Flags of Ukraine and Syria


Daniel McAdams

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

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

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

As in Syria, where US Ambassador Robert Ford adopted the rebels from the beginning of the insurrection, US officials have beat a steady path to the Ukrainian rebels to offer their support and assistance. Senator John McCain has even dined with Svoboda Party president Oleh Tyahnybok, shown here in a rather different pose. US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was recorded plotting the overthrow and replacement of the Ukrainian government with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

Pyatt, a man surely devoid of any sense of self-reflection, boldly proclaimed that his recorded plotting to overthrow of the Ukrainian government was merely “helping to build bridges between the government and the opposition.” Of course in a strict sense that is true: he is actively engaged in building a bridge to government power for the Ukrainian opposition.

The Syrian rebels are presented as a moderate group of would-be democrats seeking political reform; Ukrainian rebels are presented as a bunch of pro-Western, pro-EU “peaceful demonstrators.” In both cases the real power on the streets has been radical extremists with whom US officials have had considerable contact.

In Syria, President Assad responded early on to the unrest with offers of compromise, including agreeing to hold a constitutional referendum which put an end to generations of one-party rule. In Ukraine, President Yanukovich granted amnesty to violent protesters, rescinded legislation seen as inhibiting protest, fired his government at the request of the opposition and even offered to name opposition leaders to a new interim government. Each move toward compromise and appeasement of the opposition was met with increased violence and escalating demands on the part of the rebels, most recently in Ukraine after opposition leaders met with US and EU officials at a security conference in Munich.

President Obama sternly warns the Ukrainian government against restoring order: “We expect the Ukrainian government to show restraint, to not resort to violence in dealing with peaceful protesters.” He cryptically hinted at possible US escalation, stating: “We’ll be monitoring very carefully the situation, recognizing that, along with our European partners and the international community, there will be consequences if people step over the line.”

He similarly warned Syrian president Assad against taking action to defend the country against armed rebels fighting for its overthrow.

Another red line drawn? This time on Russia’s doorstep?

Here again is the million dollar question: What would Washington do if rebels intent on overthrowing the Obama regime raided military weapons depots, killed at least ten police officers and wounded dozens of others, set Washington D.C. on fire, occupied key government buildings including the US Capitol complex, and demanded a change in the Constitution favoring their ascendance to power?

Obama warned the Ukraine government to make sure the “Ukrainian military does not step in to resolve issues that could be resolved by civilians.” The US military was called in to quell a far less significant protest in Seattle over the World Trade Organization meeting there in 1999.

The US Capitol area has been on “lockdown” innumerable times over such “threats” as a mentally disturbed woman driving erratically — who was unarmed and shot dead by police.

One need not side with either opposing group in Ukraine to point out the choking hypocrisy of the US position.

But what is truly remarkable are the many similarities between what has been happening in Syria and what is now happening in Ukraine. It almost seems as if the same hand with the same playbook is plotting both regime change operations…




By Paul Craig Roberts

Who’s in charge? Certainly not the bought-and-paid-for-moderates that Washington and the EU hoped to install as the new government of Ukraine. The agreement that the Washington and EU supported opposition concluded with President Yanukovich to end the crisis did not last an hour. Even the former boxing champion, Vitaly Klitschko, who was riding high as an opposition leader until a few hours ago has been booed by the rioters and shoved aside. The newly appointed president by what is perhaps an irrelevant parliament, Oleksandr Turchynov, has no support base among those who overthrew the government. As the BBC reports, “like all of the mainstream opposition politicians, Mr. Turchynov is not entirely trusted or respected by the protesters in Kiev’s Independence Square.”

In western Ukraine the only organized and armed force is the ultra-nationalist Right Sector. From the way this group’s leaders speak, they assume that they are in charge. One of the group’s leaders, Aleksandr Muzychko, has pledged to fight against “Jews and Russians until I die.” Asserting the Right Sector’s authority over the situation, Muzychko declared that now that the democratically elected government has been overthrown, “there will be order and discipline” or “Right Sector squads will shoot the bastards on the spot.”

The bastards are any protesters who dare to protest the Right Sector’s control.

Muzychko declared, “The next president of Ukraine will be from Right Sector.”

Another Right Sector leader, Dmitry Yarosh, declared: “the Right Sector will not lay down its arms.” He declared the deal made between the opposition and the President to be “unacceptable” and demanded the liquidation of President Yanukovich’s political party.

The Right Sector’s roots go back to the Ukrainians who fought for Adolf Hitler against the Soviet Union during World War 2. It was the Right Sector that introduced armed fighters and turned the tide of the protests in Kiev from peaceful protests in favor of joining the EU to violent attacks on police with the view of overthrowing the democratically elected government, which the Right Sector succeeded in doing.

The Right Sector did not overthrow the Ukraine government in order to deliver it into the hands of the Washington and EU paid “opposition.”

There is a tendency to discount the Right Sector as a small fringe group, but the Right Sector not only took control of the protests away from the Western supported moderates, as moderate leaders themselves admitted, but also the Right Sector has enough public support to destroy the national monument to the Red Army soldiers who died liberating Ukraine from Nazi Germany.

Unlike the US orchestrated toppling of the stature of Saddam Hussein, which was a PR event for the presstitutes in which Iraqis themselves were not involved, Ukrainian rightists’ destruction of the monument commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of the Ukraine had public support. If the Right Sector hates Russians for defeating the Nazis, the Right Sector also hates the US, France, and England for the same reason. The Right Sector is an unlikely political party to take Ukraine into the EU.

The Russian parts of Ukraine clearly understand that the Right Sector’s destruction of the monument commemorating the stand of the Red Army against the German troops is a threat against the Russian population of Ukraine. Provincial governments in eastern and southern Ukraine that formerly were part of Russia are organizing militias against the ultra-nationalist threat unleashed by Washington’s stupidity and incompetence and by the naive and gullible Kiev protesters.

Having interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and lost control, Washington is now issuing ultimatums to Russia not to interfere in Ukraine. Does the idiot Susan Rice, Obama’s neoconservative National Security Advisor, think Putin is going to pay any attention to her ultimatums or to any instruction from a government so militarily incompetent that it was unable to successfully occupy Baghdad after 8 years or to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban after 12 years? In only took a few hours for Russian troops to destroy the American and Israeli trained and armed Georgian army that Washington sent to invade South Ossetia.

Where does Obama find morons like Susan Rice and Victoria Nuland? These two belong in a kindergarten for mentally handicapped children, not in the government of a superpower where their ignorance and arrogance can start World War 3.

Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is to the US or EU. If the situation in Ukraine spirals out of control and right-wing extremists seize control, Russian intervention is certain. The arrogant and stupid Obama regime has carelessly and recklessly created a direct strategic threat to the existence of Russia.

According to the Moscow Times, this is what a senior Russian official has to say: “If Ukraine breaks apart, it will trigger a war.” Ukraine “will lose Crimera first,” because Russia “will go in just as we did in Georgia.” Another Russian official said: ” We will not allow Europe and the US to take Ukraine from us. The states of the former Soviet Union, we are one family. They think Russia is still as weak as in the early 1990s but we are not.”

The Ukrainian right-wing is in a stronger position than Washington’s paid Ukrainian puppets, essentially weak and irrelevant persons who sold out their country for Washington’s money. The Right Sector is organized. It is armed. It is indigenous. It is not dependent on money funneled in from Washington and EU financed NGOs. It has an ideology, and it is focused. The Right Sector doesn’t have to pay its protesters to take to the streets like Washington had to do.

Most importantly, well-meaning but stupid protesters–especially the Kiev students–and an Ukrainian parliament playing to the protesters destroyed Ukrainian democracy. The opposition controlled parliament removed an elected president from office without an election, an obvious illegal and undemocratic action. The opposition controlled parliament issued illegal arrest warrants for members of the president’s government. The opposition controlled parliament illegally released criminals from prison. As the opposition has created a regime of illegality in place of law and constitutional procedures, the field is wide open for the Right Sector. Expect everything the opposition did to Yanukovich to be done to them by the Right Sector. By their own illegal and unconstitutional actions, the opposition has set the precedent for their own demise.

Just as the February 1917 revolution against the Russian Tsar set the stage for the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, surprising the stupid “reformers,” the overthrow of the Ukrainian political order has set the stage for the Right Sector. We can only hope that the Right Sector blows its chance.

The American media is a useless news source. It serves as a Ministry for Government Lies. The corrupt propagandists are portraying the undemocratic removal of Yanukovich as a victory for freedom and democracy. When it begins to leak out that everything has gone wrong, the presstitutes will blame it all on Russia and Putin. The Western media is a plague upon humanity.

Americans have no idea that the neoconservative regime of the White House Fool is leading them into a Great Power Confrontation that could end in destruction of life on earth.

Ironic, isn’t it. America’s “first black president,” the person liberals thought would restore justice, morality, and reason to Western civilization, is instead now positioned as the person who will have to accept humiliating defeat or risk the destruction of life on earth.

Paul Craig Roberts











In an interview published Feb. 5 by km.ru, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the former foreign relations head of the Russian Ministry of Defense and current president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies, issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis unfolding in Ukraine:

“Apparently they [officials of the European Union and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry] have dedicated themselves, and continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is is a project of the West, a new type of war: in both places you see a clear anti-Russian approach, and as is well known, wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . Kerry and Obama are encouraging in Kiev what they harshly repress in their country. European leaders break up unauthorized demonstrations with hoses, throwing demonstrators in jail, while in the Ukrainian case they do the exact opposite, and on top of that they threaten Russia. Logically, this is part of information warfare.

“Keep in mind that, under the cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine. They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is being prepared.

“The scenario could be the following: drive Ukraine to the breaking point, blame Yanukovich and Russia for everything, to then say that NATO can’t simply sit by as a mere spectator, and then send its troops into to return order. Then a transitional government would be formed, as happened in Iraq and Kosovo, and NATO would take control of everything. Historical experience shows we have lived through similar situations. But before that they will need to justify the aggression with information warfare. . .

“They haven’t even taught [opposition leaders] Klitchko, Yatsenyuk and Tyahnybok to run a government efficiently. The main thing is for them to take power, and destroy the Ukrainian state.”

Currently in the Ukraine, there is a parliament in Kiev and a parliament in Kharkov.  The parliament stripped Yanukovych of his powers and impeached him but he says they dont have the powers to do that and refuses to step down.  The latest reports have the President in Donetsk.  There is actually no single person in charge over there. It’s chaos.  Everything about the ‘rebellion’ reeks of western puppetry and fascism.  Everything about the Yanukovych supporters of course reeks of Russia.  The Crimea is having massive protests right now in the streets because they want to join in union with Russia.  And Russia has stated it is prepared tosend in troops to protect ethnic Russiansof which there is 7-8 million of in Ukraine.  Things are very fluid and changing hourly.  Stay tuned..

Eastern Europe Map



Calling for the West to act responsibly is arguably the same as asking a bawling drunkard screaming obscenities to be quiet after a skinful of spirits and paramount to requesting a serial rapist to just stop. However, this is no time for quips and very much the time for some skilful diplomacy over early recognition of actors in a Putsch.

The last week has shown that the Law is only enforceable when it has a consensus to support or respect it. We saw how the kidnapping and illegal detention of Slobodan Milosevic took place against international, Yugoslav Federal and Serbian National law after a decision was made by a fraction of the Parliament, we see a copy-paste of the same situation in Ukraine, where another hasty decision was made by Parliament without the presence of the largest political party.

How then can Washington and the European Union refer to Oleksandr Turchynov as “Interim President” with any seriousness, since he appointed himself and had the decision ratified by an incomplete Parliament without the presence of the largest party? For now, Turchynov is an imposter, the leader of an illegal Putsch which claims power, riding on the crest of a wave of violence perpetrated by thugs, Fascists and agents provocateurs, many from outside Ukraine, most from Western Ukraine. Turchynov may as well proclaim himself King of the Planet Woppo, and there will be the European Union crawling up his anatomy.

If the European Union and Washington wish to recognize the leader of a Putsch as President of a country, then it comes as no surprise, for the EU also negotiates exploitation rights with Morocco for fisheries and minerals in Western Sahara, which Morocco annexed and which it holds as occupying power, illegally.

Recognition of a faction as the legal representative of a country, devoid of any Constitutional or legal foundation, sets a dangerous precedent, and is the epitome of irresponsible behavior which can create a scenario for things to escalate. Had the West acted differently in the case of Yugoslavia, then the Balkans Wars could have been avoided.

What matters in the case of the Ukraine, and fundamentally, is the welfare of the Ukrainian people as a whole, including all ethnic minorities and ethnic groups – otherwise what is the justification for the territorial integrity of the country? And the welfare of all Ukrainians means all foreign powers should be very careful before they jump the gun and start recognizing dubious figures as being the legal representatives of something they are not. So, quite what Catherine Ashton thinks she is doing in Kiev, today, recognizing the leader of a Putsch, defies logic.

While the media is quick to reiterate the words of another self-proclaimed figure, that of Arsen Avakov as “Interior Minister”, stating that an arrest warrant has been issued for Viktor Yanukovich for “mass murder of peaceful citizens”, let us go deeper. After seeing the images of what gangs of thugs were doing, for weeks, before they started shooting at the police force, then if these are images of how peaceful citizens behave in the Ukraine, God protect us from the violent ones. Arsen Avakov’s comments, then, are an insult to police forces everywhere, laying down their lives to keep the peace.

A correct reading of the situation would be that the police were fired on by protesters, that protesters were fired on by other protesters to incriminate the police and that certain rogue elements within the police used live rounds to defend themselves or to retaliate. Lamentable, lamentable, lamentable in all three cases but if armed thugs are shooting at the police, what happens, in any country?

And here is the crux of the matter. Almost one hundred Ukrainians have lost their lives over the last days – students, police, thugs alike – and before the party escalates into a riot, people like Catherine Ashton should be made aware of the Fascist elements among those opposed to Yanukovich. Confirming the status of those from the fringes of politics, such as the “deputy leader” of a political party long in opposition to President Yanukovich, the one Ashton refers to as “Interim president”, is more than likely to exacerbate the situation and create an imbalance which can see more violence and this, surely, has to be the first priority as something to avoid.

There are some very dark and dangerous forces in Ukraine, some self-proclaimed racists who have vowed to combat “Russians and Jews”, for instance, followers of Fascist movements which were born by Ukrainians supporting Hitler against the Soviet Union. Recognising Putsch leaders and jumping the gun would be paramount to giving Hitler the nod in 1933. And today Jewish leaders advised Ukrainian Jews to leave Kiev.

The Ukrainian people as a whole are resourceful, educated and intelligent and are perfectly able to choose for themselves, under due legal process and Constitutional law – with a properly constituted Parliament for instance – who they wish to represent them.

It is obvious that many of those who are waving banners today have not any idea of the perils of being indebted to the IMF or of receiving European Union bailouts, and have no idea about what will happen if they join the European Union – their jobs will be destroyed, their country colonized by troikas that dictate their policies from Brussels, they will lose their factories, their farms, their fishing fleets.

So, Yanukovich was right to turn more to Russia as an alternative. Whether he was right in how he conducted his internal policy is a question for Ukrainians to answer and nobody else, certainly not Catherine Ashton, but an answer must come from within the law and under the Constitution.

The moral of the story: Recognising a Putsch as a Constitutional exercise in law-making is as sound a decision as appointing a paedophile as a kindergarten teacher. And just as dangerous. Watch this space.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Poland and other European NATO members


by Andrew Korybko

Poland, the eager American servant that it has been, has now officially taken on the role of the ‘Slavic Turkey’ in relation to Ukraine. Just as Turkey has been a geopolitically convenient conduit for arms, personnel, and material support for the Syrian terrorists, so too has Poland begun to officially fulfill this role for their Ukrainian counterparts.

rime Minister Tusk stated on 20 February, 2014 that Poland is already treating the injured insurgents from Kiev, and has actually ordered the military and interior ministry to provide hospitals to help even more [1]. The deputy health minister has confirmed that Warsaw is in contact with the rebels in Kiev “in making plans to take in Ukrainian wounded”.This means that Poland has formally extended its covert and diplomatic reach nearly 300 miles into the interior of Ukraine, and that its intelligence services are obviously doing more in Ukraine than just ‘helping the wounded’ (terrorists). It is even more likely that Polish influence is even stronger in Lviv and Volyn Oblasts, the regions bordering Poland, and coincidentally or not, Lviv has already attempted to declare independence. The same can be said of Turkish influence deep into Syria at the height of the crisis in that country, and one must be reminded of the fact that Turkey also helped the wounded fighters in that country recover on its territory.

The structural similarities between Poland and Turkey in relation to Ukraine and Syria need to be examined in order to more clearly understand how the ‘Lead from Behind’ template has been applied to both case studies.

First of all, the ‘Lead from Behind’ strategy has been defined as “discreet U.S. military assistance with [others] doing the trumpeting”. It is the new strategy of warfare for theaters where the US, for whatever reasons, is reluctant to directly militarily engage itself. It relies on using regional allies/’leaders’ as proxies to further US geostrategic and geopolitical goals via asymmetrical measures while Washington pivots to Asia, where it aims to present a conventional deterrent to China. Both Poland and Turkey are the US’ puppets of choice in their respective theaters against their neighboring targeted states (Ukraine and Syria). At the least, the US provides intelligence support and the training of ‘opposition’ units, while Poland and Turkey pull the weight in directly assisting those members during their deployments in the victimized nations. In the case of Ukraine, the US utilized NGOs to infiltrate the country over a more than 10-year period and also allocated $5 billion to “help Ukraine achieve [the development of democratic institutions]”. The National Endowment for Democracy has also been pivotal in peddling the ‘Kony 2012 of Ukraine’ in order to advance their psy-op campaign against Kiev, just as ‘Syrian Danny’ was the version deployed against Damascus.

But the similarities do not end there.

Both Poland and Turkey are frontier NATO states, with Poland being described as “the largest and most important NATO frontline state in terms of military, political and economic power.” These two geostrategic states also have an overwhelming population when compared to their neighbors, as well as national inferiority complexes stemming from their lost imperial legacies (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire). They share a significant land border with the states targeted for a ‘democratic transition’, as well as important cultural and political connections with those societies (as a result of the aforementioned imperial legacies) prior to the unleashing of the respective crises. This gives them significant intangible benefits over the future battlefield, both in state, non-state, and informational activities.

Poland and Turkey also host important American military installations. Turkey houses the US Air Force at Incirlik and an anti-missile defense radar in the east, while Poland provides the US with the Lask Air Force Base and an anti-missile defense outpost in the northeast near Kaliningrad. In regards to the development of the insurgents’ mission, the Ukrainian Fascists are taking on disturbingly similar characteristics to the Jihadists in Syria. In 2011, random sniper fire (attributed to the ‘rebels’) was targeting civilians in Damascus, just as the same has begun to occur in Kiev, even targeting a reporter from RT. The Lviv request for independence can be seen as following the declaration of autonomy of Syria’s Kurds, as both areas abut the border of the proxy state interfering in the affairs of its neighbor. In a similar fashion, both insurgent groups have taken over border control posts connected to their patron state, and this move obviously increases the ease with which Ankara and Warsaw can funnel arms, personnel, and materials to their subversive spawn. When the borders cannot be held by the insurgents, they resort to ransacking government depots and stealing arms from captured government forces and occupied buildings [2]. The Syrian fighters have a history of hostage taking and brutal executions, and their Ukrainian comrades have followed their lead by capturing over 60 police officers in Kiev.

It has thus clearly been demonstratively shown via the aforementioned examples that the destabilizations of both Ukraine and Syria are modelled off of a patterned approach. The US utilizes proxy states with injured imperial legacies in order to advance its ‘Lead from Behind’ strategy, targeting pivotal geostrategic areas where the US prefers to maintain a plausible deniability over its role and is reluctant to get too directly involved. One can also discern a larger trend developing – the use of extreme macro-regional ideological movements to support long-term destabilization. In the Middle East, extreme Islam is the method of choice for application and export, whereas in Ukraine, it is increasingly appearing as though extreme far-right (in some applications, even Neo-Nazi) group fit the ‘Wahhabi role’ for Europe. Ukraine could quite possibly become a training ground for other European far-right militants, or the ones currently in Ukraine can go on to teach the ‘tools of their trade’ to the highest bidder in other European states. Just as Turkey is supporting the extreme Islamists in Syria via its support for the fighters there, Poland can be said to be flirting with extreme far-right nationalists in Ukraine through its statements of support for the violent opposition and its recent decision to evacuate and help the wounded insurgents (not even counting the unreported level of covert involvement already ongoing). And just as the extreme Islamists got out of the control of their handlers and now endanger the entire Middle East, the risk remains that the extreme far-right nationalists may become uncontrollable in Ukraine as well and come to endanger the entire EU. When comparing Poland to Turkey and Ukraine to Syria, it is proven that the Arab Spring has come to Europe in more ways than meet the eye.

Andrew Korybko

Oriental Review note: Three years of the fierce anti-Assad campaign have brought nothing but political expenses to Turkey. Now Turkish Prime-Minister Recep Erdogan is trying to balance his poorly motivated policy towards Syria and to regain regional and public support, notably deteriorated as a result of his reckless implication in the Syrian tragedy. His latest visit to Tehran has shown the drastic shift in both Turkish rhetoric and approaches on the matter. So Turkey has likely learned the bitter lesson of playing aliens’ games in a neighboring country. Will Poland be able to soberly review its role in the horrific Ukrainian crisis too is still an open issue…

[1] “Poland on standby to receive Ukraine’s wounded”, by Matthew Day, The Telegraph, 20 February 2014.

[2] “Rioters seize over 1,500 guns in Ukraine mayhem – security services”, RT, 19 February 2014.




Clashes in Kiev and other cities of Ukraine continue, even though the government and opposition concluded a truce. Meanwhile, in the Crimea, people discuss an opportunity to separate from Ukraine and address Russia with a request to be accepted in the structure of the Russian Federation.

State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the sixth convocation, Admiral Igor Kasatonov, believes that the current state of affairs in Ukraine is dangerous not only for the country but also for Europe on the whole. Yet, Russia should not interfere in the conflict, the expert said.

“Do you think there is a chance for Ukraine to collapse?”

“This is a very serious question, of course. The current events in Kiev already go beyond the framework of civilized order. Those who organize these events are playing with fire, because this is so serious that it can spread anywhere else afterwards. In general, this is Europe, and if such things occur there, then this is very dangerous.

“As for the collapse of Ukraine, I can not say anything for the time being. Russia and Ukraine are closest neighbors, fraternal friends. There are more than a dozen of various agreements, contracts, etc. and, of course, it would be very difficult to put it all into question. In this regard, I would like, of course, not to think about the breakup of Ukraine. Ukraine needs to stabilize the situation as soon as possible, because it is not only Russia, but also all Europe that needs stable Ukraine.”

“In the Crimea, there are voices calling for secession from Ukraine and transition under the Russian protectorate. To which extent is it real?”

“I think it is unreal, because there are appropriate arrangements between Russia and Ukraine. Russia recognized the integrity of Ukraine as it is now. Personally, I do not like the fact that the Crimea is a Ukrainian territory, because I have lived for more than 50 years in Sevastopol, in Russia, but one should not violate international agreements in any case. In this respect, initial steps will be wrong, either from the Russian side, or any other side. One must resolve internal problems of Ukraine in the first place. If there is an agreement, then both sides should observe it.”

“Is the Crimea an irritant in Russian-Ukrainian relations? Or is this problem artificial?”

“In the long run, it is an irritant. This problem is hidden away deep, but it would be incorrect to raise this question to discussion. There are international agreements and treaties that we all should observe.

“But I would remind you that there is a decision from the Supreme Council from 1992, when the Crimean issue was raised and the entire procedure for the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to Ukraine was found unlawful. Yet, for the time being, everything should remain as it is.”

Leading expert of the Center for Military and Political Studies of MGIMO, Mikhail Alexandrov, shared his views with Pravda.Ru about what may await President Yanukovych in the near future.

“The West has created the “fifth column” in Ukraine, which is now armed, trying to seize power, and there is nothing to oppose to it. The Party of Regions was actually impotent.

“If we had the forces the capacity of which could be comparable to the forces of the Western side, they would now be able to operate independently. They could crush Maidan without Yanukovych. They could seize power in eastern Ukraine. That is, if Yanukovych is not capable of handling his power, they would use power themselves, defeat radicals and take power in the east and south of Ukraine.

“Now we have the situation when Ukrainian radicals impose their agenda. Yanukovych decided to disperse the Maidan in a very accurate way. Yanukovych is afraid to use firearms against the bandits who kill Berkut soldiers. How can one use batons against the criminals who kill people? They should be shot with automatic fire, and law and order would be restored in Kiev immediately.

“Yanukovych hopes that he can still improve relations with the West. After all, his policy was about maneuvering between Russia and the West. He hopes that as long as he does not use force against the radicals, then he can still become an acceptable leader for the West. This is silly self-deception. Because the West has already written Yanukovych off.

The West holds Yanukovych accountable for everything that happens and will happen in Ukraine. It does not matter how many people he killed – one or one hundred. Yanukovych has been chosen as a scapegoat. The only way for him to resist, to retain power and even life – is to stand very determined, to fight to the end, and hope for support from Moscow.

“Moscow is now too afraid to openly support him, because who knows where he goes next. Let’s say Russia supports him now, but he takes a U-turn as he did in 2004, and Russia will look like a fool again. So Putin takes a very cautious position, he is not certain about Yanukovych.

“Yanukovych must at first show his strength and defeat radicals. If necessary, he should ask assistance from Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that Russia would use its influence to stabilize the situation in Ukraine. This may mean that Russia may help Yanukovych to restore order in the country with the use of military force,” Mikhail Alexandrov said.


Question of Contemplation



After Iraq, after Libya, after Syria, we see the same modus operandi in Ukraine, namely western media outlets demonizing the Government, busloads of thugs being ferried around the country, we see the US Secretary of State speaking to the “Opposition”, namely armed criminals and agents provocateurs, hooligans and an ex-boxer. What is going on?

Shall we believe the western media outlets which speak about a fight for freedom, or shall we speak to Ukrainians – real, balanced Ukrainians, patriots, not wannabe politicians at the butt-end of their boxing careers or corrupted officials with an eye on a Green Card to enter the USA, not common criminals, murderers, torturers, thieves – and Islamist fundamentalist elements?

Let us ask, for example, who John Kerry thinks he is, in addressing the Ukrainian “Opposition”, and who the “Opposition” think they are, given that President Yanukovich was democratically voted into his office, and given the signs that in 2015 he may very well be re-elected. In fact, we could also ask who these “peaceful protesters” are, given that they have been seen with weapons, they have attacked the police forces (how do the police behave in the USA when they are attacked?), given that they have been found with explosives, given that they have tortured and murdered normal Ukrainian citizens going about their daily lives.

And we can ask who are Hisb ul-Tahrir, the Islamist fundamentalist group of between 6,000 and 10,000 terrorists who are infesting the southern Ukraine, with ties to, who else, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

We can ask why so many of these “peaceful protesters” are carrying Nazi insignia and in some cases wearing Nazi uniforms, we can ask why there are Libyans among them in Kiev’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square), among the “protesters”, the Euromaidan, sporting European Union flags. We can ask where these Libyans came from and we can ask why these protesters are suddenly so enraptured by the European Union, which will only close Ukrainian factories, close Ukrainian farms, close Ukrainian fisheries, pay Ukrainians to sit on their backsides for a decade, then tell them it was part of the deal when in 2025 the Ukrainians start complaining the European Union took away all their jobs, as the European Union and its master in Washington syphons off Ukraine’s massive mineral resources.

We may ask how many “peaceful protesters” complete with weapons, there are, and whether a few thousand misfits, vandals, thugs and hooligans are a mirror of Ukrainian society. We may ask why the “Opposition” changes its demands to President Yanukovich every time there is a meeting, avoiding any attempt at reconciliation.

We may ask these questions because there is no mention of terrorists and armed thugs torturing ordinary citizens in western media outlets, and we shall answer these questions in the forthcoming days by speaking to Ukrainians – real Ukrainians, not Islamist terrorists or paid mercenaries committing acts of sabotage, creating havoc to undermine the Government which took Ukraine away from the Orange Revolution and towards good management by Ukrainians for Ukrainians.

Konstantin Scheglikov

Pravda.Ru correspondent

In Ukraine

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey


 Ukrainian Nazis


On February 22, militants and terrorists of the Euromaidan Parliament executed a neo-Nazi coup using armed force, violating all norms of the Constitution, international law, and trampling European values. Washington and Brussels – who told the world that Euromaidan is a nonviolent action of the Ukrainian people – instigated a Nazi coup to serve the geopolitical interests of the West, facilitated de facto by the weak-kneed stance of the Yanukovych government.

There are many who do not know they are fascists
but will find it out when the time comes
Ernest Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls

After signing a void agreement on “crisis settlement” on Friday, the situation in the Ukraine has rapidly got out of control of it signatories and “witnesses”. No provisions of this document were fulfilled. The legitimate authorities fled (or tried to flee) the country, the governmental buildings in Kiev are taken by the revolutionary mob. The radicals are dictating the new rules to façade opposition “leaders” who desperately try to bridle the Maidan.

What happened to the Ukraine on February 22, 2014 is essentially a criminal coup committed by the radical armed anarchists and Ukrainian Nazis who have been enjoying a comprehensive financial, military, diplomatic and even religious support and instigation from the Western power groups for the last two decades. Many of the Ukraine’s cities are now falling into the chaos of lootings, unprovoked violence, lynch law and political repressions.

The first signs of upcoming chaos were clearly seen as the Ukrainian authorities wavered at the three-month siege of the centre of Kiev by the radical guerrilla elements from Galicia and local criminal gangs. They watched silently when furious fanatics were burning unarmed riot police Berkut officers alive, lynching them and pulling out their eyes. They did nothing to stop frantic “freedom fighters” from storming regional administrations, humiliating the officials and looting police and military arsenals in the West Ukraine. They were paralyzed when unidentified snipers were cold-bloodily killing militia personnel, protesters and casual passersby from the roofs of Kiev’s buildings. They even declared amnesty (twice!) to those guilty of the brutal crimes against policemen and public order. Thus Yanukovych’s regime itself paved the way for a sinister ghost of the war-torn Libya to come to Ukraine.

Is the guerrilla side a self-organized and self-indoctrinated popular movement tired of a corrupt and inefficient state? That is hardly the case.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the international power groups have invested billions of the Federal Reserve notes (aka US$) into Ukrainian “pro-democratic” NGOs and politicians. While preaching “Ukrainian commitment to the European choice and democratic values” in the meantime they clearly saw that there is no short-term historical perspective for making Ukraine a state hostile to Russia, which is evidently the final goal of the globalist Eastern policy. The stakes were placed on the ultranationalist elements in the Western Ukraine and in the Uniate Church, a minority religious Greek-Catholic community of the Eastern rite, created by the Holy See in XVI century in a desperate attempt to weaken close ties of Rzeczpospolita’s Orthodox with Moscow. Since the early 1990s the Uniates enjoyed silent support of the newly-independent central authorities in Kiev. Theit tactic was to aggressively occupy Orthodox cathedrals on the canonic territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. The last thing the Uniate clergy used to preach in the occupied churches for all these years was the Christian call for repentance and peace. Instead they propagated a new crusade against the Orthodox and directly instigated and justified race-motivated prosecutions and even killings, acting exactly like radical jihadist preachers of the militant pseudo-Islamic sects. Suffice to watch a “Sunday sermon” by Mykhailo Arsenych, the clergyman from a local Uniate church in Ivano-Frankovsk region, Ukraine saying: “Today we are really ready for a revolution.The only effective methods of combat are assassination and terror! We want to be sure that no Chinese, Negro, Jew or Muscovite will try to come and grab our land tomorrow!”

The products of such indoctrination were not long in coming. A number of NATO-sponsored training centers for the Ukrainian ultranationalist militants were opened on the territory of the Baltic states immediately after they joined NATO in 2004. The detailed photo report on a Ukrainian group taking a course of subversive activities at a NATO training center in Estonia in 2006 is available here (texts in Russian).

Olexander Muzychko today in Kiev and in Chechnya in 1994

Olexander Muzychko today in Kiev (left) and in Chechnya in 1994.

Abundant financial and human resources were directed to bolster the paramilitary units of the radical UNA-UNSO, Svoboda and other ultranationalist organizations in the Ukraine. Since 1990s these thugs were participating in the Chechen and Balkan wars on the side of radical Wahhabi (!) militants and committing war crimes against captured Russian and Serbian soldiers and civilian population. One of the notorious guerilla fighters of the Ukrainian origin in Chechnya, Olexander Muzychko (aka criminal leader Sasha Biliy) today is heading a brigade of “Pravyi Sector”, the radical militant driving force of the ongoing coup d’Etat in Kiev. According to his “official” biography (link in Russian), in 1994 he was awarded by the then top commander of terrorist Ichkeria enclave Dzhohar Dudayev with the order “Hero of Nation” for “outstanding military successes against Russian troops”. His “military skills” were quite specific: he used to lure the Russian units operating in remote Chechen locations to guerilla ambushes. Then he personally participated in tortures and beheadings of the captured Russian soldiers. After returning to the Ukraine in 1995, he led a criminal gang in Rovno. Eventually he was prosecuted and sentences for 8 years term for kidnapping for ransom and attempted assassination of a Ukrainian businessman. He entered politics after release from prison in late 2000s.

After the end of Chechen and Balkan wars the British and American private military contractors were routinely recruiting Ukrainian mercenaries for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. The Britam Defense scandal revealed the way and scale of how the Ukrainian personnel of the private military contractors were used in provocative clandestine actions to meet Western political goals in the Middle East. Many of them were sent to Kiev to make the job they are paid for – to target both policemen and protesters on “Euromaidan” from the roofs of surrounding buildings.

The real leaders of the protest have already clearly expressed their radical views to the European press (read e.g. the interview with the Pravyi Sector leader Dmitro Yarosh and several recent Guardian’s publications here and here).

That is the sort of people the half-hearted European politicians are about to deal with in the Ukraine. These fanatics are the real authority in today’s Kiev seized by the marauding mobs. They have torn the Friday’s agreement signed by four Ukrainian “leaders” and three European officials before the ink was dry on this paper. Their treatment of Yulia Timoshenko after her emotional speech on the Maidan Saturday night has clearly shown that her nomination de facto head of failing Ukrainian state would be their decision. Latest Western advice to financially support Ukraine with the IMF and the EU funds suggest that they have chosen to buy the loyalty of the ultranationalists for the transition period. Therefore, the ongoing Western policy of appeasement towards the radical insurgents in Kiev very much resembles the Anglo-American connivance in Hitler’s accession to power in Germany in 1933 and the rise of the Third Reich. But if the Western elitist groups suppose that the Neo-Nazi project that they have carefully cherished and supported in Ukraine for decades, would be controlled by political means and set against Russia, they are deadly wrong. After facing furious resistance and blowback at the East and South of the Ukraine, the radical Nazi ideological avalanche encouraged by the illusion of success in Kiev would inevitably enter the degrading European political landscape where the neo-Nazi and hooligan outbreaks are already a notable destabilizing factor. Their established links with the Islamist underground in Europe add another sinister dimension to the murky European future.

Is it the price the Europeans are ready to pay for bringing its eastern neighbors into the “family of civilized nations”?


Oriental Review

Ukrainian gas pipelines



The conflict in Ukraine is a war for the redistribution of the gas market that brings billions in profits. This is not a Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but a Russian-European conflict. The European Union has missed the moment when it could have won over Viktor Yanukovych, economist Said Gafurov said in a live broadcast of Pravda.Ru.

“Gazprom shares are very volatile because of the events on the Maidan,” said the expert. There is a feeling that someone is trying very hard to change the very structure of the market, displacing Gazprom. “Here it is not so much about taking away the ownership from Gazprom for nothing, although this issue can also be discussed. It is more about the destruction of the profits that Gazprom receives as a mediator, as a gas trader, and not as a supplier or as a transporter of gas passing through the huge transport network in Ukraine.”

“In 2015 election will be held in Ukraine. Currently, a very small minority that includes Bandera’s heirs, about ten thousand people, are trying to impose their political will on the entire society. Empirical evidence shows that governments could be overthrown through the hands of relatively small groups. Very serious economic funds are involved at the Maidan. Privates are paid $200, and higher ranks $500,” said the expert.

According to Said Ghafurov, Viktor Yanukovych would have lost the 2015 election if it was not for the Maidan, and now it is not clear if he would lose.” Why do people show such a tough obstinacy a year before the end of the president’s powers? Why is there so much money at the Maidan?

“There is a lot of money because there is more at stake than the $15 billion promised by Vladimir Putin,” Gafurov said. “This is about the so-called “Third Energy Package” of the European Union that entered into force in 2011. This document refers to the separation of the owners of pipeline systems and the owner of the gas itself.

“In many countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Gazprom is now forced to provide access to their “pipe” to third parties, i.e., other vendors that wish to supply gas to Europe. If such third parties do not exist, then a part of the gas transmission capacities should still remain in reserve. That is, Gazprom cannot say that its pipes are filled with its own gas, and suggest waiting until there is room. It must pump gas of foreign firms at low rates from a large number of liquefied natural gas stations created on the coast of Western Europe,” Gafurov explained.

Russia is not satisfied with this proposal because it reduces the profitability of gas projects. As a consequence, due to profit shortfalls Gazprom is exempt from paying property tax. This is why Moscow is trying to achieve the abolition of the EU’s “Third Energy Package,” and this is why Moscow is so patient with Yanukovych.

The expert explained that if Ukraine signed an agreement on association and voluntarily took upon itself the obligation to European standards, Gazprom would have lost the money it gained from exploitation of “insanely expensive pipelines” under a bilateral treaty with Ukraine. “Even the $15 billion loan will eventually pay off, not to mention the fact that the debt is a loan to be repaid,” said Gafurov.

“I am stressing again that the main goal is not the repression of Gazprom as a gas transporter, although that is true as well, but as a gas trader seeking to profit directly from the trading process. The main thing is not the gas, not the price of gas as it exits the gas pipeline. The main thing is this network that brings major profits. There is a colossal redistribution of the gas market, and, unfortunately, we do not have enough leverage with the EU position,” said the expert.

This position is “shameless” because “Third Energy Package” allows countries to cancel long-term commercial agreements signed with Gazprom. “The stakes are so high that one of the manifestations of the “Third Energy Package” was the destruction of Libya,” continued Gafurov. “The attacks, the NATO bombing in Libya began in March of 2011, when its full implementation has begun. Gaddafi was known as one of the biggest supporters of the liquefied natural gas trade. “In Libya, there was an old liquefied natural gas plant, and it was building a new parallel super-complex and financed the construction of distribution centers in Germany, and now we have a global redistribution where people do not shy away from bombing, are not averse to a full-fledged war,” said the expert.

Gazprom shares are unstable because Ukraine’s accession to the EU standards in the sale of gas is at stake, reiterated Gafurov. According to the expert, what is good for Gazprom is good for Russia. “Considering the scale, we are very interested in Ukraine not joining the “Third Energy Package” because it is bad for the Russian economy, for the balance of payments, for exports. As for Yanukovych, he would also benefit, and if he would have asked for 20 billion, we would have given him 20, and would still benefit,” said the expert.

“Yanukovych acted very cleverly as he solved his budget problems. Europeans refused to rescue him, and Russia has not. This, incidentally, is another success of the foreign policy of President Putin.”

What would happen with the $15 billion loan if Klitschko and company were to come to power? Can it be blocked? Gafurov thinks it is a possibility. This loan is a sort of an agreement that Russia will buy Ukrainian securities worth $15 billion.

“Russia can sell them afterwards, drop them, bring down the market, and I am absolutely convinced that if suddenly a conditional Klitschko comes to power, he will be equally interested in this loan.”

Russia is winning as long as there is no discussion about Ukraine joining the “Third Energy Package” and generally European standards. “I think Klitschko forgot about it, it was the primary goal. But those who control him remember this. Of course, they will look for another option. And, of course, people who have already spent so much money will likely be able to find the sum to give Yanukovych a chance to play it back,” said Gafurov.

According to Said Gafurov, new EU standards would destroy many industries in Ukraine because they are different. “For example, the asbestos industry will die for sure because asbestos is banned in Europe. For Ukraine, it is quite significant. They will definitely make unfeasible the mines and most of all basic industries such as steel, because environmental requirements are too high, and it will be cheaper for Europe to buy products in South Africa or Australia. However, no one cares. “Even Polish politicians who reflect the interests of Polish industry openly say that it is okay if Ukrainian industry dies.”

Gafurov believes that Ukraine may join the Customs Union, but if it chooses not to, it will be fine. A free trade zone with the CU can be created. “Then the Ukrainian pipes will compete with the Russian ones as they are cheaper. In The Customs Union each country has its own currency, and Ukraine will be able to manipulate its exchange rate, providing great commercial profit. The Customs Union is a market of 170 million people. This is really significant, and it has bright future, as evidenced by the fact that 40 countries have already expressed their willingness to start negotiations on a free trade zone with the CU,” concluded Gafurov.

Lyuba Lulko


About admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *