Russia's de facto invasion of Ukraine

[justdrew]

well, in between frothing commentary, "the World" (a show on our NPR affiliate) got around to mentioning, very briefly, once, a key bit of info... that renders the "invasion" not too "de facto" - apparently the forces surrounding Ukrainian military bases are not Russian Federation forces at all, they are locally organized self-defense militias - aka "people power" . The R.F. military forces are contained only within the naval base, where they are, by treaty, allowed to be. Up to 25,000 soldiers. Also, Putin has stated that he has no intention of annexing Crimea, and sees no need for further advances of troops. It seems all the hysteria has just gotten a bit ahead of itself.

[Julian the Apostate]

[quote="justdrew » Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:01 pm"Putin has stated that he has no intention of annexing Crimea, and sees no need for further advances of troops. It seems all the hysteria has just gotten a bit ahead of itself.[/quote]

Maybe, but it is also hard to see Putin letting Crimea go with a Ukraine allied to the West

[kelley]

sevastopol = guantanamo

naval bases leased by long-term clients

[KeenInsight]

As always, a populace is easily manipulated and fooled by governments, and all the other geo-political power players behind the scene. I have no doubt the IMF would like to loot Ukraine - they don't give one f*** about the people there.

The irony in Europe is that NATO was specifically made to counter the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and likely never will again - the Cold War is over, but the remnants left over of propaganda fueled by Western mentality is still strong as ever. The U.S. is the chief Imperialist Nation on Earth with having directly violated International Law since the end of WW2.

I'm seeing a lot of posts in here, and posts on Facebook... fuck if I know why I still have an FB account, that Russia is some sort of evil boogieman. Does everyone gloss over history, is that a thing now? Russia has had enemies at its doorsteps for centuries, everyone wants a piece. In Kiev stood a statue symbolizing Napoleon's defeat, an ancient Imperialist, which was destroyed by Hooligans. And another statue symbolizing the Nazi defeat in Ukraine was also destroyed... is this a thing now? Destroying monuments of history to ignore context? And where everything is Goebbels Prize Winning Propaganda from the Pentagon with assholes like McCain posing and shaking hands with a known Neo-Nazi while smugly saying they didn't give money to Neo-Nazi's. Fucking hogwash lies.

Russians are cautious people throughout these centuries... I have also met some myself, they are nice people, and their language and cultures are widespread and unique. The Tsars and Soviet Union are gone, and ex-KGB Putin and friends are busy with kleptocracy and dealing with CIA State Sponsored Bred Terrorism.

I wonder how people in the U.S., my country, would feel if let's say... China sent 5 billion dollars to some radical group in some next door state in order to turn, let's say Georgia, into a rogue racist state forcing minorities to evacuate to the state next door. And while they are at it, destroy and topple some monuments and wave some sabers.



This map seems to hypocritically state that the U.S. is the 3rd least corrupted nation on Earth (the actual scale is 0 most corrupt, 100 not corrupt, U.S. scores 73), along with the Most of Western Europe (AKA, The New Roman Republica) as some sort Godly Hypocritical Saints, which have illegally invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya in the last Decade, and illegally toppled 50 governments since 1945 with the go to guys, the CIA-zi's. Where in my country the U.S., our politicians go into Congress and White House usually uncorrupt, and when they get there take millions in hand outs from Oligarchy and Corporate entities where they are then corrupted to the core from the Oil and Defense Industry, Wall Street, The Fed, and Banksters. Where people blindly vote for their favorite Evil Blue or Evil Red, and nothing ever changes. Corruption is legalized here making it seem "civilized."

[seemslikeadream]

MARCH 04, 2014

Lies About Ukraine
How Washington’s Hubris Set the Stage for War
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
In some quarters public awareness is catching up with Stephen Lendman, Michel Chossudovsky, Rick Rozoff, myself and a few others in realizing the grave danger in the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine.

The puppet politicians who Washington intended to put in charge of Ukraine have lost control to organized and armed neo-nazis, who are attacking Jews, Russians, and intimidating Ukrainian politicians. The government of Crimea, a Russian province that Khrushchev transferred to the Ukraine Soviet Republic in the 1950s, has disavowed the illegitimate government that illegally seized power in Kiev and requested Russian protection. The Ukrainian military forces in Crimea have gone over to Russia. The Russian government has announced that it will also protect the former Russian provinces in eastern Ukraine as well.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn pointed out, it was folly for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to transfer historic provinces of Russia into Ukraine. At the time it seemed to the Soviet leadership like a good thing to do. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and had been ruled by Russia since the 18th century. Adding Russian territory to Ukraine served to water down the nazi elements in western Ukraine that had fought for Hitler during World War 2. Perhaps another factor in the enlargement of Ukraine was the fact of Khrushchev’s Ukrainian heritage.

Regardless, it did not matter until the Soviet Union and then the former Russian empire itself fell apart. Under Washington’s pressure, Ukraine became a separate country retaining the Russian provinces, but Russia retained its Black Sea naval base in Crimea.

Washington tried, but failed, to take Ukraine in 2004 with the Washington-financed “Orange Revolution.” According to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, since this failure Washington has “invested” $5 billion in Ukraine in order to foment agitation for EU membership for Ukraine. EU membership would open Ukraine to looting by Western bankers and corporations, but Washington’s main goal is to establish US missile bases on Russia’s border with Ukraine and to deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base and military industries in eastern Ukraine. EU membership for Ukraine means NATO membership.

Washington wants missile bases in Ukraine in order to degrade Russia’s nuclear deterrent, thus reducing Russia’s ability to resist US hegemony. Only three countries stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony over the world, Russia, China, and Iran.

Iran is surrounded by US military bases and has US fleets off its coast. The “Pivot to Asia” announced by the warmonger Obama regime is ringing China with air and naval bases. Washington is surrounding Russia with US missile and NATO bases. The corrupt Polish and Czech governments were paid to accept US missile and radar bases, which makes the Polish and Czech puppet states prime targets for nuclear annihilation. Washington has purchased the former Russian and Soviet province of Georgia, birthplace of Joseph Stalin, and is in the process of putting this puppet into NATO.

Washington’s Western European puppets are too greedy for Washington’s money to take cognizance of the fact that these highly provocative moves are a direct strategic threat to Russia. The attitude of European governments seems to be, “after me, the deluge.”

Russia has been slow to react to the many years of Washington’s provocations, hoping for some sign of good sense and good will to emerge in the West. Instead, Russia has experienced rising demonization from Washington and European capitals and foaming at the mouth vicious denunciations by the West’s media whores. The bulk of the American and European populations are being brainwashed to see the problem that Washington’s meddling has caused in Ukraine to be Russia’s fault. Yesterday, I heard on National Public Radio a presstitute from the New Republic describe Putin as the problem.

The ignorance, absence of integrity, and lack of independence of the US media greatly enhances the prospect for war. The picture being drawn for insouciant Americans is totally false. An informed people would have burst out laughing when US Secretary of State John Kerry denounced Russia for “invading Ukraine” in “violation of international law.” Kerry is the foreign minister of a country that has illegally invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, organized the overthrow of the government in Libya, tried to overthrow the government in Syria, attacks the civilian populations of Pakistan and Yemen with drones and missiles, constantly threatens Iran with attack, unleashed the US and Israeli trained Georgian army on the Russian population of South Ossetia, and now threatens Russia with sanctions for standing up for Russians and Russian strategic interests. The Russian government noted that Kerry has raised hypocrisy to a new level.

Kerry has no answer to the question: “Since when does the United States government genuinely subscribe and defend the concept of sovereignty and territorial integrity?”

Kerry, as is always the case, is lying through his teeth. Russia hasn’t invaded Ukraine. Russia sent a few more troops to join those at its Black Sea base in view of the violent anti-Russian statements and actions emanating from Kiev. As the Ukrainian military in Crimea defected to Russia, the additional Russian troops were hardly necessary.

The stupid Kerry, wallowing in his arrogance, hubris, and evil, has issued direct threats to Russia. The Russian foreign minister has dismissed Kerry’s threats as “unacceptable.” The stage is set for war.

Note the absurdity of the situation. Kiev has been taken over by ultra-nationalist neo-nazis. A band of ultra-nationalist thugs is the last thing the European Union wants or needs as a member state. The EU is centralizing power and suppressing the sovereignty of the member states. Note the alignment of the neoconservative Obama regime with anti-semitic neo-nazis. The neoconservative clique that has dominated the US government since the Clinton regime is heavily Jewish, many of whom are dual Israeli/US citizens. The Jewish neoconservatives, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and National Security Adviser Susan Rice, have lost control of their coup to neo-Nazis who preach “death to the Jews.”

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on February 24 that Ukrainian Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman advised “Kiev’s Jews to leave the city and even the country.” Edward Dolinsky, head of an umbrella organization of Ukrainian Jews, described the situation for Ukrainian Jews as “dire” and requested Israel’s help.

This is the situation that Washington created and defends, while accusing Russia of stifling Ukrainian democracy. An elected democracy is what Ukraine had before Washington overthrew it.

At this time there is no legitimate Ukrainian government.

Everyone needs to understand that Washington is lying about Ukraine just as Washington lied about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, just as Washington lied about Iranian nukes, just as Washington lied about Syrian president Assad using chemical weapons, just as Washington lied about Afghanistan, Libya, NSA spying, torture. What hasn’t Washington lied about?

Washington is comprised of three elements: Arrogance, Hubris, and Evil. There is nothing else there.

MARCH 04, 2014

Is Putin Crimea Coup Reaction to a Nulandized Kiev Government that Might have Intended to Evict the Russian Black Sea Fleet?
Skullduggery in Ukraine
by PETER LEE
The coup in Kiev was a loss for Putin, but doesn’t look like much of a win for the U.S., Europe, or Ukraine.

What we see in Ukraine today is the messy consequences of a clumsily executed regime change strategy.

Clumsy, because somehow it excluded pro-Russian forces in Ukraine that make up about half of the country.

And clumsy because it blew out of the water an EU-brokered transition deal by which Yanyukovich and his party would have stayed in the government and Russia would have supplied $12 billion to help Ukraine ride out its major economic difficulties.

With Russia excluded, Putin was welcome to imagine the worst, including an attempt by the Ukraine government to install anti-Russian administrations in the eastern provinces and Crimea…and the possibility that an anti-Russian government in Kiev, liberated from EU geopolitical and energy qualms, might give priority to a key Pentagon and US foreign-policy priority: evicting the Russian Black Sea Fleet from its base at Sebastopol.

Russia operates its Black Sea Fleet at Sebastopol under a lease that expires in 2042. That lease extension was negotiated by Yanyukovich two years ago in return for favorable gas pricing. By doing so, Yanyukovich overturned the policy of the previous administration (Viktor Yuschenko) which had stated its desire to eject Russia from Sebastopol.

With an anti-Russian revolutionary government in power in Kiev, it would not be unreasonable for Russia to expect that the new government might move against Russian interests in Crimea.

So, in my opinion, rather than wait for the Ukrainian government to stabilize itself in Kiev and think about adventures in the east, Putin acted first and forcefully in Crimea, which happens to be the most securely Russian part of Ukraine.

Crimea didn’t become part of the Ukrainian SSR until 1954, when Krushchev decided to transfer it out of the Russian SSR. And in 1992, Crimeans voted in a referendum for independence, which the Ukrainian government refused to acknowledge. However, Crimea was allowed a very high degree of autonomy in its government. Russia operates in Crimea under a SOFA arrangement allows them to position 11,000 troops there.

About half of the population is still ethnic Russian and pro-Russian politicians have, presumably in coordination with Moscow, secured most of the local government organs and national government military installations without bloodshed.

Russian soldiers have been assisting, but I think to paint the local seizure of power in Crimea as simply a Russian occupation is mis-representing the situation.

It’s a political initiative with significant local support that has gone smoothly because of the overwhelming military force Russia can bring to the assistance of pro-Russian Crimean politicians. The unkindest thing you can call it is a pro-Russian coup or putsch very similar to the anti-Russian coup or putsch recently implemented in Kiev, but one that’s neater, better executed, and with a lower dingbat quotient.

As to where Crimea might go, the possibilities look like 1) autonomy 2) independence 3) annexation by Russia.

Independence or annexation appear unlikely to me. There is a sizable and politically well-organized population of Crimean Tatars who suffered horribly at the hands of Stalin both before and after World War II, and I doubt Russia wants to take the risk of trying to detach them from Ukraine.

I think the most likely Russian objective is for the government in Kiev to confirm a very high level of autonomy for the Crimean government, give up on trying to have any effective central government civil or military organs in the province, and abandon the idea that it can effect the expulsion of Russia from the Sebastopol base.

Beyond that, the Russians have stated repeatedly that they want the EU transitional accord implemented at the national level, but I have a feeling at this point this is merely a bargaining position. Bringing openly pro-Russian political figures back into the central government doesn’t seem possible now.

The US did not play a particularly glorious role in this mess.

It would be disingenuous for the Obama administration to claim that it has not intervened in Ukraine.

The full extent of US meddling is unclear, but US support for the pro-EU political movement, verbally, through the implementation of sanctions, and through the extensive network of US-affiliated regime-change NGOs such as CANVAS, was unambiguous.

The Obama administration apparently gave a free hand to Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Why Ms. Nuland occupies a position of influence in the Democratic Obama administration is something of a puzzle; prior to her elevation to assistant secretary she had served in a rather modest capacity as a State Department spokesperson. However, she is married to Robert Kagan, a well-known neo-conservative and co-founder of PNAC, whose writings President Obama professes to admire.

In any case, Nuland was on the ground in Ukraine during the upheaval, talking up the demonstrations and famously visiting the Maidan protesters in December to distribute bread and biscuits in a photo op. She also made the famous “Fuck the EU” remark in a telephone strategy session with the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

The substance of that phone call was quickly pushed aside to celebrate Nuland’s straight-talking feistiness. But what was most notable (and presumably the reason that Russian intelligence intercepted and released the phone call) was that Nuland was calling for the EU to be sidelined because it was not being sufficiently aggressive on the issue of threatening pro-Russian figures with sanctions. Also, Nuland wanted Arsenyi Yatsenyuk, not Vitalyi Klitschko, to serve as the main pro-Western figure in any new government setup.

In the phone call, she tells the US ambassador to Ukraine that the US is going to go through its man at the UN, Jeffrey Feltman, to get a Dutch diplomat, Robert Serry, appointed as a special emissary to Kiev. (Serry did go to Kiev, but his role was challenged after the appearance of the tape and another UN diplomat, Jan Eliasson, is apparently now in charge of UN outreach on Ukraine).

Apparently, again, this was to remove the initiative in Ukraine negotiations out of the hands of Germany and the EU.

It was also reported that in December Nuland had threatened one of Yanyukovich’s key supporters, the oligarch Rinat Akhmetov (who controlled forty delegates in parliament), with sanctions against his Western interests if the Yanyukovich government used violence against protesters.

Remarkably, after a truce was declared, as AP reported, protesters led by hard-right shock troops asserted “the truce was a ruse”, attacked police, and snipers opened fire, precipitating a political crisis. Although EU representatives supervised the negotiation of a power-sharing agreement the next day, the protesters rejected it, Yanyukovich’s supporters abandoned him, and he fled.

As to why the US might be willing to blow up the EU deal, I—and perhaps V. Putin—am inclined to speculate that Victoria Nuland, in allegiance to her neo-con roots, aggressively facilitated a government that was simultaneously pro-US, anti-Russian, and non-EU-oriented and would therefore see no problem with facilitating a cherished US objective—evicting the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Crimea.

This contingency might have affected Putin’s decision to employ forceful methods to secure Crimea and pre-empt any inclination by the new Kiev government to fiddle with the status of the Russian base, even at the expense of a sizable diplomatic and security crisis.

Maybe there was no conspiracy to blow up the EU initiative, maybe the protesters attacked spontaneously, but the end result was the same. The explosion of violence compelled Yanyukovich’s oligarch backers to withdraw their support in order to protect their precious overseas swag, the EU agreement was stillborn and pro-Russian forces disappeared from the Ukrainian parliament. Yatsenyuk became Premier and Klitschko was left on the outside looking in, very much as the US and not the EU wanted it.

But Yanyukovich, instead of getting slowly sidelined during the transition, was impeached with enough haste and legal loose ends that he can plausibly assert that he was not properly removed from office and the Kiev government is illegitimate—a position that the Russians have happily endorsed, and which provides ample justification for Russia to disregard the 1994 Budapest Agreement, which is supposed to mandate non-interference in Ukraine’s domestic affairs.

To my mind, Ukraine politics is generic skullduggery by both sides, with the United States perhaps holding the edge.

Nevertheless, the United States seems to have underestimated the Russian response to inserting a viscerally anti-Russian government in Kiev, one that immediately passed a law (since revoked) outlawing the use of Russian as an official language, while its supporters went on a spree of Lenin statue-toppling to demonstrate their disdain for Russia. Remarkably, the US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul resigned just at the time the Yanukovich government fell and it would be expected that the US would want a steady hand on the diplomatic tiller.

What amazes me is the widespread desire to turn this rather sordid escapade into a “good vs. evil” “US vs. Russia” cage match. It began even before the Crimea crisis with disregard for the fact that the protesters, instead of standing up against tyranny, were simply trying to overturn an election whose results they didn’t particularly like. It continued with the uncritical valorizing of the protesters in Maidan, who relied on some unsavory neo-Nazi extreme right Ukraine chauvinists to serve as shock troops in violent attacks upon the police.

Before the coup it was openly acknowledged that the purpose of the Euromaidan movement was to repudiate Yanyukovich’s decision to reject an EU agreement and bring Ukraine into the Russia-led Customs Union—and the unrest was justified on grounds that, once Ukraine entered into the Customs Union, its pro-Russia/anti-EU orientation would be irrevocable.

But after the coup, despite the fact that the new government relies on a slate of fantastically rich oligarchs both at the national and local level to sustain its rule, Western commentators immediately spun the coup as a popular uprising against a kleptocratic regime.

I can only imagine that the purpose was to deny Russia a basis for claiming that its interests in a rather important bordering state had been trampled on by an anti-Russia putsch, and that it had a legitimate interest in interfering.

But the proper riposte to corrupt officialdom is to vote the bastards out, not overthrow them. Whenever I hear the “klepper” defense, I am immediately suspicious of the advocate employing it.

What is, in reality, some thankfully bloodless local geopolitical jostling in Crimea is now spun by AP and Reuters as the biggest crisis since 9/11. And it seems a lot of people are thirsting for it, as if we don’t have enough crises in the world. It seems America needs monsters to fight, and if they don’t exist, we invent them.

The Russians aren’t helping, either. In order to bolster their case for a rollback to the EU transition agreement, the Russian ambassador to the UN brandished a letter from Yanyukovich purportedly asking for Russia to intervene militarily. Presumably, this allows Russia to describe its Crimea intervention as legal and support the validity of the Feb. 21 agreement as an alternative to the coup.

Nevertheless, I think moderation will prevail.

The Germans have already inserted themselves in mediation between Russia and the West. Apparently, the UK is against meaningful sanctions. De facto, Kiev may have to resign itself to almost total loss of central government control in Crimea, but Crimea will probably remain autonomous and part of Ukraine.

Thanks to the crisis with Russia, Ukraine is enjoying the collateral benefit of being able to sideline the unruly and sometimes intimidatingly violent street protesters in the name of national unity against an outside threat. Russia will probably not egg on the pro-Russian demonstrators in the other eastern provinces, but will retain the right to intervene on their behalf.

I expect the US will affirm its global leadership by coordinating campaign for West to symbolically punish Russia by withdrawing from G8 meeting in Sochi, and enjoy negotiating an onerous IMF agreement with its chosen instrument, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk (or, as Nuland familiarly calls him, “Yats.”)

And, if Russia cannot be prevailed upon to honor its commitments for the $12 billion dollars and raises the price of gas sold to Ukraine to genuine market levels, the EU and US can play the blame game for the economic hardship that Ukraine will suffer under the onerous IMF package currently under preparation.

Putin can console himself with the observation that he is not chained to Yanyukovich, apparently an ineffectual and unloved client, and. Russia’s obligation to pony up $12 billion for Ukraine’s rescue can be honored “in the breach”. And if Crimea becomes completely autonomous, Russia’s $90 million or so in annual rent for the Sebastopol base will not be lining the pockets of Putin’s enemies in Kiev.

In passing, I would like to address one of the hoariest canards of the Ukraine crisis: that Russian would recapitulate its actions of 2008, when it invaded Georgia. This assertion has been made by Reuters, AP, and I think quite a few others.

The facts—internationally recognized facts, I should say—was that Georgia used the occasion of the Beijing Olympics to launch a carefully planned invasion to recapture the breakaway province of South Ossetia—which was at the time autonomous under a truce agreement negotiated by Russia, Georgia, and the Ossetians in Sochi in 1993. The Georgians massed 12,000+ troops against 1000 Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred Ossetian militia. Georgia had apparently not anticipated a Russian intervention, and its forces were completely routed when the Russians indeed counterattacked.

Hopefully, the Georgia parallel will stand up in one regard: that the Russians promptly withdrew from Georgian territory after their objectives were met. And they did not annex South Ossetia; they allowed it to declare independence instead

A Monster Reawakens: The Rise of Ukrainian Fascism
A precedent the West will live to regret

by Justin Raimondo, March 05, 2014

With the eyes of the world fixed on Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the prospect of a wider war engulfing all Ukraine, our attention has been diverted from what may be the most significant aspect of this crisis: the ascension of a genuinely fascist mass movement into the corridors of power.

Our "mainstream" media shrugs off what it describes as the presence of "a few ultra-nationalists" at the Kiev protests, but this is nonsense: it is far more than a few. Indeed, the activists of the two main fascist parties in Ukraine – Svoboda and "Right Sector" – provided the muscle the insurrectionists needed to take over government buildings in Kiev and across western Ukraine.

Svoboda ("Freedom") was founded in 1991 as the Social National Party of Ukraine. The party idolizes Stepan Bandera, whose followers fought on the side of the Nazis during World War II against the Red Army and Ukrainian communist militias. Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) had direct support from the Germans: Hitler wanted them to police Ukraine after the Germans took it, and the OUN organized volunteer militias that actively participated in the Holocaust. "The Jews of the Soviet Union," declared the Banderists, "are the most loyal supporters of the Bolshevik Regime and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism in the Ukraine." When the Germans took Lvov in the summer of 1941, the Banderists sent a message to Lvov’s Jews in the form of a pamphlet which said: "We will lay your heads at Hitler’s feet"! Which they did; the OUN worked with the SS to round up and slaughter 4,000 of the city’s Jews. Their weapons of choice: everything from guns to metal poles.

When Viktor Yushchenko, during his disastrous tenure as President of Ukraine, bestowed on Bandera the posthumous title of "Hero of Ukraine," the European Parliament formally protested: they were ignored.

Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok, now a top official of the Ukrainian Parliament, is an unrepentant anti-Semite. In the summer of 2004, he made a speech to his followers at the gravesite of a Banderist commander in which he declared: "You are the ones that the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears most." His peroration also made reference to "Kikes" as prominent among those the Banderists fought. Tyahnybok was expelled from Parliament for his remarks, but the "revolution" has installed him back in his seat – and more powerful than ever.

He has plenty of company. Svoboda activists, who already held seats in Parliament, hold no less than eight top Cabinet positions:

Ihor Tenyukh – interim defense minister and a member of Svoboda’s political council. Formerly commander of Ukraine’s navy, in 2008, during Russia’s war with Georgia, he ordered Ukrainian warships to block the entrance of the Russian Navy to the bay of Sevastopol.

Andriy Parubiy – National Security Council chief, co-founded Svoboda back when it was the “Social National” (ahem!) party.

Dmytro Yarosh – deputy head of the National Security Council, i.e. the police, and the founder-leader of "Right Sector," a militant neo-Nazi paramilitary group that took charge of security in the Maiden.

Oleh Makhnitsky – Svoboda member of parliament, is prosecutor-general.

Oleksandr Sych – Svoboda parliamentarian and the party’s chief ideologist, is deputy prime minister for economic affairs.

Serhiy Kvit – a leading member of Svoboda, is to head up the Education Ministry.

Andriy Moknyk – the new Minister of Ecology, has been Svoboda’s envoy to other European fascist parties. Last year, he met with representatives of Italy’s violent neo-fascist gang, Forza Nuovo.

Ihor Shvaika – agro-oligarch and a member of Svoboda, has been appointed Minister of Agriculture. One of the richest men in the country, His massive investments in agriculture would seem to indicate a slight conflict of interest.

For the first time since 1933, the followers of a movement that valorizes Adolf Hitler and preaches anti-Semitism has entered a European government. The German Nazis, too, were part of a "coalition" government, the other members of which thought they could contain or even “tame” them and prevent a Communist takeover. They were tragically wrong – and the United States and its European allies are taking the same road in backing Hitler’s heirs in Ukraine.

Of course the majority of the government’s supporters are hardly hardcore neo-Nazis: but that isn’t necessary to make this a precedent the West will live to regret. The presence of Svoboda and "Right Sector" legitimizes these movements, and not only in Ukraine. Germany has periodically sought to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party, and the British have taken legal measures against the British National Party: will they now grant the Ukrainian brothers of these so-called hate groups diplomatic recognition and pledges of political and even military support?

What’s interesting about the specific appointments listed above is the prominence of "Right Sector" leader Dmytro Yarosh in the key position of deputy chief of the national police. The "Right Sector" organization came out of the merger of several ultra-nationalist and openly neo-Nazi grouplets, including "Trident," the Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Defense Force, "White Hammer," and "Patriots of Ukraine." Yorash boasted at the height of the protests that his group had amassed a large weapons cache, and since they already had the guns it was inevitable they would form the nucleus of the reconstituted police force. With the group’s high profile, and its celebrated status as "heroes of the revolution," Yorash’s stormtroopers – who wear the red-and-black insignia of the Banderists –will be charged with suppressing anti-government "disturbances" and hunting down "traitors." Perhaps they’ll throw in a little queer-bashing as well: the nationalists hate gays as well as Jews and all Russian-speakers.

Victoria Nuland thought she could keep Svoboda and "Right Sector" out of the government, but she hasn’t done a very good job so far. And with elections scheduled for May 5, the nationalists are well positioned to take a good chunk of the vote. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the State Department’s favored candidate, is a bespectacled technocrat notably lacking in the charisma department. Tyahnybok , on the other hand, is a natural demagogue.

No matter how many US taxpayer dollars flow into the coffers of the State Department’s Ukrainian sock puppets between now and May 25, all the money in the world may not be able to contain the forces our interventionists have loosened on the world. The news that the leader of "Right Sector" has called on none other than al-Qaeda to help Ukraine in its battle against Russia is an indication of just what sort of demons we have unleashed – this time.

[justdrew]

I see no reason why that region should be dragged along with the mob-dominated region. The street mobs, aided with millions of western dollars and training subverted the legitimate electoral process. Mob Rule is not acceptable. You never know when the next mob will form or who they'll be. Or who this one is. now if yanukovich started stealing elections, that would be a different thing. The entire desire to suck up to the EU is pathetic and ill-advised. It's not either/or, they need to trade in both directions, obviously. Russia and the Russian leaning regions are perfectly within their rights to defend their interests and security against a disorganized mob, who were using the same violent tactics they accuse the legitimate government of.

All of a sudden governments have no right to put down by force violent mobs seeking to control civil society? Bullshit. None of you want that. Think about it. Next week it could be Aryan Nations "protests" in DC.

I shouldn't have called it a "disorganized" mob. It's just a Mob. Well organized.

but yeah, this bullshit "people powah" (but only when it suits US interests) is such bullshit, and note that "hollywood" shitbags are now getting in on the act. Make no mistake, we are simply witnessing "the new way it's done"

What I would like to see done, it splice the audio reports from say NPR and the like together, but cut such that they are instead of reporting on the brave fabulous and put-upon protestors in Kiev, thy are reporting on the treatment of occupy wallstreet protestors. I think we know we'll have to build it ourselves, and minnolie weatherall and the the rest of the fucks would NEVER in a billion years treat the reporting on any antiwar/social-justice protesters in the US in this way.

Just imagine how such protestors, armed with gasmasks and shieldwalls, attacking cops with knives, clubs, axes, molatovs, and yes, GUNs, would be talked about here. They protestors would be dead dead dead all of them, except for the few shipped off somewhere never to be seen again. but hey, there our clearly OUR protestors, so... kidd-gloves please!

THE story here, is to understand the incredible restraint shown by the state security apparatus in Ukraine. It's amazing the protestors weren't at least attacked and hearded like animals into holding pens, or "kettled" and beaten constantly. Try that "protesty" shit here, see what happens.

Mental note: All US anti-war protests from now on must be sponsored by an organization calling itself "the private sector"

[FourthBase]

So, blatant propaganda is somehow cool if it's pro-Russian propaganda? Uh, NO.
WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THE CONSTANT RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA?

If it's Russia's interests threatened, folks suddenly go into Neutral Boardgame Mode?
"Well, you have to understand, Russia is left no choice...has ample justification..."

BARF.

You realize, don't you, that you merely sound like the Russian version of a neocon/freeper?

[seemslikeadream]

MARCH 05, 2014

A Volatile Chess Match
Crimean Shock Waves
by RON JACOBS
Recent events in the Ukraine have taken center stage since the Russian parliament passed legislation approving the deployment of more troops into the Crimea. The rationale is simple: to defend the Russian fleet that makes port in the Black Sea. This is Russia’s only warm water port and has been a point of contention for more than a century. After the Crimean war of the 1850s, Russia lost her rights to base her fleet there. It wasn’t long afterwards, however, that Russia reclaimed that right after Napoleon III’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. Since then, Russia has had military ships there. After the Russian-friendly government in Ukraine’s Kiev was overthrown the last week of February 2014 by angry Ukrainians, Russian mercenary forces moved into the Crimea. As of March 2, 2014, they are occupying various government buildings and generally making their presence known. Furthermore, the Russian Duma passed the resolution referred to above.

In response, Washington threatened unspecified “costs.” Secretary of State Kerry told the world that “You just don’t in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext.” Besides the obvious hypocrisy of the statement by a representative of the one nation in today’s world which does exactly this every couple years, this sentence from Kerry glosses over the larger geopolitical and economic issues in this tete-a-tete. On March 4, 2014, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Ramussen told the media, “Despite repeated calls by the international community, Russia continues to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and continues to violate its international commitments. These developments present serious implications for the security and stability of the Euro‑Atlantic area. NATO Allies stand together in the spirit of strong solidarity in this grave crisis.” In other words, NATO will do what it decides is best for Washington and its definition of stability, which currently runs counter to Moscow’s definition.

The elected-then-overthrown government in Kiev was headed by Yanukovych, who was popularly elected despite the fact that his government was incredibly corrupt. After the elections, Ukrainians opposed to his re-election took to the streets of Kiev and began an occupation of its Maidan Square. The protesters were composed of Ukrainians from many walks of life and of various political persuasions. Although the protests were originally portrayed by the Western media as being organized around a supposed desire of some Ukrainians to join the European Union, it became clear that there were numerous other issues involved. Some were historical in nature; for example, many Ukrainians desiring closer ties to the West are Roman Catholic, while many of those supportive of Russian ties are Orthodox. This conflict is as old as those two Churches. Yet, like every supposedly religious quarrel, there are economic and political reasons present as well.

The last Crimean War occurred in the mid-1850s. It was nominally over which element of the ancient Schism would protect the holy sites in Palestine. Of course, it was really about much more. Like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in their series of reports and letters for the New York Daily Tribune during the Crimean War: “We are astonished that in the current discussion of the Oriental question the English journals have not more boldly demonstrated the vital interests which should render Great Britain the earnest and unyielding opponent of the Russian projects of annexation and aggrandisement. England cannot afford to allow Russia to become the possessor of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus. Both commercially and politically such an event would be a deep if not a deadly blow at British power.” Today, if we expand the interests of Britain to include the EU and the US, then it is easy to see why both Brussels and Washington would be threatened by Russian incursions into the Ukraine. Conversely, it is also easy to see why the EU and the US prefer a Ukrainian government antipathic to Moscow.

Marx and Engels rightly wrote that the first Crimean War was essentially about Turkey and which world capital would dominate trade with that nation. Today, it is just as correct to write that the developing situation in the Ukraine is really about which capital will dominate not only trade with Kiev, but also who will service its debt. For Russia, the trade element is very important, given how much of the petroleum and natural gas sold by Russia is transported across the Ukraine. Those products are sold to several European nations, some who get much of their natural gas from Russian fields. As for Washington, the rise of their man Yatsenyuk to the top of the pile in Kiev (he is the current president installed February 27, 2104) makes it clear that servicing the debt that Kiev will certainly incur if the current regime remains is an inviting prospect to the US-based financial industry. Indeed, the former banker Yatsenyuk was almost certainly installed because of his friendship with a few billionaires, support from Washington and an understanding that he would profit from selling off his country to that industry. No less than the Wall Street magazine Forbes reported on March 1, 2014 “Ukraine’s interim prime minister, Arseniy “Yats” Yatsenyuk, may prove to be arsenic to the beleaguered nation.” The report continued, “Also today, Yatsenyuk promised to implement “very unpopular measures” to stabilize the country’s finances. The government said it needs $35 billion to support the country over the next two years. His language in a news report broadcast by Bloomberg today indicates he is heading toward a potentially destabilizing austerity campaign.”

The circumstances unfolding in the Ukraine are part of potentially volatile chess game between various powers. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Washington has been the dominant player on that game’s board. Russia has been at best a bit player, in large part because it unreservedly embraced the neoliberal shock doctrine. That embrace brought drastic and punishing changes to Russia’s people, its national economy, and its international reach. This is slowly changing. After years of watching Washington and its NATO alliance entice and cajole traditionally Russian allies to join the western capitalist sphere, Moscow has recently begun fighting back. Most notable in this regard are its military incursion into Georgia several years back, and its determined support of the Assad regime in Syria despite pressure from most governments to end that support. Furthermore, it has also strongly opposed Washington’s plan to place missile defense systems in countries along its western border. To put it simply, Russia is tired of the imperial dominance of Washington and is moving back into the fray. The manipulation of the Ukrainian elections and the subsequent overt and covert moves by the US and the EU may well be the final straw. This is especially true now that the Moscow-friendly Yanukovych government in Kiev has been replaced with a regime that seems tailor made to Washington’s tastes.

In the middle are the people of the Ukraine. Their manipulation by outside forces since the fall of the Soviet Union is a confusing, occasionally tragic replay of their long history as a people. Their voice is becoming dimmer as outside powers raise the stakes. The presence of neo-nazi elements in prominent positions in the opposition has diminished support for the protest movement. According to individuals and small groups inside Ukraine that have posted on the internet or emailed me, the dominant theme of the Maidan protests seemed to be a mildly pro-western Ukrainian nationalism, somewhat liberal as far as social issues are concerned and neoliberal economically.

The future remains an open question. What I write today is based on what has happened. Tomorrow will add another element or more to the unfolding equation.

[FourthBase]

We are astonished that in the current discussion of the Oriental question the English journals have not more boldly demonstrated the vital interests which should render Great Britain the earnest and unyielding opponent of the Russian projects of annexation and aggrandisement.

See, even Karl Marx himself could condemn Russia.
Amazing how little has changed in 160 years.

In the middle are the people of the Ukraine. Their manipulation by outside forces since the fall of the Soviet Union is a confusing, occasionally tragic replay of their long history as a people. Their voice is becoming dimmer as outside powers raise the stakes. The presence of neo-nazi elements in prominent positions in the opposition has diminished support for the protest movement. According to individuals and small groups inside Ukraine that have posted on the internet or emailed me, the dominant theme of the Maidan protests seemed to be a mildly pro-western Ukrainian nationalism, somewhat liberal as far as social issues are concerned and neoliberal economically.

Not really accurate to say that the people of Ukraine are in the middle on RI, where they've simply disappeared. Well, the Crimean people exist. And the neo-fascists in Maidan existed. But you'd be hard-pressed to find much evidence in RI's crowdsourced Ukraine coverage of any such reasonable protesting majority. Why? Why don't those people matter? Because they're not fighting capitalism? Or, rather, they're not anti-capitalists? Don't feel like rooting for The People or Autonomy much if they're not leftist revolutionaries like you?

[RocketMan]

Not really accurate to say that the people of Ukraine are in the middle on RI, where they've simply disappeared. Well, the Crimean people exist. And the neo-fascists in Maidan existed. But you'd be hard-pressed to find much evidence in RI's crowdsourced Ukraine coverage of any such reasonable protesting majority. Why? Why don't those people matter?

You are constantly bringing this issue forward yourself, in a multitude of posts! Why not concentrate on that instead of whining about how this discussion does not comport with your sensibilities. No one is stopping you or censoring you.

Also, the connection between Karl Marx and Russia really happened after his death (communism happening in Russia first was improbable according to Marx's theory, due to its overwhelmingly agrarian society if I recall correctly), so Karl Marx was probably a more objective observer of Russian politics than you.

[FourthBase]

Not really accurate to say that the people of Ukraine are in the middle on RI, where they've simply disappeared. Well, the Crimean people exist. And the neo-fascists in Maidan existed. But you'd be hard-pressed to find much evidence in RI's crowdsourced Ukraine coverage of any such reasonable protesting majority. Why? Why don't those people matter?

You are constantly bringing this issue forward! Why not concentrate on that instead of whining about how this discussion does not comport with your sensibilities. No one is stopping you or censoring you.

"You are constantly identifying our staggering hypocrisy! Why not just occupy your own niche instead of confronting others about their total failure to be ethically consistent? No one is stopping you or censoring you, except for me passive-aggressively right now by operating on the premise that you're off-topically pimping an idiosyncratic pet peeve instead of issuing a fundamental challenge to our selective morality."

Also, the connection between Karl Marx and Russia really happened after his death, so Karl Marx was probably a more objective observer of Russian politics than you.

Gee if only I'd been aware of that and accompanied it with a smiley.

[RocketMan]

Nah, you're really just annoyed at the amount of leftie on this board.

This is a really special day, though. I have never been issued a fundamental challenge to my selective morality before!

[FourthBase]

Nah, you're really just annoyed at the amount of leftie on this board.

This is a really special day, though. I have never been issued a fundamental challenge on my selective morality before!

LISTEN TO YOURSELVES. READ YOURSELVES LIKE STRANGERS.
PUT EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING THROUGH A "REVERSO" MACHINE.
YOU WOULD BE CALLING YOURSELVES, RIGHTFULLY: TOOLS.

[FourthBase]

And, correction: It's the amount of ideologue on this board.
I'm morally allergic to all ideologies.
How about you? You hosting any?

[FourthBase]

I imagine I'm being seen as adversarial, contrarian. On the contrary! I'm just guarding principles we're all supposedly on board with from the prejudices that come with treating deep geopolitics like a fucking spectator sport where you'll root for whoever is against the Yankees. See the dude to the right? I'm like him right now, except if he had to block his own teammates from stupidly scoring own-goals.