Russia Won’t Play into Washington’s Hands


, , , , , ,


Fighting in eastern Ukraine on the border with Russia goes on. Ukrainian border guards and other military personnel seem not to be very well trained, because the shells they are firing keep straying into Russian territory. On the other hand, their “inaccuracy” could be interpreted as an attempt to do as much damage as possible to Russian border stations, which hundreds of Ukrainians are using to flee into Russia.

This appears to be an attempt to provoke Russia into striking back, in order to involve it in the conflict between Kiev and the anti-Maidan fighters. If Russia did this, the failures of Kiev and its armed forces could be blamed on Russia.

The mobilization announced in the Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa regions is nothing more than a propagandistic gesture; Ukraine will hardly risk attacking Crimea, as this would entail a firm and adequate response. This is likely a reactive action on the part of Kiev, rather than real preparations for a war to retake Crimea. Ukraine is unable to do this. It’s true that President Poroshenko said that Crimea would eventually return into the fold of Ukraine, and the new Defense Minister Valeriy Heletey promised to “restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine” and even to hold “a victory parade in Ukraine’s Sevastopol.” But Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has responded by saying that he “would not advise anyone to do this.”

The Russian Defense Ministry issued a biting reply to Heletey’s arrogant but unsubstantiated statements, saying that those who had planned to hold a parade in Red Square during WWII were later marched under Soviet guard along the Garden Ring in 1944. And if Valeriy Heletey wanted to march on the same route, under escort by Russian soldiers, this could be easily arranged for him.

Russia doesn’t see Ukraine as an enemy. This perspective is simply inconceivable. Ukraine could never be Russia’s enemy. It is a fraternal state and part of Russians’ history and life. But the current Kiev government is made up of a group of people who are hostile to Russia. Still, we never conflate the pro-fascist Kiev government with the Ukrainian people.

I can’t imagine what would have to happen to provoke hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. Russia will never start a war against Ukraine, also because this would only benefit the United States. And Russia won’t play into Washington’s hands.


Can Sanctions Stop Putin?


, , , , ,

By– Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes

please visit(for full story and analysis) —-



, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



The western&American media and their govts left no stone unturned to lampoon Russia on every account of Ukrainian crisis but it intentionally hided various facts and realities about Ukrainian crisis.They played respectively to the tune of the ugly,provocative foreign policies of their govts and gave up all their journalistic attitude to give false picture to the people in western world.



The first and foremost thing they hide from people about NATO’S alleged east-ward expansion which is/was the bone of of contention between russia and the west.This has happened due to their firm faith in american exceptional-ism and western dominance which do not recognise multi-polarism,equal partnership,peaceful settlement,economic prosperity of emerging economies in Asia,Africa and Latin America.So they blindly support anything which would not disturb the post cold war global order which would give upper-hand to USA and it’s allies.So from the very dawn of cold war and in post cold war period,they have invested their intelligence and hard working to promote information war against the other nations to promote the the american and western interests and belittling and insulting others.The large shares of global information services belong to the united states and it’s western allies.They have resource,money and infra-structure which have been well used by the western media agencies.The intent is very clear-to rule the world by the use of force and threat of sanction as USA and it’s allies own 100% of world reserve currency.This has become a convenient tool to rule the world after post-colonial period starting from world war 1st.Most of the wetsern and ameican journalists,academicians and experts are complacent to that idea and they think(and make their target audience think)west and united states can do no wrong.The united states and it’s allies does not share more than 30 to 40 % of global population but control almost lions share of global resources.These govts and their corporates exert influence on the global information flow.So anyone who doubts western strategy,questions western and american unilateral interference are demonized on day to day basis in their respective media plat-forms.So russia and putin have been relentlessly vilified and criticized.


The western media and it’s american counterpart did not mention anything about western and american involvement in Ukrainian crisis.The maidan groups,Neo-Nazis,right sectors got their moral and massive information support which concealed the money and training given to the violent activists by foreign governments.The voice of the people of eastern Ukraine which is the largest part of Ukraine was systematically marginalized by the western and american media groups which instead accused russia of spreading violence and propaganda.The notion, they try to establish is that The Maidan protesters of Kiev was at the right side of the history and those who do not support them are being influenced by the russian propaganda.This tendency is dangerous because it does not give any chance to represent other’s perspective of a particular incident or event.As English is the most dominant language in the world and western world controls all the english media houses, they have used this opportunity to air their one sided view of Ukrainian incidents to tarnish Russia’s image accusing russian interference in Ukrainian affairs.


The western media deliberately ignored the legitimacy of Yunakovich and stood behind the post coup govt while Yunakovich was a legitimately and democratically elected president however good or bad he might be.Will western media support removal of western or american leader through violent protsets and impeach the head of state at gun-point as it happened in Ukraine?If the western and american media really stands for democracy it would not have supported post-Yunakovich govt till the next election.Even Mr. Porshenko who is the current president has been elected without the participation of larger population of eastern Ukraine in the presidential election held in may2014,is getting western media and governmental support though his legitimacy is also questionable.If it happened in any country who are not western and american friendly,these media-monkeys of west started to chant the words of disapproval and threat of sanction along with their govts.But as Ukraine is having an anti-russian president so nothing will be said on this account.



The civilian casualties due to military operation in eastern Ukraine and collapse of infra-structure and security have been broadly ignored by the western/american media houses as their govts decided to be blind on the use of forces against eastern Ukraine.The massive human rights violations have been deliberately ignored by western press – it clearly indicates that they are working hands in gloves with their govts and intelligence agencies to legitimize Kiev action.They supported violent pro-western protests but refused to support so called violent anti-kiev protests of east.The 40 unarmed people who were burnt alive in Donetsk did not get any importance in western reporting.



The refugee crisis evolved during the military operation has been grossly disregarded by the free(!?) press of west and usa.At first they completely denied the facts and accepted the line of state department which intentionally failed to recognize the problem in broad day-light.When they had to accept,they started to dispute the number of refugees turning the core issue of refugee problem and rehabilitation diluted.



Their energy and money solely involved and invested into anti-russian campaign and representing the russian media especially the Channel RT as propaganda machine of Kremlin.Their attitude and the attitude of pro-kiev media are same and they are silent about their own propaganda campaign.They are not able to digest the fact that Russia has equal right to present another perspective of the Ukrainian incident.



The sheer activity of western and american media is really questionable and their free-ness and fairness are in doubt.The main thing which they demonstrated in the entire event is their double-standard,double speaking and hypocrisy and unquestionable skill/efficiency to instigate hatred and distrust between nations.

The US and Ukraine: Deconstructing Political Rhetoric


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The US and Ukraine: Deconstructing Political Rhetoric

by Alexander Bessmertnykh

By issuing a statement that failed to mention Crimea’s integration into the Russian Federation, the four-way meeting held in Geneva signaled a milestone in the Ukrainian drama. Crimea’s reunification with Russia is now taken for granted.

Moving forward, the illegitimate authorities in Kiev attempt to misrepresent the consequences of their destructive policies for some time, but will not succeed in hiding evidence of what was done against Ukraine’s true interests.

With regard to the United States, I can’t remember a single time when Washington displayed such nervousness, and even bewilderment, as in the recent months in connection with the developments in Ukraine. Things went so far as to make President Putin call on the Americans and their allies to “stop the hysteria” and “renounce Cold War rhetoric.” It goes without saying that Washington’s nervous attempts to threaten Russia with something more serious than a cold war are totally unacceptable.

Divergent approaches

This imitation, presumably unconscious, of the neocon rhetoric and acts that did a lot of damage to the USA’s international reputation, is only weakening the hand of the current US leaders. What is more, it makes even less likely the prospect of achieving a shared understanding of the risks related to the deteriorating situation in Ukraine and reaching the necessary level of concord between Moscow and Washington on measures to prevent the situation from sliding into the abyss of an unpredictable conflict.

If my many years of experience in dealing with US administrations, both democratic and republican, can serve as any guide, a mutual ability to stop when sliding down a slippery slope has always saved the two nations from disasters that would have been unacceptable both for themselves and the rest of the world. Keeping a cool head is crucial. An awareness of all the ins and outs that affect the behavior of the other party is also essential.

Some analysts suggest that the growing US arrogance is due to the fact that having the biggest military budget in the world the United States has yielded to the temptation to expand the Monroe doctrine – banning any interference in what the US views as its vital interest – to encompass the entire world. It is allegedly for this reason that the United States is so possessive with regard to Ukraine, a major European country which has long become a point of interest for Washington. This perspective is wide off the mark and has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Moreover, it fails to take into account one fundamental fact. Ukraine and Russia share a common history, an age-old kinship and a common fate. Ukrainians and Russians formed a single ethnic community long ago and this historical past is indivisible. They are actually closer to one another than, say, the British, Americans and Australians.

It cannot be denied, of course, that we have been separated to some extent after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but this didn’t go so far as to completely alienate the two peoples.

Ukraine has been weakened by long-time political instability and a failure of its fragmented elite to ensure national cohesion, exposing it to US and Western influences. These power centers view Ukraine, first and foremost, as a springboard for efforts to weaken Russia and disrupt integration process within the post-Soviet space. For them, Ukraine is not so much a subject as a strategic object. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the interests pursued in Ukraine by the United States and Western Europe have always been somewhat different. For the Europeans, even though they have to toe the NATO line, Kiev has always been a neighbor involved in addressing all historic challenges of the continent, as well as an economic, cultural and trade partner. Recent developments clearly demonstrate that approaches coming from European capitals are not tainted with belligerence, notwithstanding the unprecedented pressure from Washington. High-profile political and civil society figures from leading European nations are calling for balanced and pragmatic solutions to the crisis, except for those serving in NATO structures, from where only ecstatically aggressive roars can be heard.

In order to gain a better insight into the possible motives and causes underpinning US policies regarding the Ukrainian crisis, it seems advisable to analyze Washington’s miscalculations at its key stages.

The three faces of Maidan

The Ukrainian crisis entered its active phase with the outbreak of protests on Kiev’s Maidan Square. Unable to keep up with developments, Americans spoiled their own game. The first stage of the Maidan protest movement was about young people energetically voicing their opposition to the unexpected decision by President Viktor Yanukovich to suspend Ukraine’s association with the EU. In fact, by laying the groundwork for Ukrainian accession to the EU and NATO, he inadvertently inspired a dream among a part of the country’s youth that their disorderly nation could reach the “European heaven” in a single stride. However, when the President backed out without even explaining his motives, these young people were enraged and took to the streets to erect peaceful barricades.

This was a classic Maidan-style protest: an outburst of anger and disappointment with the inconsistent and deceitful leaders. The fact that the country had failed to hold a national debate on its future and failed to take all the pros and cons into account, only made things worse. The political message was blurred, as were the country’s prospects.

I believe that the country’s elite did not have a clear understanding of the best national development trajectory. Mired in corruption, they were not willing to analyze, let alone have serious debates regarding the situation in the country, consciously avoiding the dangerous discussion of the costs of an unprepared shift to “European quality.”

However, the first romantic protesters on the Maidan were not aware of such considerations. Moreover, they were soon swept away by the second wave of protests, when extremists began flowing into Kiev from Western Ukraine to focus the national agenda on enhancing its independence, which, however, served as a cover for expanding Poland’s opportunity to influence national policy of Ukraine.

At this stage, Berlin acted highly unusually. One had the impression that Angela Merkel, perhaps for the first time, was not playing her game. She actually supported this second, radical protest wave, more likely because it had been masterminded by Warsaw. The Polish foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, was a most active, if not the leading, figure during the Kiev negotiations with the Maidan-appointed government. Berlin was clearly heeding Warsaw’s prevailing interest. But why? In recent years, Poland has become an important manufacturing base for Germany by attracting a number of major German industrial corporations. This is where Poland’s economic achievements and accelerated development came from. The interdependence that followed could have justified Berlin’s unusual positioning at this stage in the Ukrainian crisis.

These developments were soon followed by the third phase that involved bloodshed, firearms, snipers on the rooftops and loss of life. This time, Maidan was under the full control of the Right Sector, a brutal fascist-leaning organization with Nazi slogans.

Failing to understand this swift and dangerous shift in the protest movement and continuing to back the regime change in Kiev and its henchmen was the United States’ principal mistake. It supported Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and was infuriated to learn that Germany had a protégé of its own in the boxer Klichko, and were ready to go as far as to confront Berlin on this issue. Germany finally gave in, removing its man from the game. Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister and was welcomed by President Obama in the White House. Nevertheless, he returned without the promised funding ($1.2bn). But he may still get it later on.

Crimea’s reunification with Russia overshadowed all other issues in relations between the United States and Kiev and quite opportunely distracted Washington and Europe from performing their obligation to provide financial assistance to and support Ukraine, at least for a time.

The growing severity and, at times, inadequacy of US public diplomacy at this time is mostly due to Russia’s successful reunification with Crimea, which had been part of Russia for centuries before being capriciously handed over as a “gift” to Ukraine by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

While Washington’s risky behavior is understandable in terms of psychology, it is far outside the realm of normalcy in terms of political strategy, and for a reason. In fact, few people know the history of relations between the US authorities and the “Ukrainian element” in America, or how much influence the latter wields. In the wake of the Second World War, the US was proactive in attracting immigrants from the USSR and Eastern Europe, especially those hostile to their country of origin. In the 1940s, thousands of Ukrainians settled in America, mostly displaced people who had found themselves to the west of the frontline at the end of the war, i.e., in the zone controlled by the US (an ally of Russia at the time). Most of them went to the United States.

As time went by, the Ukrainian diaspora found representation in government agencies of several states and even in the US Congress. Nationalist-leaning political associations emerged, most of them hostile to the USSR. Americans oversaw their activities and kept an eye on their political views. This important feature was noticed by prominent US diplomat and foreign policy scholar George Kennan, who talked about the existence of a vociferous and influential element in the US: refugees and emigrants from non-Russian regions of the USSR, who championed the definitive destruction of the traditional Russian state. For Kennan, Ukrainians were the most proactive in this respect, since they viewed waging war against Russian people as their main objective and regarded the United States as their only ally in this respect. Their influence in D.C. and across various state capitals kept growing.

Moscow closely followed these developments, especially the links between officials and these organizations, and protested when facts emerged about anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalist centers receiving government support. Among such groups, the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, one of the main lobbyists with regard to Ukrainian politics, played a special role. US State Department representatives usually attended meetings of its Executive Board.

Even after the Cold War (what we are seeing now is merely its ugly twin), the question of whether Ukraine can break its historical ties with Russia remained relevant for Americans. This “Ukrainian factor” had a certain impact on shaping Washington’s current approaches.

That said, there are also other circumstances that should be taken into account.

The NATO factor

The United States’ initiatives in Ukraine are affected by its growing determination to lure Ukraine into NATO, which would represent a de facto breakdown in relations between Moscow and Kiev and the emergence of a 21st century “Berlin Wall.” US diplomat and former ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock said several years ago that while joining NATO would be unwise for Georgia, it would be outright suicidal for Ukraine. He went on to say that the key threats to Ukraine’s security stem from political, social, economic and linguistic divisions within the country rather than from Russian “imperialism.” From the point of view of recent events it is of interest to reproduce yet another remark made by the former ambassador: the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO would have forced Crimea and Russia to demand the restitution of the peninsula to Russia. This happened somewhat earlier, if for a similar reason.

The idea of drawing Kiev into NATO’s orbit was actively discussed in the US, particularly so in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But it didn’t seem so indisputable to the US establishment. There were differing views on the consequences of this move, which split the political class.

I would like to cite a well-known exchange between two former national security advisers – Gen. Brent Scowcroft (Rep.) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Dem.) – which took place back in 2008 and shed light on moods prevailing in the US elite with regard to the future fate of Ukraine.

Brzezinski insisted that Ukraine should not be condemned to remain in Moscow’s shadow, since it is following a program adopted, not by President Yushchenko but by his pro-Russian opponent Viktor Yanukovich, who had set the following timeframe: joining NATO’s Membership Action Plan in 2006 and acceding to NATO in 2008.

Scowcroft warned that accepting Ukraine to NATO would be viewed by Russians as an attempt to humiliate them. So it would be wiser to adopt a more cautious approach by encouraging EU expansion. A reasonable line, he said, would be to promote NATO’s parallel rapprochement with both Ukraine and Russia. He was aware that insisting on NATO membership for Ukraine would create problems for the USA given that Ukraine’s eastern regions are predominantly populated by ethnic Russians.

Judging by the White House’s public grievances against Russia, including allegations that it plans to “saw up Ukraine,” the US leadership seems to be failing to adopt an unbiased mindset regarding data coming from its intelligence services. The eventuality of the CIA Director coming to the same conclusion after his trip to Ukraine is hard to imagine. More likely than not, the White House is aware of what is happening in reality, but is unable to publicly admit it. The unelected Maidan leaders who seized power in Kiev are an albatross around their neck, and the US government has so far been unable to shake it off.

Midterm elections will be held in the United States this November, with a third of Senate seats up for grabs. Given Obama’s sliding popularity (down to 41% as of March 2014), the outcome of these elections is a matter of great concern for the White House. It is for this reason that the Ukrainian drama is to be orchestrated in such a way that the White House doesn’t look like a loser, or even comes out as a winner, although the latter option seems highly unlikely due to the previous missteps.

Powerful mechanisms for influencing international, and especially domestic, public opinion have been put into motion. For the first time ever, practically all objective information channels into the country have been shut down in the United States. All major media networks in the country were effectively forced to participate in this effort to blind US public opinion, producing an almost impermeable information shield.

Looking back at my diplomatic career, I cannot recall any single instance of US leaders offering such grossly inaccurate information on the most important aspects of any situation in hand. (A case in point is “the Russian government’s support for armed pro-Russian separatists threatening to undermine and destabilize the government of Ukraine.”)

Calling on Russia to renounce a military intervention in Ukraine is another frequently used tool for influencing public perception in the US. Since Moscow has no such plans, the absence of an “intervention” will be palmed off as a victory for Washington and a result of its stern warnings to Russia.

Finally, the United States and NATO will use the Ukrainian crisis as a pretext for “strengthening collective security” in Europe, where additional armed forces will be deployed. However, this is unlikely to happen in Germany or any other major European power. The probable candidates are the pliant Baltic states, the willing Romania and possibly Poland, which placed its bets on the Maidan. All of them certainly have the sovereign right to suit policies to their taste. Even if the taste is deceptive.

What is needed is a joint and honest search for a way out of the current crisis. It should be about ensuring real national sovereignty for Ukraine and its economic survival. This is the only thing that matters. To get there, Russia is proposing a more acceptable option that would engage all countries concerned – primarily Russia and the US – in an intensive diplomatic dialogue. In the past, Washington knew how to join hands with Moscow in order to look for and find compromises even in more difficult situations. In short, it should pull itself together and join the effort to reach historically important solutions.

Alexander Bessmertnykh is President of the International Foreign Policy Association, Chairman of the Global Council of Foreign Ministers of Foreign Affairs

Silence of the Wolves: Ukraine and the Moral Stultification of the West


, , , , , , , , , ,

Silence of the Wolves: Ukraine and the Moral Stultification of the West

by Rick Rozoff, Founder of Stop NATO project

Although all efforts have been made by the violently-installed regime in Kiev and its sponsors in the United States and Europe to, by turns or simultaneously, ignore, downplay, obfuscate and distort the horrific events in Odessa, Ukraine on Friday, May 2, what is indisputably evident is that an estimated 46 people were killed and 200 forced to seek medical treatment after assaults by pro-government forces culminated in the burning of a trade union office building.

A French novelist wrote in the 1800s of a curious trait of the human psyche that a person will perpetrate the perfect crime, then give himself away by bragging it about it to the first stranger he meets in a bar. Such indeed is the dynamic that seems to account for videos appearing on YouTube almost immediately after the carnage in Odessa demonstrating beyond a scintilla of doubt that young thugs, many with military camouflage outfits and plastic and metal military helmets, were preparing firebombs and, in one clear instance, firing a handgun in the direction of the besieged occupants of the trade union headquarters, who had fled a tent camp they had inhabited outside for shelter after the extremist goons arrived.

One cell phone video shows what appear to be members of the police force walking by and observing several young men getting Molotov cocktails ready and, far from intervening, appearing to nod their approbation. After the assailants hurled several of the handmade bombs into the building, shouts of exultation and triumph are heard, increasing in intensity as the fires caused by the bombs spread through the several-story complex.

After the tardy, unaccountably and unconscionably tardy, response by law enforcement forces and rescue workers, several of the victims who survived the onslaught were arrested and held for investigation. There are no reports indicating that the perpetrators and those who incited them were apprehended.

The U.S.- and NATO-backed regime of Arseniey Yatsenyiuk and Oleksandr Turchynov  in the nation’s capital has attempted to deflect attention from the self-evident truth of what occurred, with Turchynov stating the day after the massacre, “I’ve signed a decree on the two days mourning in Ukraine for heroes who were killed during the antiterrorist operation and people killed during the tragic events in Odesa.”

His cynical disingenuousness has been echoed, or orchestrated in conjunction with,  comparable equivocation and evasion by leaders of the U.S. and the European Union

This is as though a defendant himself presented proof of his guilt and not only confessed but celebrated his act, and the prosecutor demanded an investigation and the judge rendered an acquittal.

Western leaders will, after consulting with their public relations specialists, shed a couple of crocodile tears, lament the violence on both sides and continue to support, morally and materially, the massive, military campaign by their client regime in Kiev against what the latter invariably refers to as terrorists.

As Chechnya’s President Ramzan Kadyrov stated in relation to the above:

“Not even fascists acted like this. First, to burn people alive by blocking all entrances and setting them on fire, and then to tell the whole world that it was the people inside the building who hurled bottles with flammable substance at each other.”

Not even fascists, indeed.

There will be no outcry against the hideous barbarity motivating and characterizing the massacre in Odessa in the West; what was described on a video tape by one of its supporters as “our May barbecue.” Not one of the one hundred members of the U.S. Senate, not one of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, no member of the European Parliament will rise to denounce this outrage, more reminiscent of the behavior of Adolf Hitler’s Wehrmacht seventy years ago and or roaming bands of cutthroat mercenaries during the Thirty Years’ War four centuries ago than what people may have expected in the 21st century, in the post-Cold War epoch of what President Barack Obama embraced as the reign of “the world’s military superpower” on the occasion of his receiving – and how truly unimaginative George Orwell has been proven to have been – the Nobel Peace Prize in December of 2009.

Wolves don’t cry, not even stage tears; they howl. And tear flesh.




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.