11 Articles On The Ukraine | US+NATO Backed Neo-Nazi Government Killing Citizens

Dylan Eleven | Truth11.com

Neo-nazi party has forcibly taken the Ukraine, backed by the US government, and NATO.  What most people don’t realize is that Obama and the US government are Nazi’s.  They just hide behind the American flag.  In the Ukraine they are killing citizens, goose stepping and shouting Sieg heil (Hail victory!). Backed by the US, Bush, Obama and the rest of the Satanist Central Banking Cable.  These Nazis are invading, killing and waging wars against the population of the earth.  Don’t be fooled by the irrelevant  almost extinct propaganda media machine.

___________

The Western Media Finds Nazis In Numbers On Procter and Gamble Soap Packages, But Not In The Ukraine

Professor Michel Chossudovsky —

Professor Chossudovsky shows that the Western media is unable to acknowledge the
fact that Washington’s coup in Ukraine has given rise to a strong neo-nazi political movement which which Washington is cooperating. The neo-nazi paramilitary units seem to be the most effective force Washington’s stooge government in Kiev has at its disposal for murdering peaceful protesters in the Russian areas of eastern and southern ukraine. Read Professor Chossudovsky’s article here:http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-western-media-decyphers-the-neo-nazi-code/5381849

The two videos below, one made by the Ukrainian neo-nazis and one made of their
torchlight parades and Sieg Heil salutes, show the determination of this movement. The Western media pretends that this large movement does not exist and that all violence is caused by Russia. Such an amazing lie is difficult to fathom.

http://99getsmart.com/ukraine-crisis-today-democracy-caught-on-camera-this-will-never-be-shown-on-mainstream-media/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Inu_-0dcSU&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-Inu_-0dcSU&has_verified=1

Here is the White Book, the Russian Government’s documentation of human rights
violations in Ukraine under Washington’s unelected stooge government.

http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/ns-dgpch.nsf/03c344d01162d351442579510044415b/38fa8597760acc2144257ccf002beeb8/$FILE/White

___________

 

Deadly Ukraine Fighter Jet Bombing Caught On Tape

Zero Hedge
June 3, 2014

Earlier today we reported that even as the western media blackout of events in Ukraine gets more black, the ongoing civil war is getting ever more uncivil, following a Ukraine fighter jet attack on the east Ukraine town of Lugansk, in which it struck not only the local administration building, but a neighboring area, resulting in numerous civilian casualties and injuries. Kiev was quick to deny that it was using its airforce on its own people, claiming instead that the explosion quite clearly caught on tape was merely locals trying to unsuccessfully shoot at the fighter jet.

So for your viewing displeasure, because the reality of yet another fratricidal war is hardly enjoyable, and so readers can make up their own minds, here is the moment of the fighter jet bombing caught on tape, as well as the tragic consequences.

The first clip shows CCTV footage as the rocket explosion is spread out across a park neighboring the administration building.

The next clip captures moment the Kiev fighter fired at fellow Ukrainians – something the west vocally condemned when it was allegedly conducted under former president Yanukovich, and is all too quiet this time.

___________

Benjamin Fulford – May 5, 2014: The battle over Ukraine will be the Bush/Nazi Waterloo

The big push by the Nazi cabal government in the US to use Ukraine as a means to destroy Russia is blowing up in their faces and is instead leading to the total quarantine of the criminals in Washington D.C.The Nazi plan is to fan the crisis in the Ukraine as an excuse to start a boycott of the Russian oil industry and thus bankrupt Russia. This plan worked before when the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was used to start a boycott of Soviet oil and thus bankrupt the Soviet Union.This time, however, the opposite is happening. First of all, British Petroleum (British Monarchy), Shell (Dutch Monarchy), Total (French Rothschilds) and Exxon/Mobil (Rockefeller) are all deeply involved in the Russian oil business. That means the European oligarchy and a large part of the US oil oligarchy too, are not going to go along. Neither will Saudi Arabia or Iran or other major oil producing countries. Their governments have said so repeatedly.The Germans will not go along with any plans to sanction Russia either because German industry is deeply interconnected with the Russian economy.

So Mr. Bush, it seems you and your Nazi buddies have run out of friends.

Instead, a counter-attack is continuing against all major Bush/Nazi spheres of influence including the Muslim Brotherhood, J.P. Morgan (remember all those bankers falling off roofs?) and the global Bush/CIA drug monopoly.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise then that last week a person claiming to represent “the man who ordered the death of President Kennedy,” came to speak with a member of the White Dragon Society. The talk was complicated and covered much esoteric ground but, basically it was a combination information sharing, veiled threats and offers of cooperation. More about that further down.

There was also an invitation sent out by the Russians for a WDS representative to fly to Moscow for talks in the near future. In preparation for this, WDS affiliated CIA representatives were negotiating with the Russians in Iceland last week. A Chinese communist government agent also hinted that preparations for a big announcement concerning the financial system were being made.

These negotiations concern arcane financial instruments and how to go about cashing them. If all goes well, suddenly vast sums of money will be made available for humanity in a responsible and fair manner.

However, talk of cashing multiple-trillion dollar checks has been going on for years without any visible results so, it may well be that a gradual transition to the new financial system is still the most realistic scenario.

On this front, as has been the case for a long time, there is a lot going on. First of all Russian State owned broadcasters are saying that a new BRICS financial institution aimed at replacing the IMF and World Bank will start operations in July of this year.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_05_01/BRICS-creating-parallel-Monetary-Fund-disillusioned-with-IMF-and-World-Bank-expert-0502/

Then, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel was visiting Obama in Washington last week, the Frankfurt financial district issued its Chinese Renminbi denominated bond.

http://www.dw.de/frankfurt-issues-first-bond-backed-by-chinese-currency/a-17605819

The message to the people in Washington and New York could not have been clearer: The German industrial world was making a big move away from the dollar.

US agency sources also confirmed that the Germans and the Obama regime had very different views about NSA spying and US support of Nazis in the Ukraine. The Germans know full well that the troubles in the Ukraine are being caused by mercenary murderers hired by the rogue US regime.

The lies being told by the US government are now so obvious that it is embarrassing to watch Fed actors like Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry constantly spouting obvious lies. The fact is the entire world now sees the regime in Washington D.C. for what it is: a rogue terrorist regime. Just look at their recent actions: spreading sarin gas in Syria to try to start a world war, hijacking a Malaysian airplane to use for nuclear blackmail and now they are murdering innocent civilians in the Ukraine.

Although a lot of people have already noticed this and written about it, the US corporate governments’ description of April unemployment statistics last week set a new low that George Orwell would have approved of. The government removed 800,000 people who had run out of unemployment benefits before finding a new job from the unemployment statistics. Because of that there was “good news because the “official unemployment rate” fell from 6.7% to 6.3%. Time to goose the stock market again folks. Who do they think they are kidding?

We can tell the end of this regime is near because in recent days US attorney general Eric Holder, Michelle Obama and now former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have all been forced by popular anger to cancel public appearances. It will not be too much longer before they are, as George Bush Sr. once famously said, “dragged from their houses and hung from the nearest lamp post.”

There have also been several incursions into the US by Mexican troops recently.

http://www.kvoa.com/news/n4t-investigators-rogue-mexican-army-troops-crossing-the-line/

This is almost certainly an indication that Latin American governments are willing to ally themselves with the Chinese and Russians and invade the US mainland unless the American people do something about the criminals in Washington D.C.

That is why surrender negotiations are continuing under the surface. As mentioned above, the representative of the “man who ordered the death of President Kennedy,” was trying to cut a deal with the WDS. This, however, is not something within the power of the WDS to pull off. It is going to be the American people who decide what to do with the Bushes and their fellow Nazis.

The representative also provided the WDS with a lot of detailed intelligence about the various factions that operate death squads in Japan. For example, he confirmed that the Dalai Lama, a known Nazi asset, does employ professional killers to do his bidding in Japan.

If the Nazi think they are going to murder themselves out of the hole they are in this time, they are badly mistaken. Too many people know about them now. Also, the major armed groups and gangs in Japan and the rest of Asia no longer work with the Nazis.

The WDS suggests that instead of focusing on murder, the Nazis should purge their ranks of psychopaths and redeem themselves by releasing some of their hidden technology.

On that front, the people who promised to deliver a free energy device to this writer last month said they still had a few technical problems to overcome but that they hoped to be able to demonstrate a working prototype in mid-May. Let us see.

Finally, in a bit of vindication for so-called “conspiracy theorists,” the UK government last week finally admitted their involvement in the sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania. The sinking of the Lusitania by German submarines was one of the main reasons the United States entered into World War I against Germany. Now it turns out the Germans were justified, according to the rules of war, in sinking that ship because it was transporting weapons and ammunition.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/01/lusitania-secrets-of-war-revealed-sinking

Hopefully we will not have to wait 99 years before the truth about secret agency sponsored terror events 911 and 311 etc. is released to the public by the governments involved. Perhaps in time for justice to be had?

___________

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

The Role of NATO and the EU on Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard

Brandon Turbeville
Activist PostOn the first of May, 2014, Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer wrote an article entitled “Ukrainian Crisis Was Always About Containing Russia,” where he argued that “NATO’s continued existence is hegemonic in nature – its meddling in Ukraine an act of war against Russia.”In addition, Cartalucci also wrote that “what we have witnessed over the past several months is not ‘Russian aggression,’ but the premeditated destabilization and overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine, and a resulting, and continuously escalating confrontation with Russia as Moscow reacts to the reappearance of Nazis along its borders, backed by NATO and the EU.”Cartalucci also discussed the importance of the expansion of NATO, particularly in the context of Ukrainian membership into the organization as a method of expanding the Anglo-European empire to the doorstep of Russia on yet another front.

As Cartalucci writes,

So what is NATO doing with Nazi militants in Ukraine? The same thing Adolf Hitler was doing – establishing “breathing room.” While the West attempts publicly to portray the crisis in Ukraine as Europe reacting to Russian aggression, behind semi-closed doors they are very open about their agenda in Ukraine and elsewhere along Russia’s peripheries – it is and always was about the expansion of Europe and the containment of Russia.

Recently the corporate-funded NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, celebrated what it called, “anniversaries of crucial importance to the transatlantic community, including the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 15th anniversary of NATO’s first post-Cold War enlargement, and the 10th anniversary of the “big bang” enlargements of both the European Union and NATO.” These “enlargements” all took place after the fall of the Cold War – in other words, after NATO’s mandate for existing expired. Yet the alliance continued to grow, and not only did it grow, in tandem with the European Union, it did so directly toward Moscow’s doorstep with every intention of eventually absorbing Russia as well.

Of course, Cartalucci was correct in pointing out these aspects of the U.S.-Russian conflict surrounding the Ukrainian crisis. On one level, the United States was responsible for the orchestration of a color revolution inside Ukraine as an attempt to scuttle the warming relations between Ukraine and Russia, thus forcing Russia to respond.

On another level, the Anglo-European establishment is attempting to further weaken the geopolitical position of Russia and expand NATO for purposes of containing and eventually dictating policy and demands to the Russian state.

On another level still, the conflict taking place between the Anglo-European NATO alliance is the acting out of a script that has been carefully crafted many years ago with end goal of eliminating the very existence of national sovereignty from across the globe and the ultimate creation of a one-world system with a small but dominant minority reigning at the top of that structure.

One of the architects of the strategy which is currently being implemented by the United States in regards to foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is thus a logical source of information when one is attempting to understand the geopolitical movements made by the Anglo-Europeans, Russians, or Chinese.

It should be remembered that it was Brzezinski who, in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, uttered the famous statement that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.”[1]

The book, written in 1997, seemed to lament the fact that the public would not support such blatant imperialism unless they truly viewed the crusade to be in their own immediate self-interest. Only fours year later, the public would receive such a “sudden threat or challenge” to their “sense of domestic well-being” in the form of the 9/11 attacks.

However, the Grand Chessboard discusses much more than the lack of desire to wage war by the general public absent a perceived external threat. The book discusses in detail the various major players in the geopolitical game and the methods they may use to achieve their goals of hegemony.

When one considers the possibility that the events taking place in Eastern Europe are much more than the after effects of seemingly unrelated policy or even those of a series of short-term foreign policy decisions made by one or two world powers, it becomes vitally important to seek out the words of the individuals who would have played a role (and still do play a role) in writing and developing the script the world is now following.

For instance, in the words of Brzezinski,

As in chess, American global planners must think several moves ahead, anticipating possible countermoves. A sustainable geostrategy must therefore distinguish between the short-run perspective (the next five or so years), the middle term (up to twenty or so years), and the long run (beyond twenty years). Moreover, these phases must be viewed not as watertight compartments but as part of a continuum. The first phase must gradually and consistently lead into the second – indeed, be deliberately pointed toward it – and the second must then lead subsequently into the third.[2]

Thus, when Brzezinski speaks of the necessity to not only enlarge NATO but to eventually assimilate Russia into the confines of greater Europe, it would be wise to pay attention. Here, in The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski argues that the expansion of NATO and the European Union will serve to reinvigorate greater Europe as well as act as the proverbial carrot by which the more Central and Eastern European countries will be encouraged to facilitate and implement the will of the Anglo-Europeans. The failure to do so, however, runs the risk of awakening a historical Russian imperialism that could challenge Anglo-European hegemony, according to Brzezinski. He writes,

It follows that a wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve well both the short-term and the longer-term goals of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence – and, through the admission of new Central European members, also increase in the European councils the number of states with a pro-American proclivity – without simultaneously create a Europe politically so integrated that it could soon challenge the United States on geopolitical matters of high importance to America elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East. A politically defined Europe is also essential to the progressive assimilation of Russia into a system of global cooperation.

Admittedly, America cannot on its own generate a more united Europe – that is up to the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans – but America can obstruct the emergence of a more united Europe. And that could prove calamitous for stability in Eurasia and thus also for America’s own interests. Indeed, unless Europe becomes more united, it is likely to become more disunited again. Accordingly, as stated earlier, it is vital that America work closely with both France and Germany and seeking a Europe that is politically viable, a Europe that remains linked to the United States, and a Europe that widens the scope of the cooperative democratic international system. [3]

[...]

The enlargement of NATO and the EU would serve to reinvigorate Europe’s own waning sense of a larger vocation, while consolidating, to the benefit of both America and Europe, the democratic gains won through the successful termination of the Cold War. At stake in this effort is nothing less than America’s long-range relationship with Europe itself. A new Europe is still taking shape, and if that new Europe is to remain geopolitically a part of the “Euro-Atlantic” space, the expansion of NATO is essential. By the same token, a failure to widen NATO, now that the commitment has been made, would shatter the concept of an expanding Europe and demoralize the Central Europeans. It could even reignite currently dormant or dying Russian geopolitical aspirations in Central Europe.

Indeed, the failure of the American-led effort to expand NATO could reawaken even more ambitious Russian desires. It is not yet evident – and the historical record is strongly to the contrary – that the Russian political elite shares Europe’s desire for a strong and enduring American political and military presence. Therefore, while the fostering of an increasingly cooperative relationship with Russia is clearly desirable, it is important for America to send a clear message about its global priorities. If a choice has to be made between a larger Euro-Atlantic system and a better relationship with Russia, the former has to rank incomparably higher to America.[4]

Brzezinski goes on to describe the framework of an arrangement between the West and Russia that would have very little – if any – benefits to Russia. His requirements are essentially that Russia be neutered with respect to its ability to make effective and influential regional decisions, that it strategically weaken itself militarily, and even reorganize its governmental structure to the form of a confederacy with three co-equal parts. He writes,

For that reason, any accommodation with Russia on the issue of NATO enlargement should not entail an outcome that has the effect of making Russia a defacto decision-making member of the alliance, thereby diluting NATO’s special Euro-Atlantic character while simultaneously relegating its newly admitted members to second-class status. That would create opportunities for Russia to resume not only the effort to regain a sphere of influence in Central Europe but to use its presence within NATO to play on any American-European disagreements in order to reduce the American role in European affairs.

It also crucial that, as Central Europe enters NATO, any new security assurances to Russia regarding the region be truly reciprocal and thus mutually reassuring. Restrictions on the deployment of NATO troops and nuclear weapons on the soil of new members can be an important factor in allaying legitimate Russian concerns, but these should be matched by symmetrical Russian assurances regarding the demilitarization of the potentially strategically menacing salient of Kaliningrad and by limits on major troop deployments near the borders of the prospective new members of NATO and the EU. While all of Russia’s newly independent western neighbors are anxious to have a stable and cooperative relationship with Russia, the fact is that they continue to fear it for historically understandable reasons. Hence, the emergence of an equitable NATO/EU accommodation with Russia would be welcomed by all Europeans as a signal that Russia is finally making the much-desired postimperial choice in favor of Europe.[5]

Russia’s longer-term role in Eurasia will depend largely on the historic choice that Russia has to make, perhaps still in the course of this decade, regarding its own self-definition. Even with Europe and China increasing the radius of their respective regional influence, Russia will remain in charge of the world’s largest single piece of real estate. It spans ten time zones and is territorially twice as large as either the United States or China, dwarfing in that regard even an enlarged Europe. Hence, territorial deprivation is not Russia’s central problem. Rather, the huge Russia has to face squarely and draw the proper implications from the fact that both Europe and China are already economically more powerful and that China is also threatening to outpace Russia on the road to social modernization.

In these circumstances, it should become more evident to the Russian political elite that Russia’s first priority is to modernize itself rather than to engage in a futile effort to regain its former status as a global power. Given the enormous size and diversity of the country, a decentralized political system, based on the free market, would be more likely to unleash the creative potential of both the Russian people and the country’s vast natural resources. In turn, such a more decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization. A loosely confederated Russia – composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic – would find it easier to cultivate closer economic regulations with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia, and with the Orient, which would thereby accelerate Russia’s own development. Each of the three confederated entities would also be more able to tap local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand.[6]

It is important to note that, when Brzezinski states that a “decentralized political system, based on the free market,” is desired for Russia, he means a system that is built on privatization, unfettered Capitalism, and the ability of private corporations to loot and exploit “the country’s vast natural resources” as well as its people.

Furthermore, Brzezinski argues that another requirement that West should impose upon Russia is the acceptance of the increase of the sense of nationalism among the countries located in its generally accepted sphere of influence and its national borders. While these countries clearly have a right to their own self-determination and nationalistic identities, Brzezinski is referring more to the radicalization and exploitation of these tendencies than the acceptance of a peoples’ right to rule themselves free from outside interference. Brzezinski’s requirement would thus only be accepted by Russia to its own detriment. In this regard, he states,

A clear choice by Russia in favor of the European option over the imperial one will be more likely if America successfully pursues the second imperative strand of its strategy toward Russia: namely, reinforcing the prevailing geopolitical pluralism in the post-Soviet space. Such reinforcement will serve to discourage any imperial temptations. A postimperial and Europe-oriented Russia should actually view American efforts to that end as helpful in consolidating regional stability and in reducing the possibility of conflicts along its new, potentially unstable southern frontiers. But the policy of consolidating geopolitical pluralism should not be conditioned on the existence of a good relationship with Russia. Rather, it is also important insurance in case such a good relationship fails to truly develop, as it creates impediments to the reemergence of any truly threatening Russian imperial policy.[7]

Brzezinski also points to the importance of Ukraine to his anti-Russian policy. He writes,

It follows that political and economic support for the key newly independent states is an integral part of a broader strategy for Eurasia. The consolidation of a sovereign Ukraine, which in the meantime redefines itself as a Central European state and engages in closer integration with Central Europe, is a critically important component of such a policy, as is the fostering of a closer relationship with such strategically pivotal states as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, in addition to the more generalized effort to open up Central Asia (in spite of Russian impediments) to the global economy.

Large-scale international investment in an increasingly accessible Caspian – Central Asian region would not only help to consolidate the independence of its new countries but in the long run would also benefit a postimperial and democratic Russia. The tapping of the region’s energy and mineral resources would generate prosperity, prompting a greater sense of stability and security in the area, while perhaps also reducing the risks of Balkan-type con-external investment, would also radiate to the adjoining Russian provinces, which tend to be economically underdeveloped. Moreover, once the region’s new ruling elites come to realize that Russia acquiesces in the region’s integration into the global economy, they will become less fearful of the political consequences of close economic relations with Russia. In time, a nonimperial Russia could thus gain acceptance as the region’s preeminent economic partner, even though no longer its imperial ruler.[8]

It must be remembered that Brzezinski, when discussing the “choices” available to Russia in terms of its place in the world, stated that Russia would “either [choose]to be a part of Europe as well or [choose]to become a Eurasian outcast, neither truly of Europe nor Asia and mired in its ‘near abroad’ conflicts.”[9]

Notice that, in this statement, the choices provided to Russia by Brzezinski’s philosophy are between total fealty to the European Soviet and total irrelevance. No self-respecting nation would choose either of these two options for its future and this is a fact that Brzezinski is undoubtedly aware of. Thus, it is clear that the Russians are being faced with the non-choice that is the Brzezinski doctrine, a philosophy that, when put into practice, makes conflict virtually inevitable.

Russia is thus faced with the choice of willing subservience or a growing NATO and Europe that will inevitably come knocking on its door for “access” to its vast oil and mineral wealth and demand that whatever political clout it may have in the world be erased.

These types of requirements and conditions cannot help but initiate a direct confrontation.

Notes:

 [1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. Pp. 40-41
[2] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P.198.
[3] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 199.
[4] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. Pp. 200-201.
[5] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 201.
[6] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 202.
[7] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 202-203.
[8] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P. 203.
[9] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. P.122

___________

Monday, May 12, 2014

U.S. Mercenary Killers in Eastern Ukraine

image source

Stephen Lendman
Activist Post

Blackwater’s rap sheet reveals a record too deplorable to conceal. It became Xe. It’s now Academi.

Putting lipstick on this pig doesn’t help. It’s no different than before. Jeremy Scahill’s book titled Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army called it:

A “shadowy mercenary company (employing) some of the most feared professional killers in the world accustomed to operating without worry of legal consequences (and) largely off the congressional radar.” It has “remarkable power and protection (within) the US war apparatus.” It’s well funded. It operates extrajudicially.

It’s unaccountable. It’s licensed to kill, terrorize, destroy and destabilize. It takes full advantage. It does so wherever it’s deployed.

On May 11, Voice of Russia (VOR) headlined “400 US commandos help Kiev in its military offensive in east Ukraine – reports.”

They arrived to commit mayhem. They’re from the “notorious US private security firm Academi…”

They’re involved “in a punitive operation mounted by (Kiev) against federalization supporters in Eastern Ukraine…”

Bild am Sonntag is Germany’s largest Sunday circulation broadsheet. It reported Academi operatives near Slavyansk.

It’s uncertain who hired them, it said. It’s clear Washington’s dirty hands are involved. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said:

(I)n the absence of support from the Ukrainian population, the Maidan government has only one option if it wants to remain in power – to mobilize any support possible from foreign sponsors, including foreign mercenaries.

Among the candidates for the role of gendarme is the company Greystone Limited, registered in Barbados, which is integrated with the Academi corporation,” it said.

It is an analogue, or, probably, an affiliate body of the Blackwater private army, whose soldiers have been accused of committing rigorous and regular human rights abuses in troubled regions.

Note: Greystone is a private company. It separated from Academi in 2010. Both firms maintain close ties. They operate the same way. They do so extrajudicially.

“It looks as though this practice, if it really is implemented, goes against the Ukrainian laws that ban foreign citizens from working with private security companies,” said Russia’s Foreign Ministry.

Such initiatives demonstrate that those who have conquered their place in power in Kiev cannot guarantee minimal order or even their own security.

The question arises, what the price of this plan is and where the money will come from.

To what extent will the burden of spending on highly-paid foreign specialists be shifted to ordinary Ukrainians who, in connection with the painful tax increase, including taxes on gas as the precondition for securing loans from the International Monetary Fund, will have to tighten their belts even stronger?

VOR cited Itar Tass saying Kiev putschists believe they’re unable to suppress Eastern resistance on their own. They can’t eliminate activist leaders.

Coup-appointed Kiev president Oleksandr Turchynov agreed, saying:

Therefore it was decided to ‘attract’ foreign mercenaries, who will serve as political police and state security protection.

They’ll operate extrajudicially. They’ll do so unaccountably. They’re licensed to kill.

VOR said coup-appointed governors Igor Kolomoisky and Sergei Taruta are involved. They’re multi-billionaire oligarchs. Earlier Kolomoisky said:

(W)hy reinvent the wheel if there are real people who understand how and how much to pay.

They’re hired guns. They’re unrestricted by US, international or local laws. They’re free from civil or criminal accountability.

Under Article 47 of the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions:

A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities:

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of the Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.”

Washington uses them in conflict areas. They serve its imperial agenda. They’re doing so in Ukraine. Perhaps hundreds more will be sent.

Maybe they’re in Crimea. Perhaps covertly. Maybe elsewhere in Eastern Ukraine. They’re not good will ambassadors. They’re well-trained killers. They’re experts. They’re hired for their skills. They’re licensed to use them. They take full advantage.

On May 11, Itar Tass headlined “Donetsk referendum organizers plan to begin ‘civilized divorce’ with Kiev authorities.”

They’ll convene a regional congress of deputies. Central Election Commission head Boris Litvinov explained, saying:

We want to be a party to the negotiating process, which rests on the will of the people, and to build relations with all states on the basis of equal rights.

Sunday’s referendums were absolutely legal, he stressed. Claims otherwise are false.

“People (stood) in 300-400 meter lines. Doing so showed enormous interest in voting. “Even in the Soviet times we never saw such queues,” Litvinov added.

Late afternoon Sunday reports said Lugansk turnout topped 75%. Earlier ones indicated Donetsk exceeded 50%. Later ones said over 70%. Preliminary results will be announced overnight Monday. Final ones will follow. Perhaps by Monday afternoon.

Slavyansk activists reported Kiev military attacks. According to one named Vlad:

The artillery fire was so loud, that the earth and houses shook.

I have been trying to call the people at the checkpoint but they don’t pick up.

There are snipers in the area and it’s too dangerous to speak on the phone.

RT International’s Paula Slier tweeted “#Slavyansk: Some polling stations (were) guarded by Cossacks.”

“Roman #Lyagin, chair of central #election commission, ‘This is will of people.The world can say this is bad idea but it’s idea of the people.”

“People patiently wait(ed) outside voting stations in #Donetsk #referendum.”

Donetsk People’s Governor Pavel Gubarev said his region and Lugansk will become new legal entities.

“The referendum(s) for us (are) about creating a new state paradigm,” he explained.

Kiev’s illegitimate foreign ministry issued a statement, saying:

Organizers of this criminal farce have consciously violated the Ukrainian constitution and laws, and have neglected calls coming from the authorities in Ukraine and from the international community.

Kiev forces seized four Krasnoarmeisk schools. Polling stations were inside. Voters were ordered out.

Ballots and voter rolls were confiscated. Krasnoarmeisk’s executive committee building was seized. It was blocked so no one could get in or out.

Communication was lost with two Krasny Liman referendum committees. Kiev forces clashed with activists there.

Donetsk People’s Republic leader Denis Pushilin explained what happened. At the same time, Lugansk press spokesman Vasily Nikitin reported National Guard elements “intimidating” residents.

They “move(d) military hardware from one settlement to another.”

Note: Many polling stations remained open until 10PM local time. Others closed between 6 and 8PM. They did so for security reasons. Eastern Ukraine is a war zone. 

Voting under these conditions risked people’s lives. High numbers turned out anyway. Fundamental rights matter more. So does real democracy.

On Saturday, Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement, saying:

The Bolivarian Republic “does not recognize and will not recognize as legal a government that emerged as a result of a state coup.”

In view of a regrettable development of events in Ukraine, the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela confirms that it rejects violent processes that, with the support of the United States and NATO, led to the overthrow of the government, jeopardizing the peace and unity of the Ukrainian people as well as the stability of the entire Eurasian region.

Until free elections are held in Ukraine and broad dialogue starts, Venezuela will keep warning the world’s nations of the danger of foreign interference, speaking for the creation of a multipolar world that guarantees the peace and sovereignty of all peoples.

RT International reported “Kiev troops roll(ing) through E. Ukraine in ‘bid to disrupt voting.’”

Fascists operate this way. Democracy is considered verboten. Attacks tried blocking its emergence. Efforts failed. Turnout was impressive. Voters want freedom most of all.

Weeks earlier poll numbers showed Putin’s popularity topped 80%. Most Russians support him. They praised him. They believe he’s governing responsibly.

Last December, UK broadsheet The Times named him International Person of the Year. He succeeded in reestablishing Russia as a major international problem-solving country, it said.

On Saturday, Henry Kissinger debunked notions about Putin initiating Eastern Ukrainian conflict conditions.

He had nothing to do with what’s ongoing, he said. “(W)e ought to settle the Ukrainian issue first, and then have a discussion about relations with Russia,” he added.

On March 5, he headlined a Washington Post op-ed “How the Ukraine crisis ends,” saying:

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going?

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West.

But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other – it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia can’t force Ukraine into satellite status, he said. Western nations “must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country.”

It was part of Russia for centuries. Their histories are closely intertwined.

“The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis,” said Kissinger.

Western residents mostly speak Ukrainian. Eastern ones mostly Russian. Any attempt by either side “to dominate the other (will) lead eventually to civil war or break up.”

Treating Ukraine “as part of an East-West confrontation (will) scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West…into a cooperative international system.”

“The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country…”

A “wise US policy” would seek East/West “cooperation.”

Demonizing Putin isn’t sound policy, said Kissinger. It’s “an alibi for the absence of one.”

Understanding Russian tradition isn’t America’s long suit, he explained.

He laid out his notion of outcome compatibility representing interests of all sides, saying:

Ukraine should freely choose its economic and political associations.

It shouldn’t join NATO.

Its government should represent all its people. It should resolve East/West differences.

It’s “incompatible with the rules of the existing order for Russia to annex Crimea.”

“(I)t should be possible to put (its) relationship with Ukraine on a less fraught basis.”

Kiev “should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections” internationally monitored.

Kissinger called his notions “principles, not prescriptions.” Key isn’t “absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction,” he added.

If differences aren’t resolved, “confrontation will accelerate.”

It’s happening in real time. It bears repeating. Fascist regimes operate this way. Washington and Kiev are two sides of the same coin.

One decides. The other obeys.

Kissinger omitted explaining what’s most important. As Nixon/Ford National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, he was part of Washington’s dirty system.

His rap sheet is bloodstained. He was an early architect of new world order lawlessness. He’s guilty of multiple crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. In late May, he’ll be 91. His op-eds or other actions can’t undo enormous harm he caused. He remains unaccountable.

At the same time, he largely addressed Ukraine sensibly. He foresaw what’s unfolding. It’s prelude to what’s likely much worse to come.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

___________
Nato False Flags In Ukraine
Truthseeker
___________

CIA Death Squads Revealed In The Ukraine

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

 

Prison Planet.com
May 10, 2014

David Knight covers the unconstitutional actions of the secret FISA court, the laws that allow hidden control of our government as well as the issues facing the West in the Ukraine.

___________

Civil War Has Begun in Ukraine

Eric Zuesse
Washington’s Blog
May 10, 2014

“Today’s massacre is Mariupol. They are just shooting people. They shot 12 cops that would not take part and about 18 (number on the fly right now). They are using rpgs, tanks and mounted guns. It’s still going on. In Slavyansk they just shot a 12-year-old twice for wearing a St George ribbon [marking support for Russian-speaking Ukrainians].” message from an eastern Ukrainian, to me on May 9th

The  conservative newspaper Kyiv Post  headlines, also on 9 May 2014, “Ten People Injured Brought to Mariupol Hospital,” and reports that, “Ten people with gunshot wounds have been hospitalized in Mariupol, where shooting continues since morning, local mass media outlet reported. … According to the information of the media outlet, ‘representatives of the Donetsk People’s Republic have seized a tank at the crossing of Lenin and Torhova [Streets].’”

The same day, the same newspaper banners, “Avakov Says 21 dead in Mariupol After Clashes Between Police and Separatists,” and reports: “At least 21 people died in clashes between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol in Donetsk Oblast, according to Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. He said that some 60 ‘terrorists’ with automatic weapons attacked the city police headquarters earlier today and attempted to take over the building ‘without any preliminary demands.’

‘There was a fight in the building, which turned into a full-scale military clash after reinforcements arrived from the police and Omega unit of the National Guard,’ Avakov wrote on his Facebook page. He said 20 separatists died and four were arrested on the separatist side, and only one dead on the government side.” So, according to the central government official Avakov, some “60 ‘terrorists’ with automatic weapons” who were “separatists” had fought against Avakov’s forces, and “20 separatists died,” while there was “only one dead on the government side,” even though they had been fighting “some 60 ‘terrorists’ with automatic weapons.” Who, then, were really the ‘terrorists’ here? The Ukrainian central government is having trouble lying: they’re not as skilled at it as their sponsors inside the U.S. White House and State Department are: they need lots of professional training.

Radio Liberty headlines, also on May 9th, “Heavy Clashes In Mariupol As Ukrainian Security Forces Target Separatists,” and reports not just Mariupol, but that:

“In separatist-controlled Luhansk, veterans rallied beneath flags of the self-declared Luhansk People’s Republic.” Moreover, ”In Odesa, a crowd of some 70 pro-Russian separatists marched to the trade union building to lay wreaths at a makeshift memorial to the dozens of people who were killed in a fire there during clashes with government supporters last week.”

On May 7th, Kyiv Post bannered, “Donetsk: Eastern Ukraine descends into chaos, lawlessness,” and reported that men in the east were secretly forming self-defense forces and “are armed with everything from wooden clubs and daggers to double-barreled hunting rifles and Kalashnikovs.” Another story in the same paper bannered “Ukrainians form militias to defend nation against chaos,” and reported that, at the same time, “Andriy Tarasenko, a high-ranking member of nationalist group Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), told the Kyiv Post that its military wing is cooperating with authorities on forming partisan units.” In other words: this is going to be a war between, on the one side, Russian-speaking Ukrainians armed with hunting rifles; and, on the other side, Ukrainian Nazis armed by the U.S. Then, a third story in that same day’s edition of that same paper was headlined, “Odessa: Who is to blame for 46 Odessa deaths?” It reported that, “Despite rumors [which were being spread by Kiev’s central government] that there were Russian citizens among the dead, all the identified victims turned out to be from Odessa.” (The central government pretends that their enemy is Russia, not the majority of residents in the eastern half of Ukraine, even though that’s what they’re actually attacking.)

On May 5th, Reuters had bannered “Ukraine Moves Forces to Odessa, Helicopter Downed in East,” and reported that, “The violence in Odessa marked a watershed for Ukraine.” It certainly did. The myth that the Obama Administration is on the side of democrats in Ukraine is now ended forever.

That “violence in Odessa” had occurred on May 2nd. That’s when neo-Nazis, called “Right Sector” or “Pravy Sektor,” were sent in by the Kiev central government (the government that the U.S. installed to run Ukraine), to do what the local government officials in Odessa had refused to do, which was to kill all of the people who were occupying that city’s Trade Unions Building, where the workers were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the people who opposed Ukraine’s central government and thus didn’t resist this occupation of their building. The building’s occupiers also set up tents in front of the building, from which they distributed political literature that was unfavorable to the central government in Kiev.

The central government ordered the local Odessa police to assist the Pravy Sektor people in this killing operation. At the start of that operation, a large number of the local police force publicly threw down their shields and walked off, very publicly resigning from the police force.

All of this — the invasion of the Trade Unions Building, the throwing-down of shields, and the massacre of the people inside the building — is shown in cellphone videos that were posted to the Internet and youtube on May 2nd, as these events were unfolding. Those videos are shown here. The entire massacre is shown there, from start to finish. That report opens with an introduction describing it:

“For the first time in history, an organized massacre of civilians has been filmed by many people from many different angles and perspectives while it was happening, and is documented in extraordinary detail in ‘real time,’ the perpetrators having no fear of any negative consequences from their endeavor, and even cheering and celebrating the tortures and deaths as they were being imposed upon the helpless victims. The perpetrators were unconcerned, because what they were doing was what the government (which the U.S. had imposed upon their country and which U.S. taxpayers had spent more than 5 billion dollars to bring about there) had wanted them to do, and had helped to organize them to carry out. These people were just having fun, like a party to them, nothing really serious at all. Sort of like Stanley Kubrick’s movie A Clockwork Orange, more than, say Auschwitz (such a bore!). But, if so, a hundredfold more. And none of these people (tragically including the victims) were actors!”

I wrote that, as the introduction to my news-report on that massacre, because after watching all of those videos, I was crying, and I wanted people to be prepared for a documentary experience that I had found, while preparing it, to be, in a way, even more gruesome than the documentaries on the anti-Semitic Holocaust were, because, this time, the perpetrators weren’t grim at all: they didn’t need to be paid to do this; it was play not work for them; you look at what they are doing and you see that it’s just one huge party for them; so many times their voices burst collectively into cheers as someone jumps from a window of the burning Trade Unions Building and isn’t even allowed to die in peace but is instead immediately attacked and beaten to death and the corpse is promptly just dragged off to who-knows-what, who-knows-where. (According to one account presented there, it was to someplace “six kilometers from Odessa,” but nobody other than the authorities and their perpetrators can really know for sure.

Also included there is the still-photo of the first published list of the identities of the first 36 of the corpses that remained on the premises and were able to be identified.

So many roasted corpses strewn around so many rooms of that building are hard to take, but the ones with gouged-out eyes are even harder to take; and the still photo of the young very pregnant woman who was lying on her back, half-draped over what was perhaps her work-desk there, after having been strangled to death by use of an electrical cord — a two-for-one killing occurring so late in a pregnancy — has a poignancy about it that is simply classic: this photo-image should be pinned to Barack Obama’s desk, perhaps near his Nobel Peace Prize.

Will Mr. Obama now return his Nobel Peace Prize? Will the Nobel Committee demand it back? After all, he installed this central government (see here and here), and he spent more than five billion dollars from U.S. taxpayers on the effort to install it (according to Victoria Nuland, his agent who had selected the people to lead the Ukrainian central government after having booted Viktor Yanukovych and installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his fascist team in their stead). (Nuland was especially famous for her “F–k the EU” remark, but Obama now is seeking the support of EU leaders.)

Just as there is resistance to Obama’s people on the part of the local policemen in eastern Ukraine, there also is resistance to Obama’s people on the part of some European Union officials and heads-of-state. On May 9th, Reuters headlined “EU’s Barroso Says Europe Divided Over Ukraine Crisis,” and reported that, “He said settling on a united response was ‘still a work in progress’ given different views by EU member states. ‘And this, let’s be honest, this is the issue,’ he said. EU countries have moved slowly towards agreeing a tougher line on applying sanctions against Russian companies but Barroso’s comments underline how difficult it will be to reach any more far-reaching agreement. Differences within the 28-member bloc, much of which depends on Russian gas supplies, have stood in the way of agreement on toughening the limited sanctions against members of the Russian elite. Germany, Europe’s most powerful economy, is urging more room for diplomacy while others, including Britain and France [are] pushing for tougher action. German growth could be reduced by up to 0.9 percentage points this year if the EU imposes tougher sanctions, a German magazine reported, citing a European Commission study.”

Barroso said that he personally favors the EU’s participating in Obama’s operation on this, because he wants the U.S. aristocracy to continue controlling the world: ”Barroso, who said he had met Russian President Vladimir Putin more than 20 times during his time in office and had spoken frequently with him during the crisis, said Putin’s ambition to strengthen ties with some of the former Soviet Union states to create a new Eurasian Union was behind the crisis. ’He wants to build on that and enlarge it to become a Eurasian Union, a kind of a pole of power opposed to the European Union, unfortunately,’ he said.” Barroso equated “the European Union” with Obama; and “a Eurasian Union” with an anti-European union, both positions being at least very questionable, and probably outright false. (After all, Nuland had said “F–k the EU.”) Yet, he acknowledged that perhaps Germany, and some other EU nations, might not agree with his dubious assumptions on this.

In a remarkable lapse, by reporting with a significant modicum of honesty, The New York Times headlined on May 4th, “Ukraine’s Reins Weaken as Chaos Spread,” (even the headline there was honest) and Andrew E. Kramer reported, with some accuracy, on the immediate sequel to the world’s best-documented massacre, which had so transparently been carried out on behalf of the Government that we had installed in Ukraine. He opened by transmitting the Obama Administration’s line, as represented here by the man whom Obama (through Nuland) had chosen to run Ukraine for the time being, Arseniy Yatsenyuk: “Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine spun further out of the central government’s control on Sunday [May 4th] as a mob [on the Russian side, the NYT calls them 'a mob,' though it was actually our own side here, which was that: they operated like a ‘mob’] stormed a police station in this Black Sea port [Odessa] and freed from detention 67 pro-Russian militants [that's the NYT's term, 'militants,' for people who simply wanted protection from our actual mob, of not 'militants,' but straight-out Ukrainian fascists], on the same day that Ukraine’s prime minister was visiting the city. It was intended to be a chance for the prime minister, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, to express condolences for the dozens of people who died here on Friday in street fighting [the NYT's euphemism for the massacre inside the Trade Unions Building] and in a horrific fire at a trade union building, and to reinforce the government’s narrative that Russia and inept or disloyal local police were to blame. Speaking at a news conference, Mr. Yatsenyuk cast aspersion on the police, suggesting that if they had done their jobs instead of concentrating on soliciting bribes at an outdoor market, ‘these terrorist organizations would have been foiled.’” Thus far, Mr. Kramer has done the usual NYT thing of serving as the U.S. President’s stenographer, not a journalist at all, though this time through the President’s agent, “Yats” as Nuland had so famously and endearingly referred to the man she selected to run Ukraine. Thus far, Kramer’s “reporting” is no different from what the NYT’s star reporter on Iraq, Judith Miller, had done during the build-up to our 2003 invasion of Iraq in order to eliminate equally fictitious “Saddam’s WMD.” And there is much more in Kramer’s story that comes straight out of the same playbook. However, there also was this morsel of almost straightforward truth in the story:

“As the building burned, Ukrainian activists [a euphemism intended to confuse the reader which side was which, because these people were on our side, against the Ukrainians who were being massacred] sang the Ukrainian national anthem [because they were fascist Ukrainians, which the NYT also doesn't want you to recognize], witnesses on both sides said. They also hurled a new taunt: ‘Colorado’ for the Colorado potato beetle, striped red and black like the pro-Russian ribbons [worn by the people who were being massacred]. Those [fascists who were] outside chanted ‘burn Colorado, burn,” witnesses said. Swastikalike symbols were spray painted on the building, along with graffiti reading ‘Galician SS’ [Hitler's Ukrainian Waffen SS division], though it was unclear when it had appeared, or who had painted it. [That statement by Kramer is a pro-U.S.-Administration lie.] ‘The biggest thing they ever did to make me hate this country was sing the anthem,’ Mr. Milteynus ['Yanus Milteynus, a 42-year-old construction worker and pro-Russian activist' who survived the massacre] said. ‘I was going to die, and they sang the anthem. [He did it to save his life.] I hate them deeply.’”

Kramer closed by quoting the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, the man whom Nuland had instructed to appoint “Yats” to run the country, and our Ambassador used here the same line that his chosen stooge, Yatsenyuk, used at the start of Kramer’s story: “Geoffrey R. Pyatt, in a telephone interview with CNN, called for an investigation into the violence here and suggested that local police [who refused to participate in it] were complicit [in it].”

Then came Kramer’s capstone lie: “The causes of the fire at the trade union building and [of] its terrible toll in lives is [are] sure to be carefully parsed.” If he really cared about such things, he could have just looked at those videos and seen the answer to that question — and reported on that matter — but it’s too hard to lie when the evidence is so blatant, so his newspaper wouldn’t do such a foolish thing. Even Judith Miller wouldn’t have done it. So, instead, Kramer just issued here the question, as if (and pretending that) it didn’t already have an awesomely documented answer, which he’s essentially not being permitted to report.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

___________

Ukrainian Government Sides with Neo-Nazis Against Own People – Lavrov

RIA Novosti
May 6, 2014

VIENNA, May 6 (RIA Novosti) – The West continues to ignore the fact that Ukrainian army is fighting side by side with neo-Nazis against their own people, Russian Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday.

Lavrov said that European Union and US officials avoid commenting on the fact that the Ukrainian army was ordered to fight together with neo-Nazi groups against protesters in eastern and southeastern regions.

“In the midst of February Maidan confrontations in Kiev, NATO Defense Ministers and Secretary General stated the inadmissibility of intervention of the armed forces of Ukraine in the political process, and insisted on the neutrality of the army,” Lavrov said.

The Russian foreign minister said that Brussels and Washington continue to confirm the legitimacy of the so-called “anti-terrorist operation” led by Kiev’s authorities explaining that the state has the monopoly on the use of armed forces.

Since seizing power on February 22, the coup-installed government has sought to reinforce the country’s regular military forces with members of radical groups who fought against police during the street violence in Kiev.

Radical nationalist movements were an important force at the so-called Euromaidan protests that erupted in Kiev last November. Activists took part in the seizure of administration buildings, stole weapons and attacked security forces. Currently, far-right activists are involved in suppressing pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukrainian regions.

Dmitry Yarosh, a notorious leader of the ultranationalist Right Sector movement, announced last month the creation of paramilitary units whose aim would be to help regular troops to crush dissent in the east. Since that time, their involvement in deadly violence in rebel regions has been widely reported by pro-federalization protesters.

The country’s authorities have also established the National Guard, a new military structure made of “troops loyal to the new regime and self-defense units” formed by Euromaidan protesters this winter.

“All the members of the Council of Europe must firmly stop the ultra-nationalists activities, and those who indulge the ideology and the practice of fascism cannot be justified, even if they were politicians enjoying the protection of the enlightened western democracies,” Lavrov said.

The growing political influence of neo-Nazis and ultranationalists in Ukraine has raised concerns among the country’s Russian speakers and other national minorities, prompting several eastern and southeastern regions to demand greater autonomy or even secession.

The incumbent government comprises members of the notorious neo-Nazi Svoboda party, an active promoter of ultranationalist ideas. Its members follow ideas of Stepan Bandera, who collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II and is known for atrocities committed during the wartime ethnic cleansing of Poles, Jews and Russians.

With the presidential campaign in Ukraine in full swing, a slew of Ukrainian presidential candidates have been actively propagating their far-right views, including Yarosh and Svoboda member Oleh Tyahnybok.

About these ads

About this entry