Colored Revolutions: New Form of Regime Change, Made in USA

[American Dream]

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/go ... 60210.html

Colored Revolutions:
A New Form of Regime Change, Made in USA

by Eva Golinger

In 1983, the strategy of overthrowing inconvenient governments and calling it "democracy promotion" was born

Through the creation of a series of quasi-private "foundations", such as Albert Einstein Institute (AEI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House and later the International Center for Non-Violent Conflict (ICNC), Washington began to filter funding and strategic aid to political parties and groups abroad that promoted US agenda in nations with insubordinate governments.

Behind all these "foundations" and "institutes" is the US Agency for Inter- national Development (USAID), the financial branch of the Department of State. Today, USAID has become a critical part of the security, intelligence and defense axis in Washington. In 2009, the Interagency Counterinsurgency Initiative became official doctrine in the US. Now, USAID is the principal entity that promotes the economic and strategic interests of the US across the globe as part of counterinsurgency operations. Its departments dedicated to transition initiatives, reconstruction, conflict management, economic development, governance and democracy are the main venues through which millions of dollars are filtered from Washington to political parties, NGOs, student organizations and movements that promote US agenda worldwide. Wherever a coup d'etat, a colored revolution or a regime change favorable to US interests occurs, USAID and its flow of dollars is there.

How Does a Colored Revolution Work?

The recipe is always the same. Student and youth movements lead the way with a fresh face, attracting others to join in as though it were the fashion, the cool thing to do. There's always a logo, a color, a marketing strategy. In Serbia, the group OTPOR, which led the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, hit the streets with t-shirts, posters and flags boasting a fist in black and white, their symbol of resistance. In Ukraine, the logo remained the same, but the color changed to orange. In Georgia, it was a rose-colored fist, and in Venezuela, instead of the closed fist, the hands are open, in black and white, to add a little variety.

Colored revolutions always occur in a nation with strategic, natural resources: gas, oil, military bases and geopolitical interests. And they also always take place in countries with socialist-leaning, anti-imperialist governments. The movements promoted by US agencies in those countries are generally anti-communist, anti-socialist, pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist.

Protests and destabilization actions are always planned around an electoral campaign and process, to raise tensions and questions of potential fraud, and to discredit the elections in the case of a loss for the opposition, which is generally the case. The same agencies are always present, funding, training and advising: USAID, NED, IRI, NDI, Freedom House, AEI and ICNC. The latter two pride themselves on the expert training and capacitation of youth movements to encourage "non violent" change.

The strategy seeks to debilitate and disorganize the pillars of State power, neutralizing security forces and creating a sensation of chaos and instability. Colonel Robert Helvey, one of the founders of this strategy and a director at AEI, explained that the objective is not to destroy the armed forces and police, but rather "convert them" -- convince them to leave the present government and "make them understand that there is a place for them in the government of tomorrow". Youth are used to try and debilitate security forces and make it more difficult for them to engage in repression during public protests. Srdja Popovic, founder of OTPOR, revealed that Helvey taught them ". . . how to select people in the system, such as police officers, and send them the message that we are all victims, them and us, because it's not the job of a police officer to arrest a 13-year old protestor, for example. . . ."

It's a well-planned strategy directed towards the security forces, public officials and the public in general, with a psychological warfare component and a street presence that give the impression of a nation on the verge of popular insurrection.

Venezuela

In 2003, AEI touched ground in Venezuela. Colonel Helvey himself gave a 9-day intensive course to the Venezuelan opposition on how to "restore democracy" in the country. According to AEI's annual report, opposition political parties, NGOs, activists and labor unions participated in the workshop, learning the techniques of how to "overthrow a dictator". This was a year after the failed coup d'etat -- led by those same groups -- against President Chavez. What came right after the AEI intervention was a year of street violence, constant destabilization attempts and a recall referendum against Chavez. The opposition lost 60-40, but cried fraud. Their claims were pointless. Hundreds of international observers, including the Carter Center and the OAS, certified the process as transparent, legitimate and fraud-free.

In March 2005, the Venezuelan opposition and AEI joined forces again, but this time the old political parties and leaders were replaced by a select group of students and young Venezuelans. Two former leaders of OTPOR came from Belgrade, Slobodan Dinovic and Ivan Marovic, to train the Venezuelan students on how to build a movement to overthrow their president. Simultaneously, USAID and NED funding to groups in Venezuela skyrocketed to around $9 million USD. Freedom House set up shop in Venezuela for the first time ever, working hand in hand with USAID and NED to help consolidate the opposition and prepare it for the 2006 presidential elections. ICNC, led by former Freedom House president Peter Ackerman, also began to train the youth opposition movement, providing intensive courses and seminars in regime change techniques.

That year, the newly-trained students launched their movement. The goal was to impede the electoral process and create a scenario of fraud, but they failed. Chavez won the elections with 64% of the vote, a landslide victory. In 2007, the movement was relaunched in reaction to the government's decision to not renew the broadcasting license of a private television station, RCTV, a voice of the opposition. The students took to the streets with their logo in hand and along with the aid of mainstream media, garnered international attention.

Several were selected by US agencies and sent to train again in Belgrade in October 2007. Student leader Yon Goicochea was awarded $500,000 USD from the right-wing Washington think tank, Cato Institute, to set up a training center for opposition youth inside Venezuela.

Today, those same students are the faces of the opposition political parties, evidencing not only their clear connection with the politics of the past, but also the deceit of their own movement. The colored revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine are fading. Citizens of those nations have become disenchanted with those that took power through an apparent "autonomous" movement and have begun to see they were fooled.

The colored revolutions are nothing more than the red, white and blue of US agencies, finding new and innovative ways to try and impose Empire's agenda.


Eva Golinger is the author of The Chávez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela and Bush versus Chávez: Washington’s War on Venezuela. Read Golinger's blog Postcards from the Revolution at <www.chavezcode.com>. This article was first published in the English edition of Correo del Orinoco International on 4 February 2010.

[American Dream]

http://www.hnn.us/articles/122778.html

2-08-10

Who Was Stepan Bandera?

By Norman J.W. Goda

Norman J.W. Goda is Braman Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Florida. His most recent book is Tales from Spandau: Nazi Criminals and the Cold War (2007), and is co-author of US Intelligence and the Nazis (2005).



On January 22, 2010 Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko honored Stepan Bandera by posthumously bestowing on him the state honor, “Hero of Ukraine.” The Soviet KGB assassinated Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist-in-exile, in 1959. Many Ukrainians, including Ukrainian émigré groups in Canada, pressed Yushchenko to grant the honor, which, according to one statement, "would restore justice and truth about the Bandera and the...struggle for liberation that he headed." To this day, many Ukrainians view Bandera as a martyred freedom fighter.

As an uncompromising leader of the militant, terrorist branch of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), Bandera became a Nazi collaborator who lived with his deputies under German protection after World War II began. In preparation for the attack on the USSR, the Nazis recruited Bandera’s followers to act as Ukrainian-speaking policemen and to serve in two Ukrainian volunteer army battalions. By working with the Nazis, Bandera hoped to free Ukraine from Soviet rule and establish his own government there. An independent Ukraine, Bandera promised, would remain friendly to Germany.

Historian Karel Berkhoff, among others, has shown that Bandera, his deputies, and the Nazis shared a key obsession, namely the notion that the Jews in Ukraine were behind Communism and Stalinist imperialism and must be destroyed. “The Jews of the Soviet Union,” read a Banderist statement, “are the most loyal supporters of the Bolshevik Regime and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism in the Ukraine.” When the Germans invaded the USSR in June 1941 and captured the East Galician capital of Lvov, Bandera’s lieutenants issued a declaration of independence in his name. They further promised to work closely with Hitler, then helped to launch a pogrom that killed four thousand Lvov Jews in a few days, using weapons ranging from guns to metal poles. “We will lay your heads at Hitler’s feet,” a Banderist pamphlet proclaimed to Ukrainian Jews.

The Germans intended to keep Ukraine for themselves. They arrested Bandera for his intransigence on the issue of independence, but released him in 1944 when it appeared that his popularity with Ukrainians might help stem the Soviet advance. But whatever their disappointment with the Germans, the Banderists never disagreed with their Jewish policy in Ukraine, which eventually killed over 1 million Ukrainian Jews.

This is a truth that many in Ukraine, particularly in its western parts, deny. In his book Erased (2007), Omer Bartov discusses the large bronze statue of Bandera that stands in a park in the east Galician town of Drohobych, most of whose 15,000 Jews were murdered. The park stands on the site of the town’s former Jewish ghetto, but there is not so much as a plaque in the park to memorialize the Jewish dead. This and other examples like it make a condemnation of Yushchenko’s step necessary.

But the rest of the story, much of which is revealed in CIA records released in 2007, reveals irony in Yushchenko’s award. After the war Bandera lived in Munich. British intelligence used him to help run agents into Ukraine to gather intelligence and to help the Ukrainian underground against the Soviets. The CIA used some of Bandera’s former cronies for similar reasons, but never used Bandera himself, owing to Bandera’s infatuation with his own legend. “Bandera,” said one CIA report from 1948, “is by nature a political intransigent of great personal ambition [who] has…opposed all political organizations in the emigration which favor a representative form of government in the Ukraine, as opposed to a mono-party, OUN/Bandera regime.”

Ukrainian sources confirmed that “fighting people in the homeland … [were] not prepared to accept [Bandera] as a dictator,” and that Bandera’s program “was unacceptable to the resistance movement inside [Ukraine].” In 1952 Bandera temporarily resigned as head of the OUN, pressured “by the growing opposition to his leadership among … top-ranking nationalist leaders who opposed him on the grounds of his totalitarian tactics….” Bandera’s subsequent petulance and his insistence on directing all facets of the Ukrainian underground at home and abroad led the British to drop him in 1953. With no high level contacts to listen to him, Bandera was now on the outside looking in.

Owing to his self-promotion in print and on West German radio, Bandera remained popular with thousands of Ukrainian émigrés in West Germany. His superficial effectiveness prompted West German intelligence (the BND) to establish contact in 1956. By 1959 the BND was helping Bandera to run a new generation of Ukrainian agents from West Germany into the USSR. General Reinhard Gehlen, the head of the BND, had lead German Army intelligence in the USSR during the war. He and his subordinates were surely familiar with Bandera’s wartime record. They were less familiar with the fact that the BND was by now thoroughly penetrated with Soviet agents. On October 14, 1959, Bandera had lunch with senior BND officials to discuss the expansion of operations in Ukraine. The next day the KGB assassinated Bandera in his apartment building.

Because Bandera effectively promoted his own legend, and because the Soviets were behind his death, émigrés who did not know any better labeled him as the martyred leader of Ukrainians abroad. Fifteen hundred attended his funeral in Munich. US officials, on the other hand, noted that Bandera’s “strong arm tactics” and “competition with other émigré groups” meant that “many émigré figures clearly do not personally lament his passing.” His death meant nothing for CIA operations against Soviet rule in Ukraine, which depended on the very same émigré leaders who, though followers of Bandera during the war, had dumped their former chief as a self-promoting caricature. They continued their work under CIA tutelage until the USSR collapsed. Such is another story.

It is a sad comment on Ukrainian memory that the man declared a Hero of Ukraine in January headed a movement that was deeply involved in the Holocaust. It is more gratifying to know that by the time of Stepan Bandera’s death, most Ukrainian leaders had long rejected him as a dangerous charlatan who harmed his own cause. By the time of his death, Bandera was reduced to dancing with the Cold War’s most compromised intelligence agency, where the Soviets could watch his every move. Those who label him a hero today, in other words, are as foolish as they are offensive.

[American Dream]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... NewsSecond


Yanukovych Claims Ukraine Win

By RICHARD BOUDREAUX And JAMES MARSON


KIEV, Ukraine—Opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych claimed a remarkable comeback Sunday in Ukraine's presidential election after exit polls showed him holding a narrow lead. But his opponent, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, refused to concede defeat.

The standoff raises the prospect that the presidential vote might spill into the streets and the nation's courts—as it did in 2004, when massive protests over alleged fraud overturned Mr. Yanukovych's tainted victory at the polls and sent him to the political sidelines.

Ms. Tymoshenko's campaign said widespread irregularities marred the vote. But international observers disputed the claim, raising doubt that Western governments, which helped the 2004 protesters prevail, would side with her in challenging the result. Ms. Tymoshenko was a leader of those demonstrations, which became known as the Orange Revolution.

The National Exit Poll 2010, conducted by a consortium of leading Ukrainian pollsters, gave Mr. Yanukovych 48.5% of Sunday's vote and Ms. Tymoshenko 45.7%. The poll had a margin of error of 2.5%. GfK Group, an international market-research firm, gave Mr. Yanukovych a wider lead: 49.8% to 45.2%; that survey's margin of error is 1.6%.

Incomplete official returns early Monday, with more than half the vote counted, gave Mr. Yanukovych a lead of 49.6% to 44.7%. Ms. Tymoshenko's camp had countered with its own "parallel count" of returns from 86% of the polling stations and called the race even.

Mr. Yanukovych, whose campaign focused on Ms. Tymoshenko's management of a beleaguered economy, proclaimed victory in a televised speech to supporters. "We shouldn't look for enemies in our country or in politics," he said. "We should unite and beat enemies such as poverty, irresponsibility and corruption."


Ms. Tymoshenko, who campaigned as a guarantor of this former Soviet republic's integration with the West, cautioned her rival against celebrating too early. She urged her party's delegates at each polling station to "fight for every vote"—an indication that legal challenges could precede any call for street protests. "Don't relax for a minute. … I am convinced that people who voted for a strong, European Ukraine are more than those who don't see such a Ukraine," she declared.

But Matya Eorsi of the Council of Europe's observation mission called the election "calm" and "professional" and said there was no evidence it was stolen. "All the international community, even more important, the Ukrainian public can accept this result."

A win by Mr. Yanukovych, 59 years old, would be a sweet return for the two-time former prime minister. As the Kremlin-backed candidate in 2004, he was the target of the Orange Revolution and lost a court-ordered revote to Viktor Yushchenko.

This time, many voters overlooked Ms. Tymoshenko's criticism of Mr. Yanukovych as a Soviet-era hack and a front man for Ukrainian oligarchs. His appeal was strong among people also disillusioned by legislative paralysis and broken promises of overhaul that have characterized Mr. Yushchenko's turbulent years in office.

Mr. "Yanukovych's team is an old-style party team," Vitaly Kuzmenko, a 39-year-old criminal lawyer, said after voting in Kiev. "But it doesn't matter what their past is. I believe they have the experience to bring order to this country. Tymoshenko thinks she's a messiah, and everybody else is nobody… What we need is stability."

Voters said the economy was uppermost in their minds. Ukraine's currency crashed in 2008, gross domestic product shrank 15% last year, and a $16.4 billion bailout by the International Monetary fund was put on hold after the government failed to adopt a budget for 2010.

Ms. Tymoshenko, 49, portrayed herself during the campaign as a skilled crisis manager. She forced Mr. Yanukovych, the front-runner, into Sunday's runoff election by polling strongly in the first round of voting Jan. 17, despite her frequent feuding with the president in two stints as his prime minister. Mr. Yanukovych got 35% of the first round vote, compared with her 25%.

"Yulia has worked hard during the crisis, and I'm sure when the crisis is over things will get better," said Olha Yanchuk, a 35-year-old teacher in Kiev, after voting for the prime minister.

But others who voted for her said they did so reluctantly, only because they disliked Mr. Yanukovych. And many who supported the Orange Revolution said they didn't vote, a choice that undermined Ms. Tymoshenko's effort to close the 10% gap.

Just before Mr. Yanukovych cast his ballot in Kiev, four members of the feminist group Femen entered the polling station, stripped to their waists and shouted, "Enough of raping the country!" in protest against what they called the corruption of politics by all parties.

President Yushchenko, who polled a meager 5.5% in the first-round voting, urged his supporters to vote against both runoff candidates, a legal option. "I think that the people of Ukraine will be ashamed of the choice they have to make," he said after voting.

Tensions ran high ahead of the vote, with both candidates accusing each other of planning large-scale ballot fraud and vowing to send their supporters into the streets to sway the outcome of any legal disputes over the vote.

Scores of blue tents surrounded by Yanukovych supporters appeared around key government buildings in Kiev, a sign of preparations for post-election protests.

Mr. Yanukovych's party said that Ms. Tymoshenko's supporters delivered ballots to polling stations that had incorrect numerical codes, giving officials an excuse to declare them invalid. Ms. Tymoshenko's campaign didn't respond to the allegation.

Any prolonged dispute over the vote could undermine Ukraine's young democracy, which has managed two relatively smooth parliamentary elections since the upheaval of 2004. It could also prolong the country's economic paralysis.

The next president faces the task of securing renewed IMF funding, Ukraine's only source of external financing. A fractious parliament could make it harder to pass the required budget, and the IMF is likely to object if it includes wage and pension increases passed into law last year at Mr. Yanukovych's behest.

Mr. Yanukovych late Sunday called on Ms. Tymoshenko to resign as prime minister. Leaders of his party say they will try to engineer defections from her coalition and form their own majority in parliament. Failing that, he has said he would move to call for election of a new parliament two years early.

[seemslikeadream]

yep...New Form of Regime Change, Made in USA with cookies from Victoria

Remarks to the Media Following Meeting With President Yanukovych


Remarks
Victoria Nuland
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Kyiv, Ukraine
December 11, 2013

Share on facebookShare on twitter Share
Date: 12/11/2013 Description: U.S. Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland offers food to pro-European Union activists as she and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, right, walk through Independence Square in Kiev, Ukraine, Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2013. © AP Image Date: 12/10/2013 Description: U.S. Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, left, and U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt, center, speak with Ukrainian lawmaker and opposition leader Petro Poroshenko in Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2013. © AP Image U.S. Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, left, and U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt, center, speak with Ukrainian lawmaker and opposition leader Petro Poroshenko in Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2013.
AP Image / Dec 10, 2013
< PREV 3/4 NEXT >
Hello Ukraine! It is my honor to have been here in these historic and difficult days. I hope the people of Ukraine know that the United States stands with you in your search for justice, for human dignity, for security, for economic health and for the European future that you have chosen and you deserve. I just spent more than two hours with President Yanukovych. It was a tough conversation, but it was a realistic one. I made it absolutely clear to him that what happened last night, what has been happening in security terms here, is absolutely impermissible in a European state, in a democratic state. But we also made clear that we believe there is a way out for Ukraine, that it is still possible to save Ukraine's European future and that is what we want to see the President lead. But that is going to require immediate security steps and getting back into a conversation with Europe and with the International Monetary Fund, and bringing justice and dignity to the people of Ukraine. I have no doubt after our meeting that President Yanukovych knows what he needs to do. The whole world is watching. We want to see a better future for Ukraine. Thank you all. I am going home to report to my government.

[American Dream]

I definitely think that neo-liberal forces- and Uncle Sam, the global hegemon, in particular- do use such techniques of regime change quite often.

This in mo way means we should jump on the bandwagon of any sort of far right party, movement, and/or propagandist, however...





.

[seemslikeadream]

Robert Kagan and his wife are NEO CONS

Victoria Nuland Accused of meeting with Neofascist in Washington
http://news.firedoglake.com/2014/05/19/ ... ashington/

Robert Kagan is a neoconservative writer and historian based at the Brookings Institution. A longtime proponent of an aggressive, interventionist U.S. foreign policy, Kagan has played an influential role in shaping the neoconservative policy agenda for more than two decades.

Kagan was a cofounder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a now defunct pressure group that helped build Beltway support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. In the early years of the Obama administration, he reprised this role as a cofounder of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a PNAC successor group.

He has also served as an adviser to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a board member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, an "international patron" of the UK-based Henry Jackson Society, a contributing editor at the Weekly Standard, and a foreign policy adviser to the Republican presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and John McCain.

- See more at: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/prof ... RjYUF.dpuf

[seemslikeadream]

America Backed Fascists In Ukraine 70 Years Ago
Posted on May 5, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
American Government Backed Ukrainian Nazis … Same Group Supported By the Leader of the Protests which Toppled the Ukrainian Government In February

Oliver Stone’s documentary Untold History notes:

Truman approved the creation of a guerrilla army code-named “Nightingale” in Ukraine. Originally setup by the Nazis in 1941, it was made up of ultra-nationalists. They would, as Stone describes, wreak havoc on the “famine-wrecked region where Soviet control was loose, carrying out the murder of thousands of Jews, Soviets and Pols, who opposed a separate Ukrainian state.” The CIA would parachute “infiltrators” into the country as well to further “dislodge Soviet control.”

Sounds nuts, right?

But American historian and former Under Secretary of the Air Force Townsend Hoopes and Rice University history professor Douglas Brinkely confirm:

One group that particularly attracted CIA attention and support was the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), a political-military underground movement that had long fought for Ukrainian independence—first against the Poles in the 1920s when Poland controlled the Ukraine and after 1939 against the Soviets. ‘Though violently anti-Russian, the OUN was itself totalitarian and Fascist in character. as well as anti-Semitic. The Nazis poured money into the OUN after the German invasion of Russia and pretended to support the goal of Ukrainian national independence. In return, a large OUN militia, code-named Nachtigall, or Nightingale, provided local administrators, informers, and killers for the German invaders. Nazi-sponsored OUN police and militia formations were involved in “thousands of instances of mass murders of Jews and of families suspected of aiding Red Army partisans.”

***

When the Germans were driven out of the Ukraine, many OUN members who had served the Nazis’ police formations and execution squads fled with them, but several thousand retreated into the Carpathian Mountains to fight another day against the hated Soviet government. It was this remaining Nightingale group that fascinated the CIA and was recruited essentially en bloc. To bring its leaders to the United States for training and indoctrination required special bureaucratic exertions, as well as an immigration law permitting the admission of one hundred such immigrants per year, provided the Director of the CIA, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service all personally stated that the action was vital to national security.” As one army intelligence officer noted sardonically, one wing of the CIA was hunting Ukrainian Nazis to bring them to trial at Nuremberg, while another wing was recruiting them.

***

After training in the United States, the Nightingale leaders were parachuted into the Ukraine to link up with their compatriots and to carry out measures of subversion, agitation, and sabotage, including assassination.

***

[United States Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal] vigorously supported the program and presumably participated in the approval of the basic NSC charters as a member of the National Security Council.

The leader of the Nightingale group was Stepan Bandera. And see this.

The leader of the “protests” in February 2014 which ousted the president of Ukraine is a neo Nazi and follower of Stepan Bandera.

In other words, 70 years ago, the U.S. supported the types of fascists who are now in control of Ukraine.

Postscript: Another little known historical fact is that – in 1997 – a former U.S. national security advisor and high-level Obama policy advisor called for the U.S. to take Ukraine away from Russia.

And almost a month before the Ukrainian president was ousted in February, a high-level State Department official – Assistant US Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland, wife of arch Neocon Robert Kagan – announced plans to promote a “new government” in Ukraine.

[American Dream]

Rigour and nuance are sorely lacking in the above. Bandera's movement was, in the Cold War, supported by Unc Sam. This is not the same as wholly controlled. Prior to that, their relationship to fascist/nationalist movements was multi-faceted.

None of this proves whole cloth control of the Maidan coalition through Banderite Nazi types either.

My understanding is that while neo-fascists have attempted to infiltrate themselves into Maidan, they are relatively marginal and not analogous to Dugin and the other neo-fascists in their role as front men for the extension of the new/expanded Russian Empire...

[Sounder]

Rigour and nuance are sorely lacking in the above. Bandera's movement was, in the Cold War, supported by Unc Sam. This is not the same as wholly controlled. Prior to that, their relationship to fascist/nationalist movements was multi-faceted.

None of this proves whole cloth control of the Maidan coalition through Banderite Nazi types either.

But who is trying to prove that? Remember fascists are tools of the state, they get used when the state thinks their services might be appropriate.

My understanding is that while neo-fascists have attempted to infiltrate themselves into Maidan,

Yes let’s talk about lack of nuance and rigor. This thread is called; Colored Revolutions: New Form of Regime Change, Made in USA

The presumption in your words frame ‘Maidan’ as an organic ‘peoples’ event. When we know in fact that is was a western geopolitical ploy. So which is it? To you I mean.

Your understanding seems odd in that our American ‘representatives’ fairly openly court and fund the Azov brigade and other fascist elements.

they are relatively marginal and not analogous to Dugin and the other neo-fascists in their role as front men for the extension of the new/expanded Russian Empire...

Says you. Anyway this contest of ‘who has the most and highest placed fascists on their side’, sidetracks more relevant issues such as, what can we do to reduce the slaughter of innocents?

As to the new/expanded Russian Empire... This is your perfect reveal. Who spends more on their military than all other countries in the world combined? That goes to the tune of Made in the U.S.A.

And yet that empire is crumbling as folk all around the world who are tired of the depredations and extra cost and corruption built into the Anglo-Zionist control system, seek to defend themselves.

The West, in its arrogance and stupidity is 'building' the Russian/Chinese Empire.

Circumstances dictate, not Putin, and much to their chagrin, not the neo-cons.

[Searcher08]

Rigour and nuance are sorely lacking in the above. Bandera's movement was, in the Cold War, supported by Unc Sam. This is not the same as wholly controlled. Prior to that, their relationship to fascist/nationalist movements was multi-faceted.

None of this proves whole cloth control of the Maidan coalition through Banderite Nazi types either.

My understanding is that while neo-fascists have attempted to infiltrate themselves into Maidan, they are relatively marginal and not analogous to Dugin and the other neo-fascists in their role as front men for the extension of the new/expanded Russian Empire...

Sorry, I need to be really direct in response to this.

From someone who treats Anton the Sorosian as an unfailingly reliable source, posts dozens of his articles from him without any form of critique as to their source and his first order connections, and who plays the BS JR gambit of "Well, just because he is Sorosian, doesn't mean we should disregard EVERYTHING he says" , my assertion is that it is clearly your own response which is 'nuance' free.

Please take the beam out of your own critical thinking eye before lecturing on the lack of nuance motes of others. This thread seems to be smoke about "Well of course America does mean things" to obscure de-facto support for the Kiev regime. Kagan and Nuland are neocon scum and all I see is you being an apologist for them by acting as a repeater station for Open Democracy disinformation / controlled opposition thought pieces.

[solace]

"Anglo-Zionist control system"

You lot always come creeping out of the cracks sooner or later, dontcha? Looks like my special ignore list just got one bigger.

[Searcher08]

"Anglo-Zionist control system"

You lot always come creeping out of the cracks sooner or later, dontcha? Looks like my special ignore list just got one bigger.

I am really unclear as to the value of this statement to anyone here at RI.
Perhaps you can expand on it? Not clear why your "special" ignore list would be of interest - is it different from your "regular" ignore list?

[solace]

"Since 1977-78, LaRouche has concocted a new "enemy-image", replacing the old "Rocky" (aka "Rockefeller") enemy from the previous years with the "British" and the "Jews" or the "Anglo-Zionists".
*This was a result of his close collaboration with the extreme-right, antisemitic and revisionist Carto's "Liberty Lobby"

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwik ... glozionist

Just in case anyone didn't know the term's heritage..

[seemslikeadream]

"Anglo-Zionist control system"

You lot always come creeping out of the cracks sooner or later, dontcha? Looks like my special ignore list just got one bigger.

Why do you constantly pop in only to announce your addition to your special ignore list and call people names....when in fact that list has, according to you has been the same for the last 7 years?

We get it....why don't you have the courage of your convictions and heed your decision? Then you wouldn't have any reason to post here at all?

[seemslikeadream]

https://www.facebook.com/TheOliverStone ... 5439820756
Oliver Stone added 7 new photos.
December 31, 2014 at 8:00am · Edited ·
‘Nightingale’ in Ukraine
For those of you angry with my analysis of Ukraine yesterday, please try to understand the bigger picture I’m offering. I have no brief for Viktor Yanukovych, he may well be the most corrupt president Ukraine’s ever had. Ukraine has a dramatic history of corruption. That is not my point. How Yanukovych was removed is -- and although many (perhaps a majority) of Ukrainian people wanted him out, there is ample evidence of pro-Western, third party interference, beginning with Victoria Nuland, John McCain, USAID, National Endowment for Democracy (who apparently organize very well on Facebook and Twitter), etc. Why for instance are so many policemen dead and wounded, and yet no one has investigated this in the new government?
The other point to consider in the big picture is US involvement with Ukraine going back to 1949, when the CIA and strongly anti-Soviet Defense Secretary James Forrestal created a guerrilla army codenamed ‘Nightingale,’ made up of ultra-nationalist Ukrainians. The Nazis originally set up the prototype of this militia up in 1941 to wreak havoc in famine-racked regions where Soviet control was loose, carrying out the murder of 1000s of Jews, Soviets, and Poles who opposed a separate Ukrainian state.
Beginning in 1949, for 5 years the CIA parachuted Ukrainian infiltrators into the region. To the Soviets it was as if the US were infiltrating guerrillas into Canada or Mexico.
The big picture is the US has never given up on using Ukraine as a launching pad to the underbelly of the Soviet Union, now a reduced Russia. This Cold War 2.0 policy continues in a most deadly fashion, and whether they know it or not, the Ukrainian civilian population in the middle has suffered greatly from this ideological crusade.