“The U.S. is sending about 600 ground troops to Eastern Europe … to ‘reassure’ allies there as Washington resumes its campaign of pressure on Russia over the Ukraine standoff.” — POLITICO How many American parents would…
Tag: Russia
Writing in 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted that the Ukraine would become a serious candidate for EU and NATO membership sometime between 2005 and 2015. He further predicted that, beyond 2010, the Ukraine could link up with France, Germany and Poland to establish a ‘critical core’ for Europe’s future security and provide an ‘Eastern anchor’ for ‘Atlanticist Europe’. (See Brzezinski The Grand Chessboard and Foreign Affairs Sept-Oct 1997). Later that year he wrote that Ukraine had no realistic chance of pursuing a ‘multi-vector’ policy, of facing both East and West. It would either be reintegrated into the CIS, or it would become a de facto Central European State. The latter would enable the Ukraine to become an ‘integral part of the Euro-Atlantic community’ (See Brzezinski ‘Ukraine’s Critical Role in the Post-Soviet Space’ Politics and the Times 1997).
Does Washington want a war with Russia? A review of recent US actions surrounding the crisis in Ukraine clearly poses what would have once seemed an unthinkable question. The Obama administration is playing a very…
Robert Parry: The Obama administration and Kiev government claimed that Russian soldiers were present at the building occupations, yet it turns out that this was assertion based on photos the U.S. government provided to NYTimes…
The United States is in the opening phase of a war on Russia. Policymakers in Washington have shifted their attention from the Middle East to Eurasia where they hope to achieve the most ambitious part of the imperial project; to establish forward-operating bases along Russia’s western flank, to stop further economic integration between Asia and Europe, and to begin the long-sought goal of dismembering the Russian Federation. These are the objectives of the current policy. The US intends to spread its military bases across Central Asia, seize vital resources and pipeline corridors, and encircle China in order to control its future growth. The dust-up in Ukraine indicates that the starting bell has already been rung and the operation is fully-underway.
Ok, first the necessary caveats: 1) Kerry and Lavrov already had a deal on Syria, also made in Geneva, but then the USA reneged. 2) The EU also had a deal on the Ukraine with Yanukovich, who was overthrown literally the next day. 3) The USA, NATO and the EU have lied, cheated, mis-represented, twisted and simply betrayed pretty much every promise which they made to Russia ever since Russia freed itself from the yoke of Communism in 1991. 4) The USA probably has as much control over the Ukrainian crazies a la Right Sector as it does over al-Qaeda, tenuous at best. 5) Putin does have a lot of “street cred” in the eastern Ukraine, but it is far from being infinite. 6) The USA does have full control over the Ukrainian oligarchs, but they, in turn, are clearly in a struggle with the nationalist crazies who probably have more firepower and crowd muscle than these oligarchs.
There are many potentially worrying signs in the ‘de-escalation’ process in theory agreed by the US, Russia, EU and Ukraine this Thursday in Geneva. For starters; the regime changers in power in Kiev did not commit themselves, explicitly, to constitutional reform (the draft language is slippery, to say the least); they did not commit, explicitly, to leaving Ukraine out of NATO; and a minor but still significant point – this was not a joint press conference by the two key players, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry. Arguably, the US State Department is bound to interpret ‘de-escalation’ as a sort of ultimatum to every anti-fascist, pro-autonomy and pro-Russia group in eastern Ukraine, as in ‘disarm or else’. That’s the same logic behind the nefarious March 2011 UN approval of a no-fly zone over Libya.
FULL VIDEO: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38254.htm “This is nonsense, there are no Russian troops in the east of Ukraine,” Vladimir Putin said at an annual Q&A session, adding that the Kiev government should talk to…
On Wednesday night the crisis in the Ukraine became deadly, with 3 anti-coup rebels killed by National Guards in the Black Sea port city of Mariupol. The next day, in Geneva, the USA, Russia, EU and Ukraine reached an ‘agreement’ after just a few hours of negotiations. There follows a review of the key points in the text: “All sides must refrain from any violence, intimidation or provocative actions. The participants strongly condemned and rejected all expressions of extremism, racism and religious intolerance, including anti-Semitism.” How can the coup government keep a straight face and add its signature to this statement? This is a regime that placed a fascist in charge of National Security. After the coup Andriy Parubiy was appointed secretary (the operational head) of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine. Between 1998-2004 he was the leader of the Patriots of Ukraine, the paramilitary wing of what would go on to become the Svoboda party.
As the tanks roll in, the USA/EU/NATO imperialist axis that has almost destroyed the Ukraine plans ever closer co-operation On Sunday John Brennan, the CIA Director, paid a secret visit to the Ukraine (http://rt.com/usa/white-house-confirms-cia-ukraine-448/) . Within 48 hours, Ukrainian armed services launched a controlled assault against rebel positions in the Eastern Ukraine. Repeated claims by the Ukrainian regime and its sponsors in Brussels and Washington that this is an anti-terrorist operation are distortions of reality. The rebellion in the East has genuine popular support, but the mainstream media, the USA/EU/NATO axis, and its puppet regime in the Ukraine cannot allow this fact to become widely known and understood because then people might start to ask questions, like: ‘Why did the “international community” sponsor and support a violent coup by a nationalist mob against an elected government when it knew all along that half of the population, together with a closely related and powerful neighbour, would NEVER accept the outcome?’