Donors Conference on Ukraine – Stretching Out Hand for Miserable Pittance

logo

 

Strategic

Culture

Foundation

Donors Conference on Ukraine – Stretching Out Hand for Miserable Pittance

The Europe-Ukraine summit was a frustration for the Kiev’s regime. The donors’ conference that followed on April 28 ended up in total failure. Suffice it to say that the very word “donors” lost any meaning…Those who gathered at the meeting called it a conference on Ukraine’s reforms, the changes to be supported in words with no financial obligations to follow… No serious creditors appeared. The Ukrainian government had assured that China, India and Saudi Arabia were willing to invest. But they ignored the event. True, Beijing really had said before that it set eyes on big investment opportunities in Ukraine but now it reacts to the recently adopted law on “decommunisation”…
Dmitry MININ 07.05.2015

Act of Surrender Signed in Reims. “Not to Be Cancelled or Recognized”

More and more countries refuse to mark the Victory Day on May 9 as they used to do. Poland was the last to cancel the Day of Victory and Freedom on May 9 in favor of the national Victory Day to be celebrated on May 8. It is done to diminish the role of the Soviet Union in achieving the victory and forming the world system after the war… Even the countries and politicians friendly to Russia seek explanations to justify their decision to cancel the historic date for the sake of Euro-Atlantic solidarity. For this purpose they use the event that took place in Reims before the Act of unconditional capitulation of Germans was signed in Karlhorst on May 9.
Yuriy RUBTSOV 07.05.2015

Breslau and Dresden to Be Liberated After Berlin

Germany was losing one line of defense after another; the government led by Karl Dönitz replaced the government of Hitler who committed suicide. Berlin fell. But the forces concentrated in Breslau continued to resist. There were different reasons. The Goebbels propaganda promised a “miracle weapon” to change the tide of war. There were hopes the anti-Germany alliance would split apart leading to the start of separate talks between Germany and Anglo-Americans – Yuriy RUBTSOV 06.05.2015

The Economic Price of the Soviet Victory in the Great Patriotic War

The West continues to disavow the USSR’s momentous contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany and her satellites. But there is documentary proof that can refute any speculation on this subject. Suffice it to point to the economic price of the victory won by the people of the Soviet Union…The USSR bore the burden of 53% of all the military expenditures and direct economic damages to the four victorious countries (USSR, USA, Great Britain, and France). Stalin was exactly right when he suggested at the Yalta Conference that half of all the German reparations should be paid to the Soviet Union…
Valentin KATASONOV 06.05.2015

Berlin Fell!
The seizure of Reichstag started by the early morning of the 30th, 1945. The 150th and 171st rifle divisions of the 3d Army led by Army General V. Kuznetsov were advancing to the building of German parliament – Reichstag. A fierce battle raged on during the whole day. A group led by Lieutenant A. Berest was ordered to clean the building and install the banner of Army’s military council at the top. The sergeants from this unit Meliton Kantaria and Mikhail Yegorov raised the Soviet flag over the Reichstag late at night on May 1…The Berlin garrison capitulated on May 2. But he war continued…
Yuriy RUBTSOV 02.05.2015

 

Modern Nazism as the Driving Force of Euro-Atlantic Integration

The growth of Nazism that has taken place in Europe over the last few years, the increased activities of fascist groups, the cultivation of fascist ideology at the level of individual state leaders, and the repeated attempts to revise the outcome of the Second World War all have deep-rooted causes. At the heart of this phenomenon is the desire of the Western architects of a ‘new world order’ to use modern Nazism as an instrument of European integration, which has already more or less merged with Euro-Atlantic integration…

Pyotr ISKENDEROV 01.05.2015

Kiev Starts to Get Frustrated With Europe

 The April 27 Ukraine-EU summit in Kiev frustrated the hosts. The joint declaration was turgid enough praising bold plans for reforms and condemning Russia’s «aggressive actions» on Ukrainian soil. It is clear that Brussels has no real intention to shoulder any serious responsibility. So Ukraine got nothing but promises, no matter the whole political philosophy and strategy of Kiev regime is centered on «European prospects»…
Dmitry MININ 30.04.2015

America Refuses to Face up to Its «Death Squads» in Blue

Media pundits and politicians are calling the violence that broke out in Baltimore after the spinal cord severance death, while in police custody, of African-American Freddie Gray a «wake up call». However, these self-appointed «experts» on the social collapse of poor, mostly African-American working class neighborhoods across the United States, are avoiding talking about the real reason cities and towns across America are erupting in protest and resorting to rioting every time a young African-American is murdered by the police…
Wayne MADSEN 30.04.2015

More to be added.  Our thanks to the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The Emperor Signals Putin Not to Move Against New NATO Members

 

ussian President Vladimir Putin (R) and his American opposite number Barack Obama

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and his American opposite number Barack Obama

Monday Oct 27, 2014

Russia’s moves in Ukraine defensive, not offensive

Current US and NATO propaganda is based on the idea that Russia under President V. V. Putin has been waging an aggressive campaign against Ukraine, but the reality is that Russia’s actions have largely been of a strategically defensive character, although also containing some aggressive tactics.

The main cause of the current conflict is the insistence by Washington and London on organizing a coup d’état in Russia’s largest and most strategically sensitive area.

Putin’s actions have been mainly focused on preventing the rise of a hostile fascist state allied to NATO on his own borders. Russia is merely trying to secure for itself an environment of reasonably benign neighbors, a program not unlike the traditional US Monroe Doctrine.

Unsure of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions, the Emperor’s administration is attempting to warn the Kremlin not to test the U.S. commitment to defend its allies in eastern and central Europe.

Following the Emperor’s orders, jet fighters from the U.K., Denmark, France and Poland began flying air patrols over the Baltic states in April “as part of collective defense measures,” NATO reported. Canadian jets are deploying to Romania “as part of NATO efforts to reassure allies” in Central and Eastern Europe, the alliance said…

These games and others, including deployments of U.S. troops for military exercises, try to discourage any thoughts Putin may have about extending Russia’s reach beyond Ukraine.

There are reasons why Putin may doubt the Emperor’s resolve. The Emperor backed away from a red line when he threatened military action if Syria used chemical weapons, then didn’t follow through. Diplomats say that’s hurt U.S. credibility internationally. Further, the crisis in Europe comes as polls show Americans want the U.S to play a reduced role overseas.

Historically, Americans have supported the defense commitment to NATO, the key alliance assembled after World War II to establish the U.S.’s hegemony in Western Europe, mainly, as well as in Eastern Europe.  Under Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the U.S. and all other members would consider an armed attack on any one of them an attack on all.  But the U.S. doesn’t respect treaties — they go for what they want and that’s it.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has extended its membership to nations once dominated by the Soviet Union, including the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Slovenia. Georgia, a former Soviet republic that fought a five-day war with Russia in 2008 over breakaway regions, is seeking fast-track NATO membership as a result of the Ukraine crisis. Bon voyage!

Putin may have his eye on testing the U.S. and the major European powers, if he decides to help the pro-independence fighters to stop the fascist Kiev regime’s forces from occupying Novorossiya, a  confederation of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, claiming the territory of the respective Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.

“I think this is also about shattering NATO and potentially shattering the EU, because if he were to do something in the Baltics and we did not respond, that’s the end of Article 5, that’s the end of NATO,”  said Stephen Hadley, who was national security adviser to President George W. Bush,. addressing the Atlantic Council, a Washington based group that promotes trans-Atlantic relations, shortly before Biden spoke.

“In response to Russian aggression, America is taking steps to make clear that our allies will honor the solemn commitments under Article 5 of the NATO treaty,” Biden said. “That is an absolute, ironclad guarantee.”

What makes the Emperor think that Russia is interested in attacking any new NATO member? Sounds like the Emperor’s administration are growing mentally imbalance properly because of their many failed diplomatic efforts lately. Being self-declared champions of democracy, americans are growing increasingly undemocratic, fond of rumor mongering and fact twisting…

‘‘We in Europe are very much in agreement that a military resolution of the problems cannot happen,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. “It’s not on the agenda. War is no solution, and so we have to find other ways.”

How do you propose to intimidate the bear when he knows you’re a rabbit? When you play the brinksmanship game you blink you lose.

The Emperor not only blinks but he hides his head in the sand. Once a dog has tucked his tail between his legs no other dog will respect him until he fights a fight to the death. It’s the “you will kill me but I will kill you too” that keeps the dogs at bay.

Do you really think the Emperor will start a nuclear war over the Baltic states? Do you think Putin thinks so?

TWILIGHT OF THE COLOR REVOLUTIONS
The initiative in starting the current crisis did not come from Putin, but rather from a complex of US and NATO institutions dedicated to meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, and to destabilizing other states in ways that the bungling Utopians of the State Department imagine will be helpful to them.

The forces behind the mob-rule destabilization of Ukraine in the fall of 2013 and the Kiev putsch of February 22, 2014 are centered in the National Endowment for Democracy, and in the politicized subdivisions of the US Agency for International Development, not to mention such private sector conduits as Freedom House, the Albert Einstein Foundation, and many more.

These are the agencies which, according to US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (the wife of neocon warmonger and top Romney advisor Robert Kagan), have invested some $5 billion in building up an anti-Russian opposition in Ukraine – an opposition in which neofascist and neo-Nazi political forces are heavily represented.

After appearing in orange, purple, and other hues, the attack on the modern national state known as the color revolution has now in Kiev stripped-down to its definitive paint job of brown — the color of Hitler’s storm troopers.

As Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently commented, “The United States and the European Union, let’s call things as they are, attempted to create yet another ‘color revolution’ in Ukraine by holding an operation on an unconstitutional regime change.” (RIA Novosti, April 24, 2014)

This US-NATO color revolution apparatus took the initiative in overthrowing Yanukovich, detonating a civil war in Ukraine. These facts mean that the United States and NATO must be seen as the aggressors in the current situation, and must bear historical responsibility for whatever tragic consequences may derive in the future.

FEBRUARY’S KIEV COUP NEEDLESSLY DEFIED THREE VITAL RUSSIAN INTERESTS
Western elites are now whining about the countermeasures taken by Putin to guide the inevitable partition, including the avoidance of protracted civil war.

Even a quick overview of Russian history should have warned the self-obsessed masters of human destiny in Foggy Bottom and the Foreign Office that the Russian riposte would be quick and energetic. We are talking here about the kinds of fundamental principles that used to be contained even in decent high school textbooks.

Since the time of Peter the Great, Russia has been interested in acquiring ice free, warm water ports, so as to procure unimpeded access to the world ocean. The naval base at Sevastopol and the commercial port of Odessa represent just such warm water ports, and made Russia a naval power in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

A second recurring Russian concern has been to prevent a land invasion from central Europe of the type undertaken by Poland during the Time of Troubles in the early 1600s, by Charles XII of Sweden in the early 1700s, by Napoleon of France in 1812, and by Hitler in 1941.

This issue reinforces the desire for non-hostile neighbors already mentioned. A third consideration is that the post-1945 ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to some extent of the later Russian Federation has been based on the heroism and sacrifices of the Great Patriotic War against Nazism.

Of the objective validity of this Russian pride there can be no doubt: during World War II, the United States government saluted the defense of the Soviet Union against Hitler as the greatest military achievement in human history, as seen in Frank Capra’s Why We Fight films. The amalgam of Russian patriotism with anti-fascism has in fact has provided much of the energy of the Russian response against the Kiev coup, in which neofascists and neo-Nazis of groups like Svoboda, the Right Sector, and others have been prominent.

MANY FAULT LINES OF THE ARTIFICIAL UKRAINIAN STATE UNDER IMF RULE
Given these well-known Russian concerns, it is likely that Moscow’s desired outcome for the current commotion will be the entry into the Russian sphere, not just of the Crimea, but of the area referred to by Putin as Novorossiya, including the provinces of Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Dniperpetrovsk, Zaporizhiya, Kherson, Mikolaiv, Odessa, and quite possibly Chernihiv, Sumy, Poltava, Kirovograd, plus the City of Kiev with its hinterland.

According to Agence France Presse, the provinces listed have a Russian-speaking majority, and many of them voted for Yanukovich in 2010. In some others, the estrangement from the Kiev fascist regime will come in the months ahead as a backlash against the genocidal austerity imposed by the International Monetary Fund, and enforced by Turchinov, Yatsenyuk and company.

Also, if Russia controls the Black Sea ports and the lower Dnieper River, the basic logistics of commodity flows and exports will tend to make the upper Dnieper provinces gravitate towards Moscow. This motion in the direction of Moscow may come through direct annexation, repatriation or in-gathering, quite possibly over a period of years. It may take the form of a separate buffer state functioning as a Russian protectorate.

According to one analysis, “the government in Kiev is managing to alienate citizens here … with a little help from the West. at a most dangerous and delicate time, just as it battles Moscow for hearts and minds across the east, the pro-Western government is set to initiate a shock therapy of economic measures to meet the demands of an emergency bailout from the International Monetary Fund.” (Washington Post, April 16, 2014)

This will include doubling the price of natural gas by removing government price subsidies, increasing regressive taxation, shredding the social safety net for the sick, the old, the very young, expectant mothers, and others, the looting of the black earth farm belt by foreign speculators, and the wholesale transfer of coal and steel manufacturing to foreign control.

The resulting landlocked revanchist rump Ukraine with its natural ideological capital in Lvov (Lviv, Lemberg, Leopoli) will have so many irredentist border disputes that no European government could be prevailed on to allow it to join NATO or the European Union, since this would probably represent a one-way ticket to war with Russia or some other country.

This revanchist rump Ukraine would inevitably become the object of Polish designs, and might soon be further partitioned by its western neighbors– perhaps ending the experiment in artificial modern Ukrainian statehood inaugurated in early 1918 by Field Marshal von Hindenburg and General Ludendorff of the German general staff.

We should remember that most of today’s western Ukraine, including Lvov and Tarnopol, spent the time between 1920 and 1941 as provinces of Poland, after more than a century of Austrian and Hungarian rule. There is also the province of Trans-Carpathian Ukraine (also known as Carpathian Ruthenia), which might be of interest to Hungary, Slovakia, or Romania because of historical claims or ethnic representation.

Here a separatist movement is already present: on October 25, 2008, during the Georgia crisis, 100 delegates attending the Congress of Carpathian Ruthenians declared the formation of the Republic of Carpathian Ruthenia, eliciting a hostile outburst from the fascist Svoboda Party in Kiev. Whatever happens in regard to such places, it is safe to say that no Americans in their right mind will want to interfere.

Ukraine could have survived on two conditions: that the country had been permanently neutralized, and that it had been constituted as a confederation.

In the decades just after World War II, Finland – which had been an active ally of Nazi Germany against the USSR – fared reasonably well as a neutral or “Finlandized” nation, pledged not to join NATO or the European Economic Community and not to tolerate anti-Soviet agitation.

As for the idea of confederation, the obvious example of a multi-ethnic, multilingual country that has prospered under a very limited central government with broad local autonomy is of course the country officially named Confœderatio Helvetica, otherwise known as Switzerland.

Ukraine could have done exceedingly well under this combination, but the inept nomenklatura oligarchy running the country since the days of Kravchuk and Kuchma have possessed pitifully limited experience of government, and have gained none of the wisdom and statesmanship that might have allowed a confederal compromise between East and West in the way that Vienna and Budapest were able to form a dualistic state a during the late 19th century.

From the US point of view, what is happening in Ukraine is more or less what occurred in West Virginia during the Civil War after the secession crisis of 1860-1861. The slaveholders of tidewater Virginia left the Union in the spring of 1861, but the mountain counties of the state decided to assert their allegiance to the government in Washington, seceding in their turn from Virginia and forming a new state, which was duly admitted to the Union in 1863.

Unfortunately, the radically anti-historical ruling elite of the United States is today manifesting many symptoms of collective psychosis, in the form of delusions of grandeur, schizophrenia, and Russophobia. Neocons are apoplectic because the resurgence of Russia threatens their future hopes of naked or thinly veiled military aggression on the Iraq model. Liberals are hysterical because Putin threatens to deprive them of their two favorite methods of reordering world affairs, the color revolution and humanitarian bombing conducted under the “responsibility to protect” perversion of international law.

JESSICA MATHEWS OF CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT AND HARVARD WANTS US BOOTS ON GROUND
A case in point is the representative establishment figure Jessica Tuchman Mathews of the Morgenthau-Wertheim Our Crowd networks, who is today the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a member of the Harvard Corporation.

In a May 3, 2014 interview with Charlie Rose on PBS, Mathews stated that President Obama, preferably in late February of this year, should have responded to the announcement of Russian military drills near the Ukrainian border by accepting an invitation from Kiev to conduct “multilateral military exercises” on Ukrainian territory with the US sending one brigade, while urging at least 4 to 5 NATO allies to take part in battalion strength.

She also suggested that it would have been wise for the Emperor to call Putin and inform him of these drills, telling the Russian president that the NATO drills would be over as soon as the Russian exercises had been ended. What Matthews was unable to mention was of course any vital US strategic interest in Ukraine that would justify such a reckless action, apart from some vague notion of the rules of the current international system, which the Kiev coup had in any case rendered inoperative.

This is of course a piece of strategic lunacy that would make even the most deranged Dr. Strangelove shudder. It may help us to gauge the degeneracy of the current US ruling elite if we recall that Ms. Mathews’ mother was the late Barbara Tuchman, the author of the 1962 study The Guns of August.

This book, whatever its other limitations, performed a positive historical function because it had been read by President Kennedy shortly before the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, and provided Kennedy with the concept of war by miscalculation, which he used as the basis for rejecting some of the more irresponsible proposals coming from his advisers during that strategic emergency.

Back when she was working for the New York Council on Foreign Relations, Mathews was the author of a triumphalist manifesto of Empire she called “Power Shift,” which appeared in Foreign Affairs, January-February 1997. This article was later chosen by the CFR as up there with George Kennan’s 1947 “Mr. X” containment screed among the most influential to have appeared during the first 75 years of their publication.

In her piece, Matthews voiced the fashionable misconceptions of an era in which the Fukuyama End of History and the Daniel Bell End of Ideology were all the rage in Georgetown. The unspoken premise was, of course, that an era of permanent and uncontested US world domination had begun.

Matthews argued that the international system of sovereign states which emerged after the peace of Westphalia in 1648 had now evaporated. The nation-state was increasingly impotent and obsolete, power was shifting to supernational organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the worldwide domination of speculative hot money was at hand. Instead of the modern territorial state, she wanted a return to the jurisdictional confusion of the Middle Ages, another disguise of Empire.

With this article as her most famous contribution to the imperialist policy debate, we can see why Jessica Matthews is so reluctant to face the world in which all of her trendy clichés have been brutally refuted by reality itself. This same mechanism is currently operative in the individual psychology of hundreds of professors, pundits, and bureaucrats who have built their careers on the now-extinct permanent unipolar hypothesis.

The result is the hysteria we hear in every public statement from Kerry, Samantha Power, Nuland, Ambassador Pyatt, and so many others. Anytime we hear these figures attempt to reassure public opinion that “nobody is proposing boots on the ground” or words to that effect, we should recall that this is simply a lie, given the remarks of an authoritative figure like Ms. Mathews , who has not so far been fired from any of her prestigious posts.

BENEFITS OF A RETURN TO A BALANCE OF POWER
The American people turn out to be major beneficiaries of Putin’s reassertion of Russian interests. The post 1991 period of unilateral world domination has brought out the absolute worst in the US ruling class, with endless meddling, threats, saber rattling, and catastrophic armed aggression against many countries around the world.

At the present time, the most efficient means of deterring and containing the impulses of neocon and “humanitarian” warmongers alike is that they be confronted by a powerful counterweight in the form of a resurgent Russia, a country capable of reasserting a reality principle against the lobbies demanding aggression.

This re-establishment of an approximate balance of power in world affairs has great positive potential. Americans should also remember that real wages and working conditions in the US were significantly higher when the Soviet Union was intact, and that the era of unipolar domination has been accompanied by reactionary politics, the decimation of the manufacturing sector, union busting, a declining standard of living, and increasing cultural barbarism.

American voters and political activists could do themselves an immense favor by demanding the immediate dismantling and de-funding of this color revolution apparatus. It was one thing to carry out color revolutions in Serbia and Georgia, and to attempt one in Lebanon, but the low hanging fruit has long since been exhausted.

The defeat of the fake 2005 Cedars Revolution in Lebanon, largely through the organizational resistance of Hezbollah, and especially the failure of the attempted June 2009 color revolution in Iran, both show that this imperialist weapon has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Trying to pull off a repeat performance of the 2004 orange revolution in Kiev at this late date was obviously an amateurish blunder, while recruiting gangs of Ernst Röhm-style fascist thugs like the late Muzichko of Right Sector to play the role of golden youth yearning for Western democracy made things even worse.

Putin evidently regards former Ambassador McFaul’s failed attempts to conjure up a color revolution as an act of war, so it would be wise to cease and desist from attempting this in Moscow.

Accordingly, the National Endowment for Democracy should be broken up and dissolved, and the sectors of USAID supposedly devoted to civil society and democratization should share the same fate. Freedom House and similar private institutions should be deprived of any federal funding.

US WORLD DOMINATION FADING AFTER 23 YEARS, 1991 TO 2014

Putin’s actions remind us that no world domination has ever lasted indefinitely. The problem of a unipolar world is its inherent instability, with the costs of military action generally appearing far smaller to the policy maker than they are in reality. From about 1525 to 1660 or so, Spain dominated Europe and the world, but still faced resistance from Richelieu’s France, from the revolt of the Netherlands, and from England’s destruction of the Spanish Armada.

After 1660, Louis XIV attempted to establish French world domination, but his efforts were defeated by the English-Dutch combination assembled by William of Orange — a defeat which became evident with the Peace of Utrecht in 1713.

England then exercised a growing global hegemony for more than two centuries, despite such defeats as the American Revolution. After Trafalgar and Waterloo, the British used the 1848 revolutions as a kind of European Spring, overthrowing every government on the continent except Russia.

Between 1848 and 1871, the British came very close to uncontested world domination, but were defeated by Tsar Alexander II of Russia, US President Abraham Lincoln, and German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Even then, the British remained first among equals until about 1940.

That 1848 to 1871 phase still stands as the closest any power has come to unquestioned domination of the world. If that British dominion lasted about 23 years, it is ironic to see that US global hegemony is fading fast in 2014, just 23 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The task of statesmanship is now to manage a return to a more traditional balance of power arrangement, while avoiding tragic military consequences for all concerned.

 

 

 

 

EIR – Executive Intelligence Review – Press Release

 

EIR – FACT SHEET

 

Western Powers Back
Neo-Nazi Coup in Ukraine

by an EIR Research Team

[PDF version of this fact sheet]

Feb. 2, 2014—Western nations, led by the European Union and the Obama Administration, are backing an outright neo-Nazi regime-change coup in Ukraine. If the effort succeeds, the consequences will extend far beyond the borders of Ukraine and neighboring states. For Russia, such a coup would constitute a casus belli, coming as it does in the context of NATO missile defense expansion into Central Europe and the evolution of a U.S.-NATO doctrine of “Prompt Global Strike,” which presumes that the United States can launch a pre-emptive first strike against Russia and China and survive the retaliation.

The events in Ukraine constitute a potential trigger for a global war that could rapidly and easily escalate to a thermonuclear war of extinction. At this weekend’s Munich Security Conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had a heated public exchange with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in which the latter accused Russia of “bellicose rhetoric” and Lavrov responded by citing the European missile defense program as an attempt to secure a nuclear first-strike capability against Russia.

In his formal remarks at Munich and a week earlier at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, Lavrov also assailed Western governments for supporting neo-Nazi terrorist organizations in their zeal to place Ukraine under European Union and Troika control to tighten the NATO noose around Russia.

If anything, Lavrov understated the case.

Nazi Hooligans Take the Lead

Ever since President Viktor Yanukovych announced that Ukraine was withdrawing its plans to sign the European Union’s Association Agreement on Nov. 21, 2013, Western-backed organizations made up of remnants of the wartime and immediate postwar Nazi collaborationist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and their successors have launched a campaign of provocations aimed at not only at bringing down the government of Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, but at overthrowing the democratically elected President Yanukovych.

The EU Eastern Partnership was initiated in December 2008 by Carl Bildt and Radek Sikorski, the foreign ministers of Sweden and Poland, in the wake of Georgia’s military showdown with Russia in South Ossetia. The Eastern Partnership targeted six countries that were formerly republics within the Soviet Union: three in the Caucasus region (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) and three in East Central Europe (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine). They were not to be invited to full EU membership, but drawn into an EU vise through so-called Association Agreements, each one centered on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA). The prime target of the effort was Ukraine. Under the Association Agreement negotiated with Ukraine, but not signed, the industrial economy of Ukraine would have been dismantled, trade with Russia would have been savaged (with Russia ending its free-trade regime with Ukraine, to prevent its own markets from being flooded via Ukraine), and the European markets’ players would have grabbed for Ukraine’s agricultural and raw materials exports. The same deadly austerity regime as has been imposed on the Mediterranean states of Europe under the Troika bailout swindle would have been imposed on Ukraine.

Furthermore, the Association Agreement mandated “convergence” on security issues, with integration into European defense systems. Under such an upgraded arrangement, the long-term treaty agreements on the Russian Navy’s use of the crucial Crimean Black Sea ports would have been terminated, ultimately giving NATO forward basing on Russia’s immediate border.

While Western news accounts promoted the demonstrations in Kiev’s Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnesti, or Euromaidan as it is now called), as initially peaceful, the fact is that, from the outset, the protests included hardcore avowed neo-Nazis, right-wing “soccer hooligans” and “Afghansy” combat veterans of the wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia. According to Ukrainian parliamentarian Oleh Tsaryov, 350 Ukrainians returned to the country from Syria in January 2014, after fighting with the Syrian rebels, including al-Qaeda-linked groups such as the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Already, on the weekend of Nov. 30-Dec. 1, 2013, rioters were throwing Molotov cocktails and seized the Kiev Mayor’s Office, declaring it a “revolutionary headquarters.” Protesters from the opposition Svoboda Party, formerly called the Socialist-Nationalists, march under the red and black flag of Stepan Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B), the Nazi collaborators who exterminated Jews and Poles as an adjunct of the Nazi war machine, and in fulfillment of their own radical ideas on ethnic purity, during World War II.

The slogan of the Svoboda Party, “Ukraine for the Ukrainians,” was Bandera’s battle cry during the OUN-B collaboration with Hitler following the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. It was under that slogan that mass executions and ethnic cleansing were carried out by Bandera’s fascist fighters. Ukrainian sources have reported that the Svoboda Party was conducting paramilitary training during the Summer of 2013—months before President Yanukovych made his decision to reject the EU Association Agreement.

The neo-Nazi, racist and anti-semitic character of Svoboda did not deter Western diplomats—including U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland—from publicly meeting with the party’s leader Oleh Tyahnybok, who had been kicked out of the Our Ukraine movement in 2004 for his speeches railing against “Muscovites and Jews”—using offensive, derogatory names for both.

The Bandera fascist revival has been underway in plain sight since the “Orange Revolution” of 2004, when Viktor Yushchenko was installed as President of Ukraine through a foreign-backed street campaign heavily financed by George Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation and more than 2,000 other non-governmental organizations from Europe and America, after he had been officially declared the loser in a tight presidential contest with Viktor Yanukovych. On Jan. 22, 2010, one of Yushchenko’s last acts as President, after losing his reelection bid to Yanukovych by a wide margin, was to name Stepan Bandera a Hero of Ukraine, which is a high state honor. Yushchenko’s second wife, Kateryna Chumachenko, was herself a member of the youth group of the Banderist OUN-B in Chicago, where she was born, according to news accounts. In the 1980s, Chumachenko headed the Washington offices of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (in which OUN-B influence was great at that time, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine) and the National Captive Nations Committee, before moving over to the State Department Bureau for Human Rights. In January 2011, President Yanukovych announced that Bandera’s Hero of Ukraine status had been officially revoked.

The OUN-B: A Bit of History

The Bandera OUN-B legacy is critical to understanding the nature of the armed insurrection now unfolding in Ukraine. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists was founded in 1929, and within four years, Bandera was its head. In 1934, Bandera and other OUN leaders were arrested for the assassination of Bronislaw Pieracki, the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs. Bandera was freed from jail in 1938 and immediately entered into negotiations with the German Occupation Headquarters, receiving funds and arranging Abwehr training for 800 of his paramilitary commandos. By the time of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Bandera’s forces consisted of at least 7,000 fighters, organized into “mobile groups” that coordinated with German forces. Bandera received 2.5 million German marks to conduct subversive operations inside the Soviet Union. After he declared an independent Ukrainian state under his direction in 1941, Bandera was arrested and sent to Berlin. But he maintained his Nazi ties and funding, and his “mobile groups” were supplied and given air cover by the Germans throughout the war.

In 1943, Bandera’s OUN-B carried out a mass extermination campaign of Poles and Jews, killing an estimated 70,000 civilians during the summer of that year alone. Although Bandera was still running the OUN-B operations out of Berlin, the ethnic cleansing program was run by Mykola Lebed, the chief of the Sluzhba Bespeki, OUN-B’s secret police organization. In May 1941, at an OUN plenary in Krakow, the organization issued a document, “Struggle and Action of OUN During the War,” which stated, in part, “Moskali, Poles, Jews are hostile to us and must be exterminated in this struggle.” (“Moskal” is derogatory Ukrainian slang for “Muscovites,” or Russians.)

With the defeat of the Nazis and the end of the war on the European front, Bandera and many leaders of the OUN-B wound up in displaced person camps in Germany and Central Europe. According to Stephen Dorrill in his authoritative history of MI6, MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service, Bandera was recruited to work for MI6 in April 1948. The link to the British was arranged by Gerhard von Mende, a former top Nazi who had headed the Caucasus Division of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories (Ostministerium). Von Mende recruited Muslims from the Caucasus and Central Asia to fight with the Nazis during the invasion of the Soviet Union. At the close of World War II, he worked for the British through a front company, Research Service on Eastern Europe, which was a recruiting agency for principally Muslim insurgents operating inside the Soviet Union. Von Mende was instrumental in establishing a major hub of Muslim Brotherhood operations in Munich and Geneva.

Through von Mende, MI6 trained agents from the OUN-B and dropped them inside the Soviet Union to carry out sabotage and assassination operations between 1949 and 1950. A 1954 MI6 report praised Bandera as “a professional underground worker with a terrorist background and ruthless notions about the rules of the game.”

In March 1956, Bandera went to work for the German equivalent of the CIA, the BND, then headed by Gen. Reinhardt Gehlen, the head of German military intelligence on the Eastern Front during World War II. Again, von Mende was one of his sponsors and protectors. In 1959, Bandera was assassinated by the KGB in West Germany.

Bandera’s top OUN-B killer, Mykola Lebed, the on-site commander of the group’s secret police, fared even better at the close of World War II. Lebed was recruited by the U.S. Army’s Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) in December 1946, and by 1948, was on the CIA payroll. Lebed recruited those OUN-B agents who did not go with Bandera and MI6, and participated in a number of sabotage programs behind the Iron Curtain, including “Operation Cartel” and “Operation Aerodynamics.” Lebed was brought to New York City, where he established a CIA front company, Prolog Research Corporation, under the control of Frank Wisner, who was the head of the CIA s Directorate of Plans during the 1950s. Prolog operated well into the 1990s, getting a big boost when Zbigniew Brzezinski was President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into Lebed’s role in the wartime genocide in Poland and Western Ukraine, but the CIA blocked the probe and it was eventually dropped. Nevertheless, in 2010, after the release of thousands of pages of wartime records, the National Archives published a documentary report, Hitler’s Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U.S. Intelligence, and the Cold War, by Richard Breitman and Norman Goda, which included a detailed account of Bandera’s and Lebed’s wartime Nazi collusion and involvement in mass executions of Jews and Poles.

It is this Bandera-Lebed legacy, and the networks spawned in the postwar period, which are at the center of the current events in Ukraine.

Speaking Out

On Jan. 25, 2014, twenty-nine Ukrainian leaders of political parties, civic and religious organizations, including former presidential candidate and parliamentarian Natalia Vitrenko, sent an open letter to the United Nations Secretary General and leaders of the EU and the United States, decrying the Western support for the neo-Nazi campaign to carry out a bloody coup against a legitimately elected government.

The open letter read, in part: “You should understand that, in supporting the actions of the guerillas in Ukraine … you yourselves are directly protecting, inciting, and egging on Ukrainian neo-Nazis and neo-fascists.

“None of these oppositionists (Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok) hide that they are continuing the ideology and the practices of the OUN-UPA…. Wherever the Euromaidan people go in Ukraine, they disseminate, besides the slogans mentioned above, neo-Nazi, racist symbols…. Also confirming the neo-Nazi nature of the Euromaidan is the constant use of portraits of the bloody executioners of our people, Bandera and Shukhevych—agents of the Abwehr.”

The open letter posed the question to Western leaders: “Have the UN, the EU, and the U.S.A. ceased to recognize the Charter and Verdict of the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremburg, where the Hitlerite Nazis and their henchmen were convicted? Have human rights ceased to be a value for the countries of the EU and the world community? Is the Ukrainian nationalists’ devotion to Hitler and his mass murders of civilians now considered democracy?”

Only in the recent days, with scenes of mass violence by armed protesters finally breaking through the propaganda fog, has the Western media taken up the neo-Nazi character of the ongoing destabilization. Time magazine, on Jan. 28, headlined its coverage from Kiev “Right-Wing Thugs Are Hijacking Ukraine’s Liberal Uprising,” profiling one group of neo-Nazi hooligans called Spilna Sprava (“Common Cause,” but the Ukrainian initials spell “SS”), as being near the center of the protests.

The next day, Jan. 29, the Guardian headlined “In Ukraine, Fascists, Oligarchs and Western Expansion Are at the Heart of the Crisis,” with the kicker: “The story we’re told about the protests gripping Kiev bears only the sketchiest relationship with reality.” Guardian reporter Seumas Milne candidly wrote, “You’d never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings. One of the three main opposition parties heading the campaign is the hard-right anti-Semitic Svoboda, whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok claims that a ‘Moscow-Jewish mafia’ controls Ukraine. The party, now running the city of Lviv, led a 15,000-strong torch-lit march earlier this month in memory of the Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, whose forces fought with the Nazis in the second world war and took part in massacres of Jews.”

Counterpunch also published a Jan. 29 article by Eric Draitser, “Ukraine and the Rebirth of Fascism,” which began with the warning: “The violence on the streets of Ukraine is far more than an expression of popular anger against a government. Instead, it is merely the latest example of the rise of the most insidious form of fascism that Europe has seen since the fall of the Third Reich…. In an attempt to pry Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of influence, the U.S.-EU-NATO alliance has, not for the first time, allied itself with fascists.”

Ukraine: Lies and Realities / Will the Government Listen?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

Two beautiful Slavic sisters, Ukraine and Russia, pitched against each other: long hair flying in the wind, gray-blue eyes staring forward accusatively, but in the same time with anticipation and love.

One single moment, one wrong move, one word, and two countries, two allies, two almost identical cultures, can easily dash at each other’s throats… Different words, different gestures, and they can also fall into each other’s arms, instantly.

Is there going to be a war, a battle or an embrace? Is there going to be an insult or reconciliatory words?

Ironically, there is no ‘self-grown dispute’ between two nations. The seeds of mistrust, and possible tragedy, are sown by the outsiders, and nurtured by their malignant propaganda.

As Sergei Kirichuk, leader of progressive movement ‘Borotba’, explained:

“We have extensive invasion of western imperialism here. Imperialists were acting through huge network of NGOs and through the western-oriented politicians integrated into western establishment. Western diplomats declared that they invested more that 5 billions of dollars to ‘development of democracy in Ukraine’. What kind of investment is it? How was this amount spent? We don’t really know, but we can see the wide net of the US agents operating inside many key organizations and movements.

We can see that those ‘western democracies’ had not been concerned at all about growing of the far-right, Nazi movements. They had been ready to use the Nazis as a real armed force in overthrowing of Yanucovich.

President Yanucovich was actually totally pro-western politician, to start with. And his ‘guilt’ consisted only of his attempt to minimize the devastating aftermath that would come after implementation of the free trade zone with EU, on which the West was insisting.”

Now Maidan, the main square of Kiev where the ‘revolution’ took place, is scarred, burned down, eerie.

Right-wingers, ultra-nationalists, young and not so young men with shaved heads, are watching pedestrians with confused, often provocative eyes.

Many of them are now controlling the traffic and, like in Thailand where the right-wingers also recently ‘protested, are deciding who can pass and who cannot. The law is clearly and patently in their hands, or more precisely, in Maidan area, they are the law.

Religious symbols are suddenly everywhere, while monuments to heroes of the revolution and the WWII are desecrated.

At the makeshift stage used by right-wing extremists, there is a huge crucifixion as well as Virgin Marry.

But many right-wingers are at total disarray, they are outraged, as one of their leaders, Aleksandr Muzychko, was murdered just one day earlier.

Oleh Odnorozhenko is speaking. He is angry, irritated, accusing the state, the same government his people brought to power through the coup just a short time ago, of political murder. He is calling for ‘the second stage of the revolution’, as if one past stage would not be terrible enough, already.

My friend Alexander is explaining to me: “This is going to be a tremendous mess. The West used all fascist and ultra-nationalist forces to destroy legitimate government of Ukraine, but paradoxically, these ultra right-wingers are essentially against both NATO and all those agreements with the European Union.”

Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, scenario, in brief and on smaller scale: use any force, any radicals, as long as you can manage to destroy the Soviet Union and later, Russia.

“They are going to get into each other’s hair very soon”, predicts Alexandr, former military intelligence officer.

***

The car is negotiating a bumpy four-lane highway between Kiev and Odessa. There are three of us on board – my translator, Dimitry from the Liva.com site, a driver, and me. Having left Kiev in the morning, we are literally flying at 160km/h towards Odessa.

The wide fields of Ukraine, formerly known as the ‘breadbasket’ of the Soviet Union, look depressingly unkempt. Some are burnt.

“What are they growing here?” I ask.

Nobody knows, but both of my friends agree that almost everything in Ukraine is now collapsing, after the decomposition of the USSR, and this includes both industry and agriculture. The roads are not an exception, either.

“They only built facades during the last decades”, explains Dimitry. “The core, the essence had been constructed in the Soviet era. And now everything is crumbling.”

***

I have no idea where the official numbers come from; those that say that Ukraine is evenly divided between those who support the West, and those who feel their identity is closely linked with Russia. Maybe this might be the case in Western Ukraine, in Lvov, or even in the capital – Kiev. But Western Ukraine has only a few key cities. The majority of people in this country of around forty-four million are concentrated in the south, east and southeast, around the enormous industrial and mining centers of Donetsk, Dnepropetrovsk, and Krivoi Rog. There is Odessa in the south, and Kharkov ‘the second capital’ in the east. And people in all those parts of the country mainly speak Russian. And they see, what has recently happened in Kiev as an unceremonious coup, orchestrated and supported by the West.

***

Before reaching Odessa we leave the highway and drive northeast, towards Moldova and its small separatist enclave, called Transnistria.

There, the river Kuchurgan separates the Ukrainian town of Kuchurgan and the Transnistrian city of Pervomaisc.

I see no Russian tanks at Pervomaisc, no artillery. There is absolutely no military movement whatsoever, despite the countless Western mass media reports testifying (in abstract terms) to the contrary.

I cross the bridge on foot and ask the Transnistrian border guard, whether he has recently seen any foreign correspondents arriving from the United States or the European Union, attempting to cross the border and verify the facts. He gives me a bewildered look.

I watch beautiful white birds resting on the surface of the river, and then I return to Ukraine.

There, two ladies who run the ‘Camelot Bar’ served us the most delicious Russo/Ukrainian feast of an enormous borscht soup, and pelmeni.

Russian television station blasts away, and the two women cannot stop talking; they are frank, proud, and fearless. I turn on my film camera, but they don’t mind:

“Look what is happening in Kiev”, exclaims Alexandra Tsyganskaya, the owner of the restaurant. “The US and the West were planning this; preparing this, for months, perhaps years! Now people in Ukraine are so scared, most of them are only whispering. They are petrified. There is such tension everywhere, that all it would take is to light a match and everything will explode.”

Her friend, Evgenia Chernova, agrees: “In Odessa, Russian-speaking people get arrested, and they are taken all the way to Kiev. The same is happening in Kharkov, in Donetsk, and elsewhere. They call it freedom of speech! All Russian television channels are banned. What you see here is broadcasted from across the border. They treat people like cattle. But our people are not used to this: they will rebel, they will resist! And if they push them to the edge, it will be terrible!”

Both women definitely agree on one thing: “We say, ‘don’t provoke Russia!’ It is a great nation, our historical ally. It has been helping us for decades.”

‘A civil war’, I hear in Kuchurgan. ‘A civil war!’ I hear in Odessa. ‘A civil war!’ I hear in Kharkov.

And the same words in Odessa are even written on huge banners: “Kiev, people are not cattle!”

Odessa city, that architectural jewel, an enormous southern port, is now relatively quiet, but tense. I speak to the manager of the historic and magnificently restored Hotel Bristol, but she is very careful in choosing her words. I mention Western involvement in the coup, or in the ‘revolution’ as many in Kiev and in the West call it, but she simply nods, neutrally.

I cross the street and enter the Odessa Philharmonic Theatre. A young lady approaches me: “Would you like to have my ticket?” She asks in perfect Russian. “My boyfriend did not show up. Please enjoy.”

The performance is bizarre, and clearly ‘un-philharmonic’. Some renowned folk ensemble performs old Ukrainian traditional songs and dances, but why here and why now? Is it a patriotic gesture, or something else?

The city is subdued, as well as those famous Potemkin Stairs: Renowned for one of the most memorable scenes in world cinema that of, the silent film ‘Battleship Potemkin’ directed in 1925 by Sergei M. Eisenstein.

As Helen Grace once wrote:

The Odessa steps massacre in the film condenses the suppression, which actually occurred in the city, into one dramatised incident, and this remains one of the most powerful images of political violence ever realised.

One only hopes that Odessa never again falls victim to unbridled political cruelty, such as was visited on the people by the feudal, oppressive right-wing Tsarist regime, at the beginning of the 20th century!

***

Babushka looks exhausted and subdued. She is slowly digging into dark earth, all alone, clearly abandoned.

I spotted some collapsed houses in the village that we had passed just a few minutes earlier, and I asked the driver to make a U-turn, but he clearly did not see any urgency and continued to drive on: “You will see many villages like this”, he explained. Dimitry confirmed: “Such villages one are all over Ukraine. There are thousands of them; literally, you see them whenever you leave the main roads.”

This one, this village, is called Efremovka, and the name of a grandmother is Lyubov Mikhailovna.

We are somewhere between the cities of Nikolayev and Krivoi Rog.

All around us are the ruins of agricultural estates, of small factories, and houses that used to belong to farmers. Wires are missing from electric poles, and everything appears to be static, like in a horror science-fiction film. Only Lyubov Mikhailovna is digging, stubbornly.

I ask her how she is managing to survive, and she replies that she is not managing at all.

“How could one survive here on only one thousand Hryvnas per month (around US$80)?” she laments. “We are enduring only on what we grow here: cucumbers, tomatoes, potatoes…”

I ask her about the ruins of houses, all around this area, and she nods for a while, and only then begins speaking: “People abandoned their homes and their villages, because there are no jobs. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the entire Ukraine has been falling apart… People are leaving and they are dying. Young people try to go abroad…. The government is not even supplying us with gas and drinking water, anymore. We have to use the local well, but the water is contaminated by fertilizers – it is not clean…”

“Was it better before?” I ask.

Her face brightens up. She stops speaking for a while, searching her memory, recalling long bygone days. Then she answers: “How can you even ask? During the Soviet Union everything was better, much better! We all had jobs and there were decent salaries, pensions… We had all that we needed.”

Looking around me, I quickly recall that Ukraine is an absolute demographic disaster: even according to official statistics and censuses, the number of people living in this country fell from 48,457,102 in 2001 to 44,573,205 in 2013. Years after its ‘independence’, and especially those between 1999 and 2001, are often described as one of the worst demographic crises in modern world history. In 1991 the population of Ukraine was over 51.6 million!

Only those countries that are devastated by brutal civil wars are experiencing similar population decline.

***

Krivoi Rog or Kryvyi Rih as it is known in the Ukrainian language – is arguably the most important steel manufacturing city in Eastern Europe, and a large globally important, metallurgical center for what is known as the Kryvbas iron- ore mining region.

Here Krivorozhstal, one of the most important steel factories in the world, it had seen outrageous corruption scandals during its first wave of privatization. During the second privatization in 2005, the mammoth factory was taken over by the Indian multi-national giant, Mittal Steel (which paidUS$4.81 billion), and was renamed Arcelor Mittal Kryvyi Rih. Since then, production has declined significantly, and thousands of workers were unceremoniously fired.

According to the Arcelor Mittal Factbooks (2007 and 2008), steel production decreased from 8.1 million tons in 2007, to 6.2 million tones in 2008. In 2011, the workforce decreased from 55,000 to 37,000 tons, and the management is still hoping that even more dramatic job cuts (down to 15,000) can be negotiated.

By late afternoon, we arrived at the main gate of the factory. Hundreds of people were walking by; most of them looking exhausted, discouraged and unwilling to engage in any conversation.

Some shouted anti-coup slogans, but did not want to give their names or go on the record.

Finally, a group of tough looking steelworkers stops, and begins to discuss the situation at the factory with us, passionately:

“Do you realize how little we earn here? People at this plant, depending on their rank, bring home only some US$180, US$260, or at most some US$450 a month. Across the border, in Russia, in the city of Chelyabinsk, the salaries are three to four times higher!”

His friend is totally wound up and he screams: “We are ready! We will go! People are reaching the limit!”

It is hard to get any political sense from the group, but it is clear that opinions are divided: while some want more foreign investment, others are demanding immediate nationalization. They have absolutely no disputes with Russia, but some support the coup in Kiev, while others are against it.

It is clear that, more than ideology; these people want some practical improvement in their own lives and in the life of their city.

“All we have heard, for the past twenty years is that things will improve”, explains the first steel worker. “But look what is happening in reality. Mittal periodically fails to pay what is due. For instance, I am supposed to get 5,700 Hryvnas a month, but I get less than 5,000. And the technology at the plant is old, outdated. The profits that Mittal is making – at least if some of it would stay here, in Ukraine, and go to the building of the roads or improving the water supplies… But they take everything out of the country.”

The next day, in Kharkov, Sergei Kirichuk, concludes:

“People all over the world are fighting against so-called ‘free market’, but in Ukraine, to bring it here, was the main reason for the ‘revolution’. It is really hard to believe.”

***

The border between Ukraine and Russia, near the town of Zhuravlevka, between Ukrainian Kharkov and the Russian city of Belgorod, is quiet. Good weather, wide fields and an almost flat landscape, guarantee good visibility for several kilometers. On the 28 of March, when Western and Ukrainian mass media were shouting about an enormous Russian military force right at the border, I only saw a few frustrated birds and an apparently unmanned watch tower.

The traffic at the border was light, but it was flowing – and several passenger cars were crossing from the Russian side to Ukraine.

What I saw, however, were several Ukrainian tanks along the M-20/E-105 highway, just a stone throw away from the borderline. There were tanks and there were armored vehicles, and quite a substantial movement of Ukrainian soldiers.

The local press was, however, not as aggressive, provocative:

“State of War!” shouted the headlines of Kyiv Post. “We lifted up to the sky 100 jet fighters, in order to scare Moscow”, declared ‘Today’.

***

The reality on the ground differed sharply from the ‘fairytales’, paid for and propagated by Western mass media outlets and by the ‘free Ukrainian press’.

In Kharkov, Soviet banners flew in the wind, next to many Russian flags. Thousands of people gathered in front of the giant statue of Lenin on those windy days of 28th and 29th of March.

There were fiery speeches and ovations. The outraged crowd met the proclamations that the Western powers had instigated the ‘fascist coup’ in Kiev, with loud shouts: “Russia, Russia!”

Old women, Communist leaders, and my friend Sergei Kirichuk, as well as people from international solidarity organizations, made fiery speeches. Apparently, the government in Kiev had already begun to cut the few social benefits that were left, including free medical assistance. Several hospitals were poised to close down, soon.

People were ready to fight; to defend themselves against those hated neo-liberal policies, for which (or against which) none of them had been allowed to vote for.

“In Crimea, people voted, overwhelmingly, to return to Russia”, explained a young man, a student, Alexei. “But the West calls it unconstitutional and undemocratic. In Ukraine itself, the democratically elected government has been overthrown and policies that nobody really wants are being pushed down our throats. And… this is called democracy!”

In an apartment of the Borodba movement, a young leader and history student, Irina Drazman, spoke about the way the West destroyed Ukraine. She reminded me of a Chilean student leader and now an MP – Ms. Camila Vallejo. Irina is only twenty, but coherent and as sharp as a razor.

“There is great nostalgia for the Soviet Union”, she explains. “If only it could be re-shaped and the concept improved, most of the people in Ukraine would be happy to be part of it again.”

And that is exactly what the West tries to prevent: A powerful and united country, one which can defend the interest of its people.

Standing in front of a police cordon in Kharkov, Alexandr Oleinik, a Ukrainian political analyst, explains:

“The essence of what is now happening is based on the doctrine of the United States, which has one major goal: To wipe out from the globe, first the Soviet Union, and then Russia, regardless of its form; whether socialist or capitalist… As is well known, these goals were already defined in the early 1980’s, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his report to the US Department of State, “Game Plan: A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the U.S.-Soviet Contest”.

Besieged square in front of the court of justice may not be the most comfortable place for political discussions, but Mr. Oleinik has plenty to share:

“After destroying USSR, the US is, until now, making enormous effort to, in accordance with the ‘Brzezinski Doctrine’, to drag Russia, Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries, into exhausting regional conflicts, in order to out root from the consciousness of the people of these nations all thoughts about reunification (be it a customs union, common economic sphere, etc.). Series of ‘color revolutions’ from so-called American doctrine of ‘advancement of democracies’ became a clear proof of the essence of the geopolitical interests of the US. Libya, Tunis, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yugoslavia – all this is from the same shelf.”

“Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, even China”, I continue.

Policemen are looking at us suspiciously, as both of us are naming dozens and dozens of countries located in all corners of the world.

***

In Kiev’s Maidan, the main square where the ‘revolution’ or the coup took place, the right-wing groupings are hanging around, aimlessly. Some men and women are frustrated. Many now even feel that they were fooled.

Thousands were paid to participate in what was thought would bring at least some social justice, some relief. But the interim government began taking dictate, almost immediately: from the United States, from European Union and from the institutions such as IMF and World Bank.

Now thousands of disgruntled ‘revolutionaries’ feel frustrated. Instead of saving the country, they sold all ideals, and betrayed their own people. And their own lives went from bad to worse.

The tension is growing and Ukraine is on the edge.

There is growing tension, even confrontation, between conservative, oppressive forces and those progressive ones. There is tension between Russian speakers and those who are insisting on purely Ukrainian language being used all over the country.

There are political assassinations; there is fear and uncertainty about the future.

There is increasing and negative role being played by the religions: from Protestant to Orthodox.

Nobody knows what will follow the coup. Confusion and frustration, as well as social collapse, may well cause a brutal civil war.

Protesters are now, this very moment, occupying government buildings in Donetsk and Lugansk, demanding referendum. Majority of people in these and other cities would rather join Russia then to live in pro-Western dictatorship, which Ukraine became after the coup.

Same tactics that were lauded by Western propaganda during the Maidan uprising are now hypocritically condemned in the east and south of the country.

Russia gained greatly, especially in the non-Western world. It is now recognized as the center of global ‘mutiny’ against global dictatorship of the US and EU. It opened one more front of resistance, and it stands alongside countries of Latin America.

Its generally peaceful and measured approach is in direct contrast to brutal and destabilizing methods used by the US and EU all over the globe. Except in those few fully indoctrinated modern-day colonies (which the West calls ‘democracies’ just because the people there can stick a piece of paper to a carton box, and most are stupidly doing so), the world is waking up to reality that there actually is, suddenly, some strong and determined resistance to Western imperialism.

After decades of total darkness, the hope is emerging.

In the meantime, two beautiful Slavic countries are still facing each other. But the people, particularly those in Ukraine, are now waving Russian flags and shout to the faces of riot police that is obedient to Kiev: “Russia! Russia!”

No matter what the propaganda says, reality is well known. For decades, after destruction of the USSR, Ukraine mainly obeyed the West and Russia went its own, determinedly independent way.

 

The result is: Ukraine is on its knees (although not as horribly yet as some East European countries like Bulgaria, that actually became full members of the EU). Wages for workers and pensions for elderly are now approximately 3-4 times higher in Russia than in Ukraine.

And Russia has its own, independent voice, flying all over the world though the outlets like RT and Voice of Russia, while Ukraine is a clearly a colony.

It is obvious in what direction the majority of Ukrainians is now looking with hope. The government should listen. It should also call referendum, soon. It should use ‘direct democracy’, not some rigged multi-party charade like in Indonesia.

Two countries that share both history and the future, should embrace. And face the wind, and tremors, together! They should never fight each other – Russia and Ukraine are soul mates, not enemies. Those who are dividing them should be exposed, shamed, and expelled!

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky On Western Terrorism is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel Point of No Return is now re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. He has just completed the feature documentary, “Rwanda Gambit” about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.