Ukraine: Still Smouldering Tinderbox (I) [Re-blog with comments]

Below is a re-blog of Michael Jabara CARLEY’s article Ukraine: Still Smouldering Tinderbox (I) published at the Strategic Culture Foundation site.

But before I present the text, I want to add a few comments of my own, which the reader can keep in mind while reading the article.

The city of Odessa was founded in 1794 by Russian Empress Catherine II and was the first free trade port in Russia.

The city of Nikolaev was founded in 1789 by Russian Count Potjomkin as a ship-building docks. It got its present name in commemoration of the victory by the Russian troops, when Turkish fortress Ochakov was taken in 1788 on the day of St.Nikolaj.

Regarding what the American handler of the Ukrainian puppet government, Proconsul Pyatt was saying, that Russia wants to “create Novorossia”. Russia has no need to create Novorossia. Novorossia is actually an old concept – it was an administrative region within Russia at the time, when the European emigrants were still stealing the land from the Native Americans. For an in-depth look at Novorossia, see my article Two Ukraines.

Ukraine is indeed a smouldering tinderbox. For a look at what is going on, I recommend watching the English-subtittled Donetsk Republic’s Ministry of Defence Briefing: Jan. 29, 2016 Ceasefire Violations by Kiev, published at Lada Ray’s blog.

And finally, I disagree with the author’s conclusion in the last paragraph. Putin is not intimidated, but is rather trying to resolved the conflict and free Ukraine from the American occupation diplomatically and not militarily. There was also no homogeneous resistance in Donbass, but rather several groups with varying interests, which were united by not wishing to cow-tow to the coup government. This cost Donbass the loss of momentum. The situation is all to close to what Russia (an by that I also mean Ukraine) experienced after the coup d’etat of 1917 and the subsequent civil war and Western interventionism…


The international situation is very dangerous. Syria seems to be holding everyone’s attention, but the Ukrainian tinderbox still smoulders. Fascists hold power in Kiev. They do not miss an opportunity to make provocative declarations or commit hostile acts against Russia or against Russian people in Ukraine. The Kiev junta is a repressive, murderous regime intolerant of political opposition.

Former Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera have been transformed into national heroes remembered in torch light parades evocative of Nazi Germany. Violence is exalted and tawdry fascist masculinity is openly celebrated.

Recently, Petro Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine declared that in 2016 the junta would retake control of the Donbass and Crimea. Whilst the fate of the Donbass remains uncertain, the status of Crimea is clear. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said recently, Crimea is an integral part of the Russian Federation and there is nothing to «negotiate» about it. In fact, the only way Ukraine can hope to take over Crimea would be in the aftermath of a Third World War won by the United States and its NATO vassals. To say the least, this is an unlikely eventuality. Not that a world war would overly trouble the burlesque Poroshenko, who still seeks to drag the European Union (EU) and the United States deeper into the Kiev junta’s conflict with Moscow. It is his lone hope for success.

Poroshenko is only nominally «president» of Ukraine. In fact, he is an executor of directives received from the US embassy in Kiev or the US government in Washington.

He has presided over the destruction and looting of the Ukrainian economy, but he continues in power, propped up by the United States and its EU vassals. The fascist or Maidan coup d’état in February 2014, backed by the United States, has enabled Washington to seize control of Ukraine though without Crimea and Donbass. Thus it is a victory which may eventually lead to a defeat.

US intervention in Ukraine is a grave matter and a direct attack on the security of the Russian Federation. It is also an attempt to change the course of history and to break the bonds of culture, religion and kinship dating back more than one thousand years. The first Russian state was established at Kiev in the 9th century. During the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods Ukraine was a contested borderland and no-man’s land between Muscovy, then tsarist Russia, Poland-Lithuania and the Ottoman Empire. Before 1991 Ukraine never existed as an independent state, or did so only in Kiev for a few months in 1918 and 1919, and then as a puppet regime of Wilhelmine Germany or France. It is ironic that so-called Ukrainian «nationalists», then as now, could only establish their putative authority under foreign domination. Then as now, foreign powers seek to use a Ukrainian client state as a place d’armes or as a proxy to attack Russian power in Moscow.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, an eccentric politician and member of the State Duma in Russia, had this to say recently about Ukraine. Zhirinovsky often speaks the blunt truth that others may not want to hear or will not say. «All of the present day Ukraine», he said on a Russian talk show, «are the historical lands of Russia… All of Ukraine, this is Russia… When the Russian princes sat in Kiev [9th-13th centuries], was Ukraine ever a word? Who built [the cities of] Chernigov… Odessa, Nikolaiev?» It was not Ukrainians, Zhirinovsky concluded in so many words, it was Russians.

Of course, this is a Russian point of view for which the US government has no respect. Who would dare to make a claim on parts of the United States just because at one time or another they belonged to someone else? We stole those territories, fair and square, or made war to get them, an American joker might reply, and we’re not giving them back. The US ambassador or proconsul in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, declared recently on Ukrainian television that Kharkov and Odessa would never again be part of Russia. «You have managed to defeat Putin», he said, «When the troops came to the Donbass the Kremlin wanted to seize Ukraine, it wanted to create Novorossia and seize Odessa, it wanted Kharkov. Now it will never happen. What Russia and terrorists supported by it are left with is a little piece of the Donbass. We will do our best to help you regain these territories». What an American fairy story.

More candidly, the US proconsul might have said (he certainly came close to saying it): «we’ve hijacked Ukraine right from under your nose, Mr Putin, and you can’t do anything about it». Does American pride go before a fall?

It remains to be seen how the crisis in Ukraine will evolve. In the meantime, Poroshenko plays the role of a dangerous US popinjay and bootblack who can only justify his existence by selling off Ukrainian resources and spewing out clownish threats against Russia.

The Kiev junta might make a great story line for an Opéra bouffe, except that it’s no laughing matter. Kiev’s fascist militias wage war against civilians and repress political opposition. In fact, any activities connected to the USSR are illegal. Sing the Internationale, for example, and hop!, you could get ten years in prison. Come to think of it, an Opéra bouffe is not the right way to showcase fascist Ukraine; better a dark Kafkaesque theatre of the absurd, or vaudeville mixed with horror.

The Kiev junta has refused to repay a $3 billion loan to Russia and blockaded Crimea, cutting off water, electricity, and food supplies. It bombards Donbass cities, targeting civilians, on a daily basis. Yet it expects cheap natural gas from Russia and transit payments for gas intended for Europe (which it often siphons off), trade benefits, and various other advantages.

The Russian government has in return attempted to avert an all-out confrontation by dampening down the anti-fascist resistance movement in Novorossia and by promoting the Minsk accords. For those who may not remember, these accords resulted from the defeat, not once but twice, of Ukrainian punitive forces attempting to put down the anti-fascist resistance in the east. Notwithstanding Proconsul Pyatt’s peculiar narrative, the Donbass opolchentsy won the war and lost the peace. They did not have much choice for they counted on Russian support, and Moscow insisted on Minsk. Novorossia became a concept to be forgotten. Militia commanders who spoke too much about independence or Russia were mysteriously assassinated. Anti-fascist élan has been doused, though not extinguished.

Why does the Russian government pursue such a sinuous, seemingly self-defeating policy? Well, for one thing, Moscow was faced with damaging western economic sanctions and growing Russophobic hysteria excited by the United States and its EU Atlanticist vassals. Only people with top secret security clearances in Moscow or Washington can say, but the United States may have threatened the Russian government with war if it did not take a less forward policy in Ukraine. Responding as though he might have been threatened, Putin endorsed the Minsk accords, although this meant accepting the continuation of the fascist junta in Kiev and accepting in effect the US hijacking of Ukraine out of the Russian world. Putin does not use the word «fascist» to describe his Ukrainian «partners», even as the Russian Federation celebrates annually the Red Army’s triumph over Nazi Germany. The Donbass is different from Crimea, Putin says in effect. Therefore, autonomy will have to do, whatever the people in the Donbass might want.

(to be continued)

Two Documentaries: “Murder of Yugoslavia” and “Democracy of Mass Destruction”

Russian television aired this week two documentaries, which I can almost guarantee will never be shown on the History Channel in the West. Not because they are difficult to translate from Russian, but because they don’t tow the official American party line and will be considered dissidence by the Western media censorship.

Alas, I do not have time to translate them, but I will present translations of the blurbs/summaries on the TV channel’s pages.

The first one is…

How Yugoslavia was Murdered. The Shadow of Dayton

On November 21, 1995 world news agencies reported breaking news from the United States. At a military base in Dayton, the presidents of Serbia, Croatia and the leader of the Bosnian Muslims signed an agreement on cessation of the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In accordance with it, this part of the former Yugoslavia is now divided into the Muslim-Croat Federation and Republika Srpska (Serbian Republic). An international force under NATO command is deployed there to control the borders and to support the truce – only about 60,000 people, half of whom are Americans. The Serbs, who at that time controlled almost 75% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina went to the serious concessions and agreed to keep only 49% of the territory. This was done for the sake of ending the civil war, which by that time virtually destroyed the former Yugoslavia.

In Dayton, President Clinton told reporters about the “key role” of Slobodan Milosevic in ending the civil war and call the Serbian president “guarantor of peace in the Balkans.” Just a few years after these statements, Serbia will be subjected to crushing air strikes by the US and NATO, will lose Kosovo, while the “guarantor of peace” Slobodan Milosevic, will die under mysterious circumstances in a prison of the Hague Tribunal.

Former Minister of Information of the Republic of Srpska, Miroslav Tohol, believes that the Dayton Accords were merely an intermediary for the strategic plans of the US and its allies to advance NATO eastward.

The civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the most destructive military confrontation in Europe since World War II. Initially, the conflict was triggered by the unilateral decision of the Bosnian and Croatian deputies of the local parliament to secede from Yugoslavia. In doing so, they completely ignored the opinion of the Bosnian Serbs, who made up more then 31% of the population of this Yugoslav republic.

In fact, it was hinted to the Bosnian Serbs that from now on they will have the role of a powerless minority in the new nationalist state of Bosnians and Croats. In response, Serbian communities began formation of their own government structures. European countries have tried to stop the development of the conflict by proposing a peace plan for the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina into territories, in which the governance is transferred to the ethnic majority. In the spring of 1992, the plan was approved and even signed by representatives of the three communities, but the unexpected intervention of the United States has destroyed all hopes for peace.

The civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina lasted for almost four years. As the result, one of the most beautiful and prosperous regions of Europe was completely destroyed and covered with blood.

According to the official data, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina took the lives of 100,000 people, according to unofficial – twice as much. Of the four and a half million inhabitants of the republic, almost three million have become refugees. The spilled rivers of blood have forever divided the lives of the two communities – Serb and Muslim-Croat.

The bloody confrontation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was accompanied by all the horrors of the civil and religious wars – ethnic cleansing, secret concentration camps, brutal torture and mass rape. All the while, all the parties to the conflict once belonged to a single Slavic people, with a common language and culture. Separation into Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims was the result of five centuries of Ottoman rule, foreign invasions and the expansion of the Vatican City.

Strange blindness and one-sidedness in the coverage of the conflict, according to Serbian analysts, was the result of an unprecedented information war that the Western countries have declared on the then Serbian leadership, because of their attempts to preserve a united Yugoslavia.

At the same time, the Western journalists were completely silent about the facts of participation in the war of thousands of Islamic terrorists from other countries on the side of the Bosnian units.

In addition to the information war, Western countries also declared an economic war on the Serbs. Tough sanctions were imposed on Serbia for support of the compatriots and assistance to refugees. The most defenceless categories of the population became their main victims – the elderly and children, but the international community for some reason didn’t care about their fate.

As a result, for the attempts to resist the destruction of Yugoslavia, the Serbs virtually ended up in the full economic, political and military blockade. The sanctions were not lifted, even when, in 1994, Milosevic had closed the border between Greater Serbia and the Republika Srpska in Bosnia, to demonstrate to the West the desire for peace. On the contrary, the pressure on Belgrade only intensified, and NATO aircraft started bombing the Bosnian Serbs.

Despite the economic blockade and information pressure , the Bosnian Serbs have managed to defend the Republic and to turn the tide of the war imposed on them. By 1995 they controlled nearly 75% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But, on Aug. 28, 1995 at the Sarajevo Markale market, a series of unexpected and mysterious explosions occurred. 37 civilians were killed, 90 people were injured. Just two or three minutes after crews of major Western broadcasters were working at the scene, saying that it was a mortar attack. By a strange coincidence, the explosions occurred on the eve of the meeting of the representatives of the US Secretary of State with the leader of the Bosnian Muslims Izetbegovic. The US and its allies immediately laid the responsibility for the tragedy on the Serbs, and already by August 30th NATO countries launched a military operation, codenamed “Deliberate Force”.

Division of Republika Srpska were subjected to powerful air strikes, which affected the civilian population.

Only after the war, independent experts and criminologists from European countries suggested that the explosion at the Markale is very similar to a carefully planned provocation. Its goal was to create a plausible pretext for open intervention of the United States and its NATO allies in the civil war in the Balkans.

Similar techniques were used against Belgrade in 1999. Then, under the pretext of protecting the Albanian population in Kosovo, NATO aircraft for 11 straight weeks destroyed the infrastructure of Serbia, not sparing even schools and hospitals. As a result of this aggression, 2,500 Serbs were killed and 12,500 were wounded. For the first time since the Second World War, the US and its European allies, by using brute force, tore away Kosovo from Serbia, and changed the borders of an independent state.

The forces fuelling the Balkan conflict were clearly unfamiliar with the history of this region. According to the Serbs, they were forced to take up the arms not only encouraged the new aggressive reality, but also historical memory. Foreign political strategists clearly did not take into account that people, who could defend their right to live while under a multi-century long bloody occupation and genocide, will fight to the end.

Author and Director: Aleksej Denisov.

Highlighting is mine, and those fragments clearly demonstrate the technologies of destruction and fragmentation of states, which were used before Yugoslavia on Russia in 1917 and an in 1992, and now again against Russia through the American invasion and destruction of Ukraine and an open economical warfare against Russia for helping hundreds of thousands ethnic Russian refugees from Malorossia and Novorossia (formerly known as Ukraine between 1917 and 2014). Note how the Markale market provocation bear the same signature as the unidentified snipers on Maidan, shooting at both the protesters and the police.

An at that time Russia was under soft US occupation, so it could do nothing…


The second one is…

Democracy of Mass Destruction

A Serbian girl, Christine Milutinovic, is afflicted with acute leukaemia. Christine is of the same age as the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. And at the other end of the world, veteran of the US Armed Forces, Doug Rocca, also suffers from numerous diseases. Doug fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. American Rocco and Serb Milutinovic are victims of depleted uranium shells.

From the nuclear bombing of Japan in World War II and until today the United States participated in almost all of the military conflicts in different parts of the world: Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Latin America, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria … Calling itself “a global peacemaker and bulwark of democracy”, the United States has long been trying to become the “world’s policeman”, all in pursuit of its own interests, and using the latest and constantly developing weapons of mass destruction.

The terrible genetic mutations in the offsprings of Vietnamese guerrillas and of American soldiers who fought in Vietnam in the ’70s are equally terrible. “Agent Orange” has become a “time bomb” for several generations of Vietnamese and Americans.

Why is this happening? How do victims of American “democracy of mass destruction” live and fight for their rights today?

Author: Pavel Selin
Director: Denis Argutinskij

In this regard, I’d like to introduce a new term, to distinguish the perversion, imposed on the world by the United States from true Democracy – the rule of the people, as practices in Ancient Greece and in Russia – in Novgorod Republic which existed between 1136 and 1478.

The new term, which I want to propose id: DEMOCRATISM – as destructive as most of the other “-ism”s.

Here is a (almost) complete list of the countries, where USA instilled (and I mean “instilled” and not “installed”!) or attempted to instil democratism:

1949 Greece
1952 Cuba
1953 Iran
1953 British Guyana
1954 Guatemala
1955 South Vietnam
1957 Haiti
1958 Laos
1960 South Korea
1960 Laos
1960 Ecuador.
1963 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnam
1963 Honduras
1963 Guatemala
1963 Ecuador.
1964 Brazil
1964 Bolivia
1965 Zaire.
1966 Ghana
1967 Greece
1970 Cambodia
1970 Bolivia
1972 El Salvador
1973 Chile
1979 South Korea (Pro-USA government wanted)
1980 Liberia
1982 Chad
1983 Grenada
1987 Fiji
1989 Panama
1991 Yugoslavia
1993 Russian Federation
1999 again Yugoslavia (Serbia & MN)
2001 Afghanistan
2002 Venezuela
2003 Iraq
2004 Haiti
2009 Honduras
2011 Libya
2011 Tunisia
2012-2015 Syria
2013 Egypt
2014 Ukraine

(List compiled by: Bryant Coleman @ Bitcointalk)