Unlike America under Donald Trump, who is proudly psychopathic and went so far as to blurt out that his followers would accept his leadership even if he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, the European Union is so rabidly hypocritical (Trump would probably call it “politically correct”) that its leaders routinely moralize about ‘human rights and democracy’ even while their governments indiscriminately rob and slaughter people in foreign lands (as will be documented here). EU leaders assist US-led atrocities while using prettier language to describe their alleged motivation for these policies. Though the US Government also occasionally employs such verbal sucker-punches (insincere or “politically correct” rhetoric), such moralizing is now the exception for the US Government, and is no longer (as it had been under the immediately prior US President, Barack Obama) the routine American practice — very much like the EU’s was, and still remains: such ‘idealistic’ hypocrisy.

But even Obama wasn’t as hypocritical as EU leaders still are. The biggest difference between the US and the EU is that, whereas even under America’s Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning (and continuing to be predominantly sanctified) President Obama (the invader of Libya, Syria, Yemen, and more), America’s head-of-state repeatedly said that America is “the one indispensable nation” — meaning that all other nations are “dispensable.” By contrast, there is no EU leader, and not even any European head-of-state, who says, in the modern era, anything of the sort. Adolf Hitler infamously did it when reasserting “Deutschland über alles!” (i.e, that Germany is the one indispensable nation). But modern Europe’s leaders know better than to copy such rhetoric. (Trump’s version, of course, is “America first,” but this can mean many different things, and not only mean that “America is the one indispensable nation.” Obama’s version was far less ambiguous than Trump’s is, because Obama’s clearly means that every other nation is “dispensable,” and that only America is not. And, yet, still, Europe’s leaders accepted it — they accepted that their nations were and are “dispensable.” After all: they are vassals.)

America’s leaders are simply more honest about their psychopathy than modern Europe’s are. In fact, ever since at least the time of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, “Greed is good” has been America’s unofficial, but clearly dominant, political philosophy — virtually the official American philosophy. How many European nations today publicly and proudly assert anything like that? Do any?

A recent example of the EU’s hyper-hypocrisy was headlined at the far-right UAWire Ukrainian news-site on March 31st, “EU urges Russia to stop attacks on Crimean Tatars”, which reported that,

The EU decisively condemns the arrest of 23 Crimean Tatars in police raids by the Russian occupation authorities in Crimea on 27 and 28 March, said EU Spokesperson for EU Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Maja Kocijancic in a statement.

“A court in the Crimean peninsula, illegally annexed from Ukraine by Russia, has ruled that all 23 Crimean Tatars detained on 27 March and 28 March will be held in pre-trial detention until 15 May. They are accused of belonging to the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in Russia but not in Ukraine. The European Union does not recognise the enforcement of Russian legislation in Crimea and Sevastopol and expects all illegally detained Ukrainians to be released without delay,” Kocijancic stated.

“The recent detentions, as well as the prior searches of their private property, constitute the latest targeting of Crimean Tatars, human rights defenders, and people who have spoken out peacefully against the illegal annexation by Russia of the Crimean peninsula,” the EU spokesperson stressed. …

Here is what Wikipedia says about that banned-by-Russia group:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir

Hizb ut-Tahrir (Arabic: حزب التحرير) (Translation: Party of Liberation) is an international, pan-Islamist political organisation, which describes its ideology as Islam, and its aim as the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate) to resume the Islamic way of life in the Muslim world. The caliphate would unite the Muslim community (Ummah)[4] upon their Islamic creed and implement the Shariah, so as to then carry the proselytising of Islam to the rest of the world.[5] …

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in countries such as Germany, Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey,[14] and all Arab countries except Lebanon, Yemen, and the UAE.[15][16] In July 2017, the Indonesian government formally revoked Hizbut ut-Tahrir’s charter, citing incompatibility with government regulations on extremism and national ideology.[17] …

They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da’wah will be carried “to all mankind” and will “bring them into the Khilafah state,” and the importance of declaring “Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;” (Ummah’s Charter),[97][117] as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).[97][118]

Do Europeans really want people such as this to be increasing in the EU? The Ukrainian regime that Obama had installed in February 2014 thinks it’s fine, but do Europeans, really? Obama had fooled Russia’s Government, at least until his 2012 re-election, to think that he wasn’t aiming like all his predecessors since at least the time of Reagan were aiming — for the US Government ultimately to conquer and absorb Russia into the steadily growing US empire — but after the bloody US coup right on Russia’s doorstep in Ukraine in 2014, the EU has been clearly the US regime’s vassal in this conquer-Russia enterprise — participating in it, though reluctantly.

The EU’s leadership has consistently been working in secret to assist jihadists — mass-murderers and terrorists — whenever jihadists are fighting in the US-led international war against Russia and against any nation whose leadership (such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Nicolas Maduro) are either allied with or even just friendly toward Russia. Syria, and its President, Bashar al-Assad, constitute one particular example of this EU hypocrisy.

Here are examples of this US-EU support for jihadists that are trying to overthrow a Russia-friendly government:

On 10 December 2012, AFP bannered “Jihadists seize key north Syria army base”, and reported that, “Jihadists led by the radical Al-Nusra Front seized a strategic army base in the northern Syrian province of Aleppo on Monday, in a fresh setback for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. … On the political front, the EU gave a vital boost to the newly-formed Syrian opposition coalition, describing it as the ‘legitimate representatives’ of the Syrian people following talks in Brussels with its leader Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib.”

On that very same day, December 10th, Britain’s Telegraph headlined and sub-headed “Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group: Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.” That report opened: “A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting ‘brigades’ and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.” So: no one could reasonably doubt that America’s alleged ‘rebels’ in Syria were, in fact, loyal to al-Nusra. Yet, the EU and US continued supporting them.

Also on that same day, Bill Roggio at Long War Journal bannered, “Al Nusrah Front, foreign jihadists seize key Syrian base in Aleppo”, and he reported that, “The Syrian government has warned that rebels may also use chemical weapons after the Al Nusrah Front took control control of a chlorine factory in Aleppo last week. Islamists hold sway over new rebel military command.” So: it was already clear, even then, that the ‘rebels’ were interested in perpetrating against civilians a chemical-weapons attack that their supporters in the US and EU could then blame against Syria’s Government as being an alleged reason to invade Syria by their own forces in order to ‘protect the Syrian people and establish democracy and human rights there’, or similar lies.

The next day, December 11th, Roggio reported that “The Al Nusrah Front has by far taken the lead among the jihadist groups in executing suicide and other complex attacks against the Syrian military. The terror group is known to conduct joint operations with other Syrian jihadist organizations.”

And, on the very next day, December 12th, Roggio headlined “Syrian National Coalition urges US to drop Al Nusrah terrorism designation”. Anyone who, after this, didn’t know that the US and EU were supporting jihadists to take control over Syria, was very deceived, because the truth was now known, and was then being subsequently hidden from the public, by almost all of the subsequent ‘news’-reporting. But there were a few exceptions:

On 26 January 2013, Roggio reported that,

The Al Nusrah Front has now claimed credit for 46 of the 55 suicide attacks that have taken place in Syria since December 2011, according to a tally of the operations by The Long War Journal (note that multiple suicide bombers deployed in a single operaton are counted as part of a single attack).

Al Nusrah spearheads military assaults

Al Nusrah has also served as the vanguard for jihadist forces in the major attacks on Syrian military bases. In concert with allied jihadist groups such as the Ahrar al Sham, the Islamic Vanguard, Mujahedeen Shura Council, the Muhajireen Group, and Chechen fighters, the terror group has overrun three large Syrian installations since last fall.

On 20 April 2013, Reuters headlined “Rebels battle with tribesmen over oil in Syria’s east” and reported that, “The EU said this week it wants to allow Syria’s opposition to sell crude in an effort to tilt the balance of power towards the rebels.” The EU supported and backed the ‘rebels’ seizure and black-market sale of whatever oil they could steal from Syria. This was the EU’s ‘humanitarianism’.

On 22 April 2013, the AP headlined “EU lifts Syria oil embargo to bolster rebels” and opened: “The European Union on Monday lifted its oil embargo on Syria to provide more economic support to the forces fighting to oust President Bashar Assad’s regime. The decision will allow for crude exports from rebel-held territory.”

On 1 May 2013, TIME bannered “Syria’s Opposition Hopes to Win the War by Selling Oil” and reported that, “Without an embargo, European companies can now legally begin importing barrels of oil directly from rebel groups, which have seized several oil fields in recent months, mostly around the eastern area of Deir Ezzor. That would provide the opposition with its first reliable source of income since the revolt erupted in Feb. 2011, and in theory hasten the downfall of Bashar Assad’s regime.” No mention was made, in any of this reporting, that this constituted aggression by the EU against the sovereign nation of Syria under the UN’s Charter and was therefore an international war-crime. The Western press didn’t care about such things — but only about ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ and other such billionaires’ bumper-stickers for suckers.

On 22 February 2019, one of the UN’s top experts on international law, Alfred de Zayas, was interviewed for a half hour on the ways in which America and its allies are blatantly violating international law by attempting a coup to overthrow Venezuela’s Government, and by going even further and imposing sanctions against Venezuela’s Government because it was resisting this (in effect) economic invasion-by-means-of-sanctions. The EU is one of these invading countries, but some of its constituent states oppose the US-sponsored invasion.

On 31 March 2019, I headlined “EU Joins NATO’s War Against Russia” and reported on the EU’s knee-jerk increase of economic sanctions against Russia as being the initial phase — the sanctions phase — of the US regime’s wars to overthrow the leaders of nations that are friendly toward Russia (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Viktor Yanukovych, and now Nicolas Maduro), and now (ever since the 2012 Magnitsky Act sanctions fraud against Russia) increasingly to apply Washington’s economic sanctions against Russia itself.

In international affairs, the EU therefore is clearly a stooge of the constantly aggressive US regime.

After all, the US regime had initiated and led the creation of the European Union. This scheme started as soon as FDR died and Harry S. Truman became America’s President. The death of FDR was also, in a sense, the death of any real democracy in the United States. Truman was forced onto the Democratic Party’s Presidential ticket in 1944 by the Democratic Party’s centi-millionaires against the will of FDR.Truman and Churchill started the Cold War, which increasingly became mass thought-control in America (culminating with Joseph R. McCarthy) and with the CIA’s operations Gladio in Europe and Mockingbird in the US itself. First, NATO, and then the EU, were born as part of that secret US strategy to conquer Russia even after the end of the USS.R and of its communism and of its Warsaw Pact counterbalance to America’s NATO anti-Russian military alliance. Ever since that time (1991), America’s controlling owners of international corporations (our billionaires) have also controlled — via European nations’ own super-rich — first, Europe’s national Governments, and then the EU itself. It secretly remains true even after the 1991 end of the Cold War on Russia’s side.

Consequently: when there’s a choice to be made between supporting jihadists (or other extremists such as — in Ukraine — nazis) or else to side with Russia (or any nation that’s friendly toward Russia), the American team always back the jihadists or other extremists, and they say it’s being done ‘for human rights and democracy’ and other such hypocrisies, while they perpetrate actual war-crimes, and make fools of their own publics, in order ultimately to conquer Russia. That’s doing it the “diplomatic” way, and they don’t like Trump’s doing it the “Greed is good” way. The directness of his greed makes themselves look bad. That’s why these super-hypocrites preferred Obama.

According to different sources, between several hundred and several thousand ‘dogs of war’ have already been deployed to Ukraine and are mostly converging on the Berkut base on the outskirts of Kiev. Yarosh’s gunmen are being reinforced by instructors and personnel from US private military companies. It is assumed that in the event of mass demonstrations by the pro-Russian-minded citizens of southeast Ukraine, these mercenaries have probably been entrusted with the task of terrorising the populations of Kharkov, Donetsk, Kherson, Odessa and other cities. 

At the present time, America’s primary focus is on Crimea, where a referendum on the self-determination of the Crimean people will take place on 16 March. On 11 March, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Crimea banned the activities of pro-fascist and neo-Nazi political parties and groups, including Pravy Sektor, in Ukraine. Also included under the ban are UNA-UNSO, the Patriots of Ukraine, the Carpathian Sich, the Stepan Bandera Tryzub, Korchinsky’s Bratstvo («Brotherhood»), and a number of other organisations which «threaten the life and security of the Crimean people».

At the same time, it should be noted that in the difficult situation that has now arisen not so much in the Crimea but around the Crimea, the radical Islamist movement Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in a number of countries, including Russia, but active on the peninsula, could be a definite danger. The movement is even outlawed in Sharia-controlled countries – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and Oman, its activities are recognised as pseudo-religious and terroristic and, in some countries, membership in the movement is punishable either by prison or the death sentence. In the Crimea, however, (and remember that Crimean Tatars adhere to Sunni Islam), members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has headquarters in Simferopol, still feel at ease.

The first reports relating to the appearance of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Ukraine date back to the 1990s. Nowadays, the movement has, according to various estimates, between 2,000 and 15,000 supporters in Ukraine. (The exact number of members and the degree of their involvement in the organisation’s activities is carefully hidden.) Hizb ut-Tahrir aims to «re-establish a pan-Islamic state from the Middle East to Central Asia». Meanwhile, as noted by the leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s information office in Ukraine, Fazil Amzayev, «the aim of his party’s work in Ukraine is not to change the state boundaries». Hizb ut-Tahrir is not registered in Ukraine as a political party or as a religious organisation. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian authorities have never prevented it from carrying out its various campaigns, including mass demonstrations and public protests. In a statement given when the Syrian crisis was in full swing, Fazil Amzayev stressed: «I cannot prevent Crimean Tatars from fighting against al-Assad». At the end of February 2014, the presence of approximately 700 Hizb ut-Tahrir militants was noted on Kiev’s Maidan Square.

It has also been noted more than once that radical Islamist groups are allowing the United States to achieve its own geostrategic objectives without any losses on the American side. These groups are involved in preparing the ground for a foreign invasion. The preparation itself is carried out in several stages. ‘Non-governmental organisations’ supported by the ‘heavy artillery’ of the West are usually active during the initial phase; this includes organisations like the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republic Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), Freedom House (FH), and the Open Society Institute (OSI). The Center for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) is also a practical tool for carrying out ‘colour revolutions’, or seizing power in countries marked out as targets of revolutionary influence in other words. A series of ‘colour revolutions’ have been carried out successfully on account of these organisations: Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and Kyrgyzstan in 2005. 

Is it possible that areas in the southeast of Ukraine and the Crimea could also be at risk from the ‘terrorist international’? For the moment, the question is still open in our opinion. It should be remembered that over the past three years, radical Islamist groups have increased their activities in Europe considerably. There has also been an increase in the number of members in these groups from European countries, and terms like ‘the White al-Qaeda’ have come into general use in the Balkans. A revitalisation of radical Islam is even being seen in orthodox Greece, where a mosque built using money from Saudi Arabia has been opened in the capital. The influence of radical Islam and, accordingly, the establishment of Wahhabi groups is also noticeable in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The city of Sarajevo, for example, was chosen as the centre for the Eastern European Muslim Conference set up relatively recently. It is also well known that during the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Saudi Arabia invested USD 373 million in the ‘Bosnian jihad’. Today, the Wahhabi movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina has become a permanent feature of the country’s political life and numbers some 3,000 people (out of a population of 1.4 million). Researchers allege that approximately 12 percent of Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina are willing to adhere to Wahhabism. 

The Balkan experience shows that radical Islamists in local wars do not limit themselves to sabotage and terrorist operations, including counter-insurgency operations against the civilian population. During subsequent stages, they will be reinforced by their inclusion in government agencies and their future transformation into a political force within the ‘territory of implementation’.

This will most likely not be Ukraine's last loss on the way to its European future. The faster Kiev moves toward eurointegration, the louder is the voice of Ankara, which is hungry for its own piece of the Ukrainian pie: the Crimea. 

At the recent meeting between Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan and the head of the Crimean Tatar mejlis М. Dzhemilev, the results of Ukrainian president V. Yanukovich's visit to Turkey were discussed, in particular, how the Crimean Tatar issue was addressed during the visit. And Ankara could not but address it. Turkey proposed holding a four-way summit (the foreign ministers of Ukraine and Turkey + representatives of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea + the head of the mejlis, М. Dzhemilev), which the Ukrainian president could not refuse to do. The event is planned for January 2014, when Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu will come to Kiev for a meeting of the foreign ministers of OSCE member countries. Turkey has been expressing a desire to create a free trade zone with Ukraine, and this argument, along with Ankara's ability to light or extinguish the fuse to the Crimean Tatar «bomb» at the right time, is making Kiev more accommodating. 

Dzhemilev reported the results of the meeting of mejlis representatives with EU commissioner Stefan Fule and the assessment of the status of the Crimean Tatar issue by UN and OSCE experts to Erdogan. The essence of these assessments are as follows: Ukraine has started the process of correcting historical injustices with regard to the Crimean Tatars, but it needs to go even further to accommodate the demands of the mejlis. The fact that these demands are endless does not concern euroofficials. The more regions of Ukraine are independent of Kiev, the better for the European Union; that way it will be possible to negotiate with them over Kiev's head. High-ranking European politicians have emphasized many times that the future of Ukrainian-European relations depends not only on the adoption of EU technical regulations and observance of the rights of members of the LGBT community, but also on the resolution of the Crimean Tatar issue in accordance with Brussels’ wishes. The Crimean Tatars in Ukraine are already in a position of privilege, but Brussels, the mejlis and Ankara unanimously demand ever greater concessions.

As Erdogan has announced, Ankara welcomes Ukraine's plans for eurointegration. The reason is simple: it will be easier to increase Turkish influence in the Crimea in a «European» Ukraine than in a «Eurasian» Ukraine. Yigit Bulut, an advisor to the prime minister of Turkey, has stated that the European Union is entering a phase of disintegration and that the Turks must return to their political traditions rather than hover on Europe's doorstep. The scale of the «political traditions» Bulut has in mind is impressive: Turkey must regain its «natural leadership» in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia. The Crimea also falls within the scope of the Turkish foreign policy doctrine… 

Recently something new has appeared in the political mosaic of the Crimea: human-rights rhetoric from Muslim activists, and female ones at that. The newly-formed human rights organization Insaf Muslim Women's League has been reporting religious discrimination against Muslim women in the Crimea (refusal to allow the use of photographs of women applicants wearing Muslim headscarves in documents, etc.). Insaf activists urge the authorities to consider the opinions of Ukrainian Muslim women and further add: if someone tries to make you take your headscarf off when entering an educational institution, do not enter into any dialogs or compromises!

Such human rights advocacy looks more like dictation, and this card will also be used both by Brussels and by Ankara. An All-Crimean Islamic Women's Conference was supposed to take place October 5 in Simferopol, but the event was disrupted by a report that explosives had supposedly been found in the building. Insaf asserts that secret attempts are being made to hinder their activities.

A similar statement came from the Crimean cell of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was also unable to hold a conference planned for October 7 in the building of the Crimean Ukrainian Theater because the renter unexpectedly terminated the rental agreement for the venue. Hizb ut-Tahrir has not ruled out the possibility of going to court about this, emphasizing that their organization is a peaceful one and observes all the procedural rules of Ukrainian law. It remains only to explain how Hizb ut-Tahrir's observance of the laws in other countries (Russia, Germany, Central Asian republics) led to their activities being banned in these countries as terrorist activities. 

It is difficult to imagine that Turkey, for example, would allow Ukraine to determine the means for resolving ethnic problems in Turkish society, of which, by the way, there are plenty (the long history of persecution of Armenians, the documenting of all Turkish citizens as Turks regardless of their true ethnicity, etc.). It is just as difficult to imagine that the European Union would allow Kiev to influence ethnic processes in Europe, for example, to initiate discussion of the problem of the gradual disappearance of the Sorbs in Germany or the divided Frisian people in the Netherlands and Germany. But the Crimean Tatar segment on the Crimean Peninsula has already been removed from Kiev's cultural and ideological control. Brussels and Ankara are now vying for influence over the Crimean Tatars and, through them, the entire Crimea. This rivalry does not prevent Turkish and European officials from unanimously urging Ukraine to «join Europe». The strong always dictate terms to the weak; such is the law of politics. And they push the weak into places where they will become even weaker.