released a statement appealing to President Putin “to provide assistance in ensuring peace and tranquillity on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.” The statement also announced that he was taking control of security in Crimea “on a temporary basis.”
Deputy Secretary General Eliasson noted that the special envy whom Ban Ki-moon had sent to Kiev on a fact-finding mission, Robert Serry, decided not to travel on to Crimea because of “logistical” reasons. Mr. Eliasson called for restoration of calm and dialogue among all concerned parties. “Now is the time for cool heads to prevail,” he advised in closing.
The Deputy Secretary General’s advice was promptly ignored. The verbal sparks were flying, reminiscent of Cold War sparring in the Security Council that had often paralyzed the UN body from taking any effective action.
The Ukrainian ambassador to the UN, Yuriy Sergeyev, who was invited to attend the open meeting on Saturday, accused Russia of “an act of aggression” in “severe violation of international law.” He added that the “Russian Federation brutally violated the basic principles of Charter of the United Nations obliging all member states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” He called for the members of the Security Council to take a stand against Russian aggression that interfered with Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He repeated these themes in remarks to the press after his Security Council statement. He also defended the legality of the Ukrainian parliament’s removal of the ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whom has sought refuge in Russia.
Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the Security Council that Russia had acted at the request of the regional authorities in Crimea, making a dubious distinction in claiming that Russian troops could be deployed “on the territory of Ukraine,” but not “against Ukraine.” In response to calls for Russia to refrain from intervention to protect its interests, he said that “[W]e can’t agree with this at all.” Churkin lashed out at the “radicals” in the “illegal” government in Kiev who were allegedly threatening peace and security in Crimea. He questioned the legality of the manner in which Yanukovych was removed from office, noting that Yanukovych had been democratically elected.
Churkin did not speak to reporters on Saturday, but the previous day he had told reporters that the new government in Kiev was not representative of all political factions of Ukraine and was trying to impose its political will on the rest of the country. He accused the European Union of treating Ukraine as its “province” and charged that it was the West’s interference that had helped cause the Ukrainian crisis in the first place.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power expressed the strong support of the U.S. for the new government of Ukraine in her remarks to the Security Council on Saturday. Russia’s “intervention is without legal basis - indeed it violates Russia’s commitment to protect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of Ukraine,” she said. “It is time for the Russian intervention in Ukraine to end.” Ambassador Power also accused the Russians of double standards with regard to its position on national sovereignty. “It is ironic that the Russian Federation regularly goes out of its way in this Chamber to emphasize the sanctity of national borders and of sovereignty,” she said, “but Russian actions in Ukraine are violating the sovereignty of Ukraine and pose a threat to peace and security.”
Ambassador Power proposed that international monitors and observers - including from the UN and OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in which Russia and Ukraine are members] be sent to Ukraine. “That’s the best way to get the facts, monitor conduct, and prevent any abuses,” she said. Russia so far has shown little inclination to accept this proposal.
In remarks to the press after the completion of the Security Council’s closed door consultations, Ambassador Power said that Russia’s “military presence in Crimea is a violation of international law.”
While the situation on the ground in Ukraine continues to deteriorate, including the Ukrainian naval chief’s pledge of allegiance to the Crimean pro-Russia authorities who are defying the authority of the new central government in Kiev, the war of words from the Obama administration continued to escalate on Sunday. Secretary of State John Kerry warned on “Meet the Press” that Russia was facing isolation and opprobrium from the international community, which could result in trade and investment penalties, asset freezes, denial of visas, and even possible expulsion from the G-8. He accused Putin of “possibly trying to annex Crimea” and said that Russia was displaying 19th century behavior in the 21st century by committing “aggression” on a “phony pretext.” That said, any military option by the U.S. in response to Russia’s actions appears to be off the table at least for now.
So far, despite all of the flurry of activities at the United Nations on Saturday, virtually nothing was accomplished because the Ukraine has become ensnared in a geopolitical struggle between the West and Russia. Perhaps, if conditions permit, the UN could play a constructive monitoring and mediation role along with the OSCE, but that is a mighty big “if.”
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom.
Joseph can be reached at:

The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine
Global Research, March 02, 2014

According to the New York Times, “The United States and the European Union have embraced the revolution here as another flowering of democracy, a blow to authoritarianism and kleptocracy in the former Soviet space.” (After Initial Triumph, Ukraine’s Leaders Face Battle for Credibility,, March 1, 2014, emphasis added)
“Flowering Democracy, Revolution”? The grim realities are otherwise. What is a stake is a US-EU-NATO sponsored coup d’Etat in blatant violation of international law.
The forbidden truth is that the West has engineered –through a carefully staged covert operation– the formation of a proxy regime integrated by Neo-Nazis.
Confirmed by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, key organizations in the Ukraine including the Neo-Nazi party Svoboda were generously supported by Washington: “We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. … We will continue to promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”
The Western media has casually avoided to analyze the composition and ideological underpinnings of the government coalition. The word “Neo-Nazi” is a taboo. It has been excluded from the dictionary of mainstream media commentary. It will not appear in the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post or The Independent. Journalists have been instructed not to use the term “Neo-Nazi” to designate Svoboda and the Right Sector.
Composition of the Coalition Government
We are not dealing with a transitional government in which Neo-Nazi elements integrate the fringe of the coalition, formally led by the Fatherland party.
The Cabinet is not only integrated by the Svoboda and Right Sector (not to mention former members of defunct fascist UNA-UNSO), the two main Neo-Nazi entities have been entrusted with key positions which grant them de facto control over the Armed Forces, Police, Justice and National Security.
While Yatsenuyk’s Fatherland Party controls the majority of portfolios and Svoboda Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a major cabinet post (apparently at the request of assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland), members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs.

Neo Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok

US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland together Neo Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok (left)
Andriy Parubiy [right] co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU). (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence. The RNBOU is central decision-making body. While it is formally headed by the president, it is run by the Secretariat with a staff of 180 people including defense, intelligence and national security experts.
Parubiy was one of the main leaders behind the Orange Revolution in 2004. His organization was funded by the West. He is referred to by the Western media as the “kommandant” of the EuroMaidan movement. Andriy Parubiy together with party leader Oleh Tyahnybok is a follower of Ukrainian Nazi Stepan Bandera, who collaborated in the mass murderer of Jews and Poles during World War II.

Neo-Nazi march honoring Stepan Bandera
In turn, Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector delegation in the parliament, has been appointed Parubiy’s deputy Secretary of the RNBOU.
Yarosh was the leader of the Brown Shirt Neo-Nazi paramilitary during the EuroMaidan “protest” movement. He has called for disbanding the Party of the regions and the Communist Party.
Dmytro Yarosh speech at Euromaidan (Centre)
The Neo Nazi party also controls the judicial process with the appointment of Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda party to the position of prosecutor-general of Ukraine. What kind of justice will prevail with a reknown Neo-Nazi in charge of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine?
Cabinet positions were also allocated to former members of the Neo-Nazi fringe organization Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defense (UNA-UNSO):
“Tetyana Chernovol, portrayed in the Western press as a crusading investigative journalist without reference to her past involvement in the anti-Semitic UNA-UNSO, was named chair of the government’s anti-corruption committee. Dmytro Bulatov, known for his alleged kidnapping by police, but also with UNA-UNSO connections, was appointed minister of youth and sports.
Yegor Sobolev, leader of a civic group in Independence Maidan and politically close to Yatsenyuk, was appointed chair of the Lustration Committee, charged with purging followers of President Yanukovych from government and public life. (See Ukraine Transition Government: Neo-Nazis in Control of Armed Forces, National Security, Economy, Justice and Education, Global Research, March 02, 2014

The Lustration Committee is to organize the Neo-Nazi witch-hunt against all opponents of the new Neo-Nazi regime. The targets of the lustration campaign are people in positions of authority within the civil service, regional and municipal governments, education, research, etc. The term lustration refers to the “mass disqualification” of people associated with the former government. It also has racial overtones. It will in all likelihood be directed against Communists, Russians and members of the Jewish community.
It is important to reflect on the fact that the West, formally committed to democratic values, has not only spearheaded the demise of an elected president, it has instated a political regime integrated by Neo-Nazis.
This is a proxy government which enables the US, NATO and EU to interfere in Ukraine’s internal affairs and dismantle its bilateral relations with the Russian Federation. It should be understood, however, that the Neo-Nazis do not ultimately call the shots: Under a “regime of indirect rule” they take their orders on crucial military and foreign policy issues –including the deployment of troops directed against the Russian federation– from the the US State Department, the Pentagon and NATO.
The World is at a dangerous crossroads: The structures and composition of this proxy government installed by the West do not favor dialogue with the Russian government and military.The RNBOU
A scenario of military escalation leading to confrontation of Russia and NATO is a distinct possibility. The Ukraine’s National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU) which is controlled by Neo-Nazis plays a central role in military affairs. In the confrontation with Moscow, decisions taken by the RNBOU headed by Neo-Nazi Parubiy and his brown Shirt deputy Dmytro Yarosh –in consultation with Washington and Brussels– could potentially have devastating consequences.
However, it goes without saying that “support” to the formation of a Neo-Nazi government does not in any way imply the development of “fascist tendencies” within the White House, the State Department and the US Congress.
“The flowering of democracy” in Ukraine –to use the words of the New York Times– is endorsed by Republicans and Democrats. It’s a bipartisan project. Lest we forget, Senator John McCain is a firm supporter and friend of Neo Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok (Image right).
About the author:
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. He can be reached at 
Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the Situation in Ukraine

Canada has suspended its engagement in preparations for the G-8 Summit, Ambassador in Moscow is being recalled

By News on the Net

In response to the very serious developments today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper convened a meeting of Cabinet Ministers this afternoon, and spoke with President Obama, to discuss the situation in Ukraine. After the meeting, Prime Minister Harper issued the following statement:

Canada has suspended its engagement in preparations for the G-8 Summit, Ambassador in Moscow is being recalled

“We join our allies in condemning in the strongest terms President Putin’s military intervention in Ukraine. These actions are a clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. They are also in violation of Russia’s obligations under international law.
“Canada recognizes the legitimacy of the Government of Ukraine. Ukraine’s sovereign territory must be respected and the Ukrainian people must be free to determine their own future. We call on President Putin to immediately withdraw his forces to their bases and refrain from further provocative and dangerous actions.
“Canada has suspended its engagement in preparations for the G-8 Summit, currently planned for Sochi, and the Canadian Ambassador in Moscow is being recalled for consultations. Canada supports the immediate deployment of international monitors from the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to Ukraine. We are also engaged in discussions aimed at developing a financial aid package for Ukraine.
“We will continue to cooperate closely with our G-7 partners and other allies. Should President Putin continue on this course of action, it will lead to ongoing negative consequences for our bilateral relationship.”
Ukraine: The Lies Of Empire and the Smokescreen Of Democracy

Global Research, March 01, 2014

Url of this article:
John Herbst, US ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006 , this week gave an interview to the RT television channel about current developments in Ukraine . According to Herbst, what we are witnessing is a peaceful uprising against an authoritarian, oppressive regime. He is unequivocal about this. He said that the protests and protesters are being smeared and discredited, and the only ones wanting to portray the opposition in Ukraine as being ultra nationalist, neo Nazis and violent are those who fear democracy on their own doorstep (i.e. Russia).
Herbst says the protests are a reaction to four years of oppressive government. While admitting that Yanokovych won a free and fair election in 2010, Herbst argues since that time he has put increasingly authoritarian strictures on the opposition and asserts that Yanokovych authorised the use of armed snipers against unarmed protesters.
In response to certain reports that state it was the opposition that first started any firing, Herbst says that such a claim is simply a lie. Herbst quotes Orwell to imply that people and sections of the media are not only lying, but are propagandising by using smear words about the protesters, such as ‘ultra nationalists’ or ‘anti-Semitic’
As far as an attack on a Jewish synagogue in Ukraine is concerned, he merely asks who attacked it and answers his own question with “Nobody knows” and that it is quite likely the attackers were “provocateurs.” Despite ‘nobody knowing’ he immediately implies it was carried out by former government forces to discredit the opposition.
For a man who refers to Orwell, his words flow easily with doublespeak and hypocrisy. While he doesn’t appear to know who attacked the synagogue, not wanting to apportion any wrong doings to the people the US has supported in Kiev, he is conveniently adamant that government snipers gunned down protesters, which is highly debatable, if not totally untrue (1).
Fine for him to make his unfounded claims that suit US goals and smear Yanokovych, but when others make claims he doesn’t like to hear, backed up with evidence, they are merely looking for a reason to tarnish the US-backed protesters.
During the interview with RT, he was asked how would it be perceived if Occupy protesters were to take over government buildings or a city hall in the US , as the people he supports in Ukraine have done: would it be labelled as a peaceful protest?
Of course it wouldn’t. The US state has long been involved in the illegal monitoring and subversion of perfectly legitimate democratic groups on home soil. Its security and intelligence agencies have been used to crush genuine democracy. From Martin Luther King and the Occupy Movement to Veterans for Peace, the US state has used the full panoply of resources to infiltrate, monitor or subvert. Today, democratic movements that seek to legitimately question the influence of Wall Street, US military policy abroad and a range of other policies that have serve elite interests are spied on and ‘neutralised’ (2).
But this is not up for debate. Best to move swiftly along, as indeed Herbst did. In order to prevent further analysis of how the US might or does treat dissent on its own soil, the former ambassador continued with his rhetoric (seemingly in the belief that if you keep on repeating something, people will eventually believe it) and went on to state during the interview:
“But let’s acknowledge something... The policies of Yanukovych were authoritarian and oppressive, and it’s natural that people will respond forcibly against oppressive and authoritarian policies. People were finally fed up with the restrictions as well as the massive corruption. ... One side was brutal, slaughtering scores of people. The other was merely seizing buildings... You talk about a new election was scheduled for 2015. We all knew Yanukovic was preparing to steal that election.”
By this reasoning, it would mean that we should have pre-emptive action prior to any election based on fears about who might win and the reason for why they might win. Democracy works the other way around. You have an election and then you protest, if you feel it was discredited in some way, for example like when Bush stole the 2004 election.
And, of course, Herbst would not for one moment contemplate that the US authorities are oppressive, authoritarian and corrupt. For him, such traits are only prevalent in places like Ukraine . Don’t expect the likes of Herbst to be lining up in support of Occupy protestors at home who are demanding similar things that he is supporting in Ukraine (or at least says he is supporting). His moralistic bleatings only apply to other countries.
Although Herbst strived to portray the US as a neutral observer concerning events in Ukraine , it is clearly based on a lie (3,4). It is patently obvious that the US has a definite geo-political agenda aimed at weakening Russia (5). When asked about US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nulan appearing in Kiev handing out cookies, according to Herbst she was just expressing support for peaceful protest, and it did not imply that the US was taking sides in the situation.
How would that look in the US ? How would Herbst feel about Russia ‘s foreign minister doing that in US at Occupy Wall Street?
In response to such questions, Herbst continued to repeat and deflect by saying:

“I think you have trouble understanding there is a repressive government in Ukraine . There is not a repressive government in Washington .... Your problem is that you are a newscaster in a country that is undemocratic and you therefore do not want to see democracy in a country on your doorstep”
When the interviewer said that she does live in a democratic country ( Russia ), Herbst retorted:
“You have to say you live in a democratic country. Just like in the Soviet era journalists had to say that. It was not true then and it’s not true now.”
This comment and many others made by Herbst, displayed all of the arrogance associated with the ideology of US ‘exceptionalism’ in terms of that country being qualitatively different from other states, being a beacon of freedom and democracy and having the right to act in any way as and when it deems fit (6). He also displayed the complete contempt that people like him have for the public with his falsehoods, misleading claims, warped logic and attempts to deceive. Herbst should have realised that he was not talking (down) to a Fox news audience in the US . But, given the US ‘s role in events in Ukraine , maybe this was the best performance that could have been expected by someone in his shoes whose sole aim is to deliberately mislead.Herbst, Nulan and others would do well to contemplate their country’s post-1945 record of war mongering and destabilisations of democratic governments (7) and which has led to millions of deaths (8), its global surveillance network exposed by Edward Snowdon that illegally spies on individuals and governments alike and its ongoing plundering of resources and countries supported by militarism, ‘free trade’ or the outright manipulation of markets (for example: 9,10,11).Such ‘champions of democracy’ would also do well to contemplate the debasement of democracy at home and the US ‘s transformation into what increasingly appears to be a police state (12).
But, of course, they are already well aware of this. And they know full well that what the US is doing in Ukraine represents more of the same: the brutality and lies of Empire attempting to hide behind the smokescreen of democracy.
Orwell’s 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual
Copyright © 2014 Global Research