While Russia’s special operation in Ukraine continued, Western media launched an intense disinformation campaign in parallel with this operation. In this context, the nature of the Ukrainian administration, the neo-Nazi forces fighting against the Donbass and the facts about the background are being destroyed.

Although Western countries and media, especially the USA, have expressed the opinion that Russia’s operation is the result of a kind of “expansionism”, the attacks that intensified after the Maidan coup in 2014 and the extreme right-wing nature of the Kyiv regime is the result of a long-term political transformation and its origins date back to before the Second World War.

The historical figures who gave the Ukrainian administration its far-right and anti-Soviet/anti-Russian character are today remembered as “national heroes” throughout the country. The biggest common point of these names is that they have an extreme right ideology.

Among the names that Ukrainian nationalists consider as historical references, Simon Petlyura draws attention.

It is estimated that 35 thousand to 50 thousand Jews were killed in the pogroms organized during the period of Petyura, who was the leader of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, which was declared unilaterally between 1917-1921.

Petlyura, who was killed by Sholom Schwartzbard, a Jewish anarchist whose family was murdered in Odessa, is among the names seen as “heroes” by the ruling elite and Nazi forces in Ukraine.

In Vinnitsa, Western Ukraine, a monument to Petlyura was unveiled in 2017, and Vinnitsa Region Executive Chairman Valeriy Korovy claimed that Petlyura was “a man who loved his country dearly and tried to be honest with his people, and the Soviets did their best to discredit him.”

In the same period, a bust of Petlyura, who signed one of the bloodiest pages in the history of Ukraine, was erected in Kiev and a plaque was made in his memory in Poltava.

While the anti-communist and anti-Soviet political positions of the Ukrainian rulers were manifested in the mass murders of both Jews and communists in Ukraine, the start of World War II led to the strongest periods of the far right movements in the country.

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which was established to cooperate against the Nazi invaders, committed massacres not only in Ukraine, but also in Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia.

One of the ideologues of the organization, Dmitriy Dontsov, was a “journalist” who translated Mussolini’s famous “Fascism Doctrine” and advocated “to stand together with Russia’s enemies, no matter who they are”.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Ukrainian nationalists, who act with the same attitude today, are the continuation of Dontsov. Because, just like Petlyura, Dontsov is among the “unforgotten” national figures in Ukraine today.

The memorial plaque ’in honor of Dontsov’, which was installed in the Ukrainian Ukrinform National News Agency building in Kiev earlier this year, proves the ideological continuity between the current administration and the Ukrainian right

Historical leader of Ukrainian nationalists: Stepan Bandera

After the division of the Ukrainian Nationalists Organization, which was established to cooperate with the Nazis, the Ukrainian Stepan Bandera, who led one of the wings of the organization, started massacres against the Jews by the Nachtigal Battalion he founded.

It is estimated that Bandera and his organization carried out about 140 pogroms in which a total of 13 thousand to 35 thousand Jews were massacred in various regions, especially in Ternopil, as the Nazi army progressed.

However, Hitler’s dictatorship, which opposed Bandera and his organization’s plans to establish an “Independent Ukraine”, arrested Bandera, who declared independence in 1941, and his deputy Yaroslav Stetsko and dissolved the organization.

Bandera and Stetsko’s re-emergence on the stage of history took place with the establishment of the “Ukrainian Insurgent Army” (UPA) during the retreat of the Nazis against the Soviet army in the Battle of Stalingrad.

During the Nazi retreat, the UPA carried out attacks in which 90,000 Poles and thousands of Jews, as well as many communists, were murdered and tortured.

Despite being an open-id Nazi collaborator, Bandera continued to be used against the USSR by Western intelligence units, especially the USA, until he was killed by the KGB in Munich in 1959.

Bandera’s deputy, Yaroslav Stetsko, who would later become one of the founders of the World Anti-Communist Union, was personally welcomed by the 40th U.S. President Ronald Reagan at the White House in 1983 and received the praise of “Your struggle is our struggle”.

Ukraine’s reversal: the rise of the right-wing in the post-Soviet era

The neo-Nazi structures that took the stage in Ukraine after 1991 became stronger after the color revolution in 2004 and the Maidan coup in 2014 and took steps to make Ukraine a ram head of NATO’s strategy to contain Russia. Taking these steps meant the dominance of a criminal climate that aimed to create ’social unrest’ throughout the country and change the power in favor of the West. All these were developments within the scope of the post-Soviet Ukraine’s strategy of ’returning Europe’.

In parallel with these developments, Ukraine adopted the EU-Ukraine Declaration signed on 2 December 1991. Again, Ukraine became the first former Soviet republic to sign a partnership and cooperation agreement with the EU in the political, economic and cultural fields in 1994. This new route that Ukraine drew after the USSR was an important step in the opening of Ukraine to exploitation through international companies, especially underground resources.

What ignited the process leading up to the Maidan coup d’etat was that the Ukrainian government of the time suspended the association process with the EU on 21 November 2013.

Maidan coup

The destruction of the statue of Lenin in Kiev on December 8, 2013 in Ukraine was a symbolic sign that Ukraine would never be the same again. Although an ’anti-corruption’ scenario was written in the Western media regarding the protests, which started during the former president Yanukovych’s reign, those who led the protesters who took to the streets were none other than nationalist figures.

The ’Social-Nationalist Party’, which was founded in the country in 1991 and resembles Hitler’s ’National Socialist Party’, later took the name ’Svoboda’, which means ’Liberty’, ironically.

This party, which is one of the most important actors of the Maidan coup, took an active part in the actions in 2014 with the youth organization ’Ukrainian Patriot’.

Founded in Ukraine in 2002 and later transformed into the Azov Battalion, the nationalist organization named ’Trizub’ (also the name of the weekly magazine published by Petlyura) was imprisoned when he and his supporters blew up the statue of Lenin and was released after the Maydan coup and entered the parliament. Nazi Andrey Biletskiy has become one of the symbols that best reflects the character of the Maidan regime.

On the other hand, Praviy Sektor, which was founded by Dmitry Yarosh, one of the directors of the Trizub, became one of the leading neo-Nazi organizations during through Maidan coup. Another important feature of Yarosh was his appointment as the chief adviser to the Chief of the General Staff of Ukraine.

The biggest supporter of the Maidan coup in the international arena was the USA. Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs of the U.S. State Department, even handed cookies to Ukrainian activists as the protests continued.

Nuland, who was involved in determining who will be in the new administration that will be shaped after the coup, said that the U.S. spent 5 billion dollars for Ukraine in the last twenty years. Nuland’s swearing at the European Union in a phone call with the U.S. Ambassador to Kyiv, Geoffrey Pyatt, was an indication that the U.S. even wanted to disable the EU in the Ukraine coup.

Another important indicator of why the Maidan coup was so much supported by the USA was the appointment of Hunter Biden, the son of today’s U.S. President Joe Biden, to the board of directors of Bursima, the country’s largest energy company.

The Western camp, led by the USA, used Ukraine against Russia during the Soviet revolution, during the Second World War, during the Cold War, and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and did not even hesitate to organize a coup in the country for this purpose.

The necessity of reshaping Ukraine with the Maidan coup was a very important pillar of NATO’s historical strategy of “containing Russia”, which was established against the “Soviet threat” that contradicted the political agenda of the USA in the post-Soviet period.

The first actions of the nationalist government established after the Maidan coup were to try to erase the Soviet past of the country and to make moves against the Russians living in the country within the scope of this strategy.

The Ukrainian administration banned Russian from the public sphere, statues of Nazi collaborators, especially Bandera, were erected, his birthday announced a public holiday, Red Army veterans and members of Nazi collaborator organizations were considered equal, neo-Nazi organizations were officially affiliated with the Ukrainian army, Communist Party and socialist organizations were banned, Its members were killed, and intense attacks were launched against Russian civilians, especially in the Odessa massacre, in which more than 40 people were killed.

The Russians, mainly living in the east of the country, built anti-fascist units with Anti-Maidan actions to protect against these attacks, and the “Novorossiya Federal State” consisting of Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics was established.

Despite the Minsk protocol signed by the representatives of Ukraine, Russia, Donetsk, Lugansk and OSCE in order to achieve a ceasefire in the region, the Ukrainian forces continued their attacks on Donbass. Although this was one of the most important reasons for Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, it became one of the facts ignored by the Western media.

Especially starting from 2019, there has been a significant increase in the attacks of the Ukrainian army, which is armed by NATO countries, against Donbass, although it is not a NATO member. A large number of settlements under the administration of Donetsk and Lugansk were shot using weapons that were prohibited under the Minsk agreements. This was another important reason for the start of the Russian operation.

The fact that the vast majority of the attacks were carried out by the neo-Nazi forces affiliated with the Ukrainian administration is one of the most important factors in the Russian administration’s decision to “denazification”.

As the conflicts between Russian forces, Ukrainian troops and neo-Nazis continued within the scope of Russia’s ongoing operations, the information war initiated by the West in parallel with these conflicts was the scene of important sanctions against Russia, especially the Russian media.

While countless fake news are being circulated in this information war, the Western world is trying to portray the events as an invasion operation “suddenly started” by Russia, without showing the extreme right-wing nature of the regime it has built with its own hands and the human rights violations against civilians in the region.

In the history of civilization, Politics has more often than not, been a matter reduceable to the question of “whose side are you on?”

Granted it is not an easy affair to discern what most-nearly approaches truth in the fog of “the present.” Hindsight is 20/20 they say, although that is also not entirely true, for the interpretation of history is just another battlefield, albeit in much slower motion.

In a world of increased division, where we are told there is only black or white, the best we mere “civilians” can hope for is to not get hit by the crossfire. However, that is becoming increasingly harder to do.

It is not a matter of holding “opinion” any longer, it is about upholding a “conviction,” not earned with your own personal scrutiny and research, but by your “faith” in such a conviction and the authorities who shape it.

Increasingly, it does not truly matter what the “facts” are, but the question of “whose side are you on?”

If that is what “reality” has been reduced to by those forces controlling the state, then any enemy to those forces controlling that state will be a villain, regardless of their actions, regardless of their ideology; and any ally to those forces controlling that state will be a hero, regardless of their actions, regardless of their ideology.

And thus, in our shaped reality of today, what makes a “Hero” or a “Villain” will be determined by the simple question “whose side are you on?”

If this is troubling to you, I suggest we do a little exercise together. Let us dare to discern the “facts” for ourselves. Only then, will we cease being mere cheerleaders for a team; only then, can we qualify ourselves to ask in all honest sincerity, “whose side are we truly on?”

Are Nazis Now the New “Good Guys”?

There is a bit of mixed messaging that has been going on, especially in the last few weeks. Are there significant numbers of Nazis in Ukraine and are these “bad” or “good” Nazis in the context that they are fighting the Russian “invaders”?

In one breath we hear the counter, how can there be Nazis in Ukraine when there is a Jewish President calling the shots? In another breath we hear Facebook is now allowing users to praise the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion while they are fighting Russians. In yet another breath we hear, well its complicated, Ukrainian Nationalism should be considered at the forefront of any debate, even if it overlaps with Nazi ideology.

On Feb. 27, 2022, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland held a scarf bearing the slogan “Slava Ukraini,” meaning “Glory to Ukraine,” with the “Blood and Soil” colors of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) (who collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and massacred thousands of Jews and Poles).

She then proceeded to post this picture onto her Twitter account (replacing it hours later with a picture of her without the “Blood and Soil” scarf) and accused her detractors of “reeking of Russian disinformation”. This controversial picture of Freeland was reported by Canada’s National Post.

According to Freeland’s press secretary, this was just another case of a “classic KGB disinformation smear… accusing Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Canadians of being far right extremists or fascists or Nazis,” which is a confusing statement on multiple levels.

It is not clear how this is a case of “Russian disinformation,” since the picture is indeed authentic, Freeland does not deny this. And she is indeed holding a “Blood and Soil” emblem, which originated with the Nazis, clear for everyone to see. Lastly, it is confusing as to why the Canadian government seems to be unaware that the KGB no longer exists. Are they also under the impression that the Soviet Union still exists?

Not irrelevant in all of this is the fact that Freeland’s grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper during WWII in Galacia and that she is indeed aware of this and apparently unapologetic. Whenever she is questioned about this, she does not deny anything, but simply blames such a focus of inquiry on Russian disinformation with the intent to “destabilize Western democracies.” That is, it is not a question of what is one’s historical or ideological background, but a question of “whose side are you on?”

Interestingly, it was the Canadian newspaper “The Globe and Mail” who reported this story, titled “Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper,” thus, not a Russian publication last time I checked. And upon whom did they base such information? None other than Freeland’s own uncle, John-Paul Himka, who is now professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

According to the Globe and Mail, Freeland was aware for more than two decades that her grandfather Michael Chomiak, was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper that vilified Jews and supported the Nazi cause.

Globe and Mail writes:

“Krakivski Visti [Krakow News] was set up in 1940 by the German army and supervised by German intelligence officer Emil Gassert. Its printing presses and offices were confiscated by the Germans from a Jewish publisher, who was later murdered at the Belzec concentration camp.

The article titled ‘Kravivski Visti and the Jews, 1943: A contribution of Ukrainian Jewish Relations during the Second World War’ was written by Ms. Freeland’s uncle, John-Paul Himka, now professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

In the foreword to the article, Prof. Himka credits Ms. Freeland for ‘pointing out problems and clarifications.’ Ms. Freeland has never acknowledged that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator and suggested on Monday that the allegation was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

In 1996, Prof. Himka wrote about Mr. Chomiak’s work for Kravivski Visti, a Ukrainian-language newspaper based in Krakow that often published anti-Jewish diatribes including ‘certain passages in some of the articles that expressed approval of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews.’” [emphasis added]

Oddly, Freeland helped to edit and clarify Prof. Himka’s article discussing her grandfather as the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper, however, refused to acknowledge her grandfather’s role publicly and accused any reference to this as part of a “Russian disinformation campaign.” According to this topsy-turvy logic, Freeland’s uncle, Prof. Himka is part of this “Russian disinformation campaign,” and she is guilty of providing assistance to this “Russian disinformation campaign,” all to ruin her political career and “destabilize Western democracies.”

Freeland also told her uncle, Prof. Himka, which is included in his article, that according to her father, her grandfather Michael Chomiak was also working to some extent with the anti-Nazi resistance. However, Prof. Himka was unable to verify this information, which he described as “fragmentary and one-sided.”

Then there is the strange case of NATO tweeting in celebration of international women’s day, this past March 8, a picture of a female Ukrainian soldier wearing the Black Sun symbol which is tied to Nazi occultism, and Satanism. NATO wrote in their post “All women and girls must live free and equal,” sending a very mixed message. NATO also ended up taking down their picture of the Black Sun symbol.

The timing of Freeland and NATO’s twitter posts are most strange. It also begs the question, why post something at all if you are just going to delete it? Is this just a matter of not being aware of such things, or is it a matter of certain groupings getting increasingly bolder and unapologetic as to where their true allegiance lies? Has Chrystia Freeland or NATO undergone any real questioning or backlash for such public displays? Not really.

On Feb. 7, 2014, a leaked conversation between Victoria Nuland (then Assistant Secretary of State) and Geoffrey Pyatt (then U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine) spread like wildfire. It was exposed that after Yanukovych was ousted from government, it was the government of the United States that was caught selecting the membership of what would form the new government of Ukraine, as if they were building their own sport’s team.

This was not only controversial in of itself, it was especially controversial in context of Ukraine’s “Revolution of Dignity,” where many Ukrainians died tragically so that they could have a better future.

Here in the West, we are supposed to be most sympathetic to that cause. So why did hardly anybody call out the fact that the U.S. government very clearly formed a Ukrainian government of their own choosing without a thought for the future and well-being of the Ukrainian people?

In fact, it was the U.S. who largely encouraged and financially supported the Ukrainian revolution. According to the official Obama White House Archives:

“The United States stands with the Ukrainian people and their choice of democracy, reform, and European integration.

 In pursuit of these objectives, Vice President Joe Biden announced today in Kyiv, Ukraine that, pending approval from Congress, the White House will commit $20 million to support comprehensive reform in the Ukrainian law enforcement and justice sectors, including prosecutorial and anti-corruption reforms…the U.S. government has now committed nearly $320 million in assistance to Ukraine this year, in addition to the $1 billion sovereign loan guarantee issued in May 2014.”

Many U.S. politicians visited Ukraine during this time to support the Ukrainian cause for “dignity.”

John McCain visits Ukraine in December 2013 in support of a regime change.

The world should have been appalled and horrified at such an exposure of U.S. criminality and duplicity. That the U.S. had directly and loudly encouraged and financially supported a revolution that resulted in many tragic deaths, only to steal the Ukrainian people’s right to choose their own government democratically.

The Americans also encouraged the Ukrainian people to fight for the EU Deal. And the Ukrainian people received the EU Deal that they were literally dying for. Where are they today? The poorest country in all of Europe.

Ukraine used to be among the richest countries in Eastern Europe, known as “the breadbasket of Europe.” However, this economic fact is harder and harder to come by since Ukraine was a part of the USSR when their economy was at its peak. A most inconvenient truth. It is for this reason that you will be hard pressed to find any GDP graph of Ukraine that begins earlier than 1991, the date of their independence. From 1991 to 1997, Ukraine lost 60% of their GDP (1) and suffered five-digit inflation rates. (2) Who was Ukraine beholden to during this massive recession that has never really ended for Ukrainians? The International Monetary Fund (IMF). [More on this story in Part 2.]

However, certain individuals who have held and continue to hold political offices, have greatly benefited from the plight of Ukraine.

On January 23, 2018, Joe Biden was invited to speak at a Council on Foreign Relations platform about an article he co-authored with Michael Carpenter titled “How to Stand Up to the Kremlin: Defending Democracy Against Its Enemies.”

Incredibly, during this discussion on “defending democracy against its enemies,” Biden publicly bragged that in 2016 (while Vice-President of the United States) he would only deliver on the U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine for economic aid on the condition that Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was fired. Shokin was investigating corruption charges involving Burisma Holdings at the time. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden was on the board of this natural gas company during this period and was allegedly the recipient of $3-$3.5 million from the company. An extraordinary amount that could not be justified, hence the investigation into corruption.

Joe Biden makes the following admission at this 2018 CFR platform:

“…and I went over I guess the 12^th, 13^th time to Kiev, and I was going supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko [then President of Ukraine] and from Yatsenyuk [then Prime Minister of Ukraine] that they would take action against the state prosecutor [Shokin] and they didn’t. So they said they had it [the loan] they were walking out to press and I said nah, I said I’m not going or we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said ‘you have no authority, you’re not the president, the president said,’ I said call him. [laughter in background] I said, I’m telling you’re not getting a billion dollars. I said you’re not getting a billion and I’m gonna be leaving here. I think it was about six hours. I looked I said I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Oh son of a b*tch. He got fired. [laughter in background] And they put in place, someone who was solid.”

Apparently, Joe Biden (the current President of the United States) is not concerned with true democracy but only about whether his team wins. Not the American people I might add. His team is much smaller and more “selective” than that.

Strangely, despite Biden’s admission being recorded at a very public and “prestigious” platform, fact-checkers have continued to deny any proof that Joe Biden was responsible for the firing of Shokin. Apparently, Biden’s own admission to this is irrelevant. Fact-checkers have also denied any hard proof that Hunter received such a lofty sum from Burisma. Well, it is pretty hard to come by hard proof when the investigation into such a thing was prematurely shutdown, don’t you think? That was the whole point.

This is extremely controversial for another reason. During the EU Deal dispute that was used to trigger the Ukrainian protests, it has since been discovered that part of the conditions of this “deal,” which was strong-armed by the IMF, was the demand that a significant rise in utility rates (first and foremost electricity and gas) be implemented while the income of Ukrainians stayed the same.

Who was Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s point person in the United States during the Ukrainian protests and EU Deal controversy? U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

The Ukrainian people had no idea. The very deal they were fighting and dying for was to directly benefit corrupt gas companies such as Burisma Holdings and their foreign shareholders, to the economic detriment of the Ukrainian people. A similar situation to what most of Europe is facing today under a plethora of glorious “EU Deals” in the midst of an energy crisis.

In addition, the New York Times has just recently published an article confirming that the notorious Hunter Biden laptop that was claimed as “Russian disinformation” by our trustworthy fact-checkers, is in actual fact, AUTHENTIC. A very important piece of information that should have been made available to the American people before they chose who would be their next President. This important piece of information was denied to the American people by the very thing that is proclaimed to be defending “national security,” the unelected and anonymous but all powerful, “fact-checkers.”

So, we all know Joe Biden has been promoted, um “elected,” President. Where are Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt today? Nuland serves as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States. Pyatt serves as the U.S. Ambassador to Greece.

Nuland, not one to shy away from unflattering spotlight, has again made headlines. This time on the American – starts with “bio” ends with “lab” – situation in Ukraine. On March 7, Nuland testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where she did not deny that Ukraine possesses “chemical or biological weapons” and acknowledged on public record that “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.”

But don’t worry, this does not mean that the omnipotent god-like “fact-checkers” are actually the sources of disinformation (what Hunter Biden laptop?), but as Mrs. Nuland has patiently explained to us; the harbouring and experimentation on deadly organisms is called “biological research” when the U.S. Department of Defense is involved. Thus, they are not deemed as “bio labs,” but rather as “biological research facilities,” and anyone who calls them “bio labs” while under the possession of the United States is a propagator of Russian disinformation. And yes, the U.S. Department of Defense is most certainly involved as seen by the saved PDF files taken off of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine website which shows the U.S. Department of Defense as the donor in all the cases listed. However, as Mrs. Nuland carefully explained, as soon as the Americans lose possession of these deadly organisms, it is only then that they transform into “bio labs” with “weapons of mass destruction.” It is very simple actually.

What did not make the headlines with equal vigour is what Nuland did after her failed diplomatic visit to Russia this past October, which was according to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, to “impose” Yarosh onto President Zelensky. On Nov. 2, 2021, President Zelensky appointed Dmytro Yarosh (leader of the Right Sector 2013-2015) as Adviser to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Nuland is of Ukrainian Jewish descent, thus her ongoing support for neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government and military since 2014 is disturbing on multiple levels.

Right Sector has close connections with Trident (Tryzub) and Patriot of Ukraine. All three groups are right-wing nationalist, neo-Nazi, paramilitary movements as well as political parties. Look it up for yourself, not even Wikipedia is denying this. Yarosh was the leader of Tryzub starting in 2005. Tryzub led to the formation of the Right Sector, to which Yarosh was also leader of between 2013-2015 and continues to have a great deal of influence on all these groupings.

Dmytro Yarosh has been on Interpol’s “wanted list” since 2014.

Recall that in 2014, the U.S. “influence” on the newly formed Ukrainian government was raising concern, specifically around members of Svoboda and Pravyi Sector (Right Sector) holding five senior roles in the new government, including the post of deputy prime minister. This story was reported by Reuters.

Right Sector “Blood and Soil” flag. What westerners are told is a Ukrainian nationalist party concerned with defending the liberty and freedom of the Ukrainian people.

Svoboda is also sold to the west as a romantic movement of benign Ukrainian nationalists, who happen to support Stephen Bandera and cannot deny that they support ethnic ultranationalist views.

Typical rally during the “Revolution for Dignity” in 2014, with flags from the Svoboda Ukrainian Nationalist Party.

On January 1st, 2022, hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists held a torchlight march in the capital of Kyiv, seen in the above picture, to mark the birthday of Stephen Bandera one of the leaders of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its paramilitary unit the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) who fought alongside the Nazis during WWII and massacred thousands of Jews and Poles. These Ukrainian nationalists are shown in the above picture holding the Svoboda and UPA “Blood and Soil” flag. The latter being the same emblem Chrystia Freeland held this past February. This event was reported by The Times of Israel. I wonder, will Freeland’s press secretary dare to call this another classic case of “KGB disinformation”?

A Moment to Reflect

So what is going on here? Are there real Nazis in Ukraine that are being selected, with U.S. and possibly NATO backing, to play a political and military role? And if so, why? What is happening to the Ukrainian people if this is in fact the case?

What even constitutes as “Ukrainian” under an increasingly ultra-nationalist movement? An ultra-nationalist movement which self-identifies as pure ethnic Ukrainians. Ukraine is an ethnically mixed population, with both ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians living together.

In light of this situation, how are we to regard the people of Donbass asking to form their own republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, separate from the rest of Ukraine? Are we in the west going to deny the people of Donbass, with a large population of ethnic Russians, the right to separate themselves from an ultra-nationalist movement that self-identifies as a pure Ukrainian race?

How are we to regard Crimea’s own request to re-join Russia in 2014, a referendum that the West refuses to acknowledge actually happened, despite mainstream western reporters confirming that Crimeans have indeed chosen and are happy to have returned to Russia? (Crimeans mostly consist of ethnic Russians.)

What are we to think of the Ukrainian government withholding 85% of drinkable water to Crimea these past eight years? An action by the Ukrainian government that constitutes a humanitarian crisis against the Crimean people. Are these the actions of a friendly government that cares for the welfare of the Crimean people?

This humanitarian crisis was corrected by the Russians as soon as they entered Ukraine, as acknowledged by Reuters. However, most in the west will never hear anything about this.

We should have the courage to ask ourselves: Is there in fact a civil war that has been going on in Ukraine not just these past weeks, but these past eight years? A civil war that has not been reported to the western people for political reasons, where certain regions of Ukraine have been under attack by neo-Nazi paramilitary units who have been receiving political support and funding from the United States, and possibly NATO.

Why would the west support such a horrific initiative?

To answer these questions, we will have to have the courage to look at the historical root of Ukrainian Nationalism and its relationship to namely U.S. Intelligence and NATO post-WWII.

To follow shortly, “Part II of Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: The Truth Behind Ukraine’s Glorified ‘Nationalist Movement’”

The author can be reached at cynthiachung.substack.com

(1)  “Can Ukraine Avert a Financial Meltdown?“. World Bank. June 1998. Archived from the original on 12 July 2000.
(2)  Figliuoli, Lorenzo; Lissovolik, Bogdan (31 August 2002). “The IMF and Ukraine: What Really Happened“. International Monetary Fund.

Viewing the Ukraine war as starting with the current Russian invasion leads to very different conclusions than if you consider that the starting point of this war was the 2014 US-orchestrated coup in Ukraine. The coup, which had elements of an authentic popular revolt, has been used by outside powers to pursue geopolitical ends.

The conception that the war started on February 24 of this year is like viewing the “invasion” by the US and its allies of Normandy in June 1944 against the “sovereign” and “democratic” Vichy French as the start of World War II. Never mind that the Vichy government was a puppet of the Nazis; that the opportunities to negotiate had long been rejected; that the war had been raging for years; and that the only option for stopping the Nazis was militarily.

The US imperial army

NATO, it should be understood, is an army in the service of the US empire. Viewing it simply as an alliance of nominally sovereign entities obscures that it is commanded as a tool of US foreign policy in its stated quest of world dominion; that is, “full spectrum dominance.” The “alliance” members must fully integrate their militaries under that command along with purchasing US war equipment and offering up their own citizens as troops.

After the implosion of the Soviet Union and the supposed end of the first cold war, instead of NATO being disbanded, the opposite occurred. There was no “peace dividend” and no honoring of the promise that NATO would not expand any further. Instead, NATO stampeded east towards the borders of the Russian Federation adding fourteen new members of former USSR republics and allies.

Even before the 2014 coup, the US’s fateful decision in 2006 to draw Ukraine into NATO posed an existential threat to Russia. By December 2021, according to “realpolitik” international relations scholar John Mearsheimer, a US-armed Ukraine had become a de facto member of NATO, crossing a redline for Russia. Mearsheimer concludes, “the west bears primary responsibility for what is happening today.”

Failure of peaceful negotiations

Speaking before the UN on March 2, the Venezuelan representative identified the breach of the Minsk Protocols, with the encouragement of the US, as the precursor of the present crisis in Ukraine.

After the 2014 coup in Ukraine, the Minsk Protocols were an attempt at a peaceful settlement through “a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-government to certain areas of Donbas, and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government.” Moscow, Kyiv, and the eastern separatists were all parties to the agreements.

The Russian perception of negotiations with the western alliance in the runup to the invasion, as reported by the New York Post, was described using insensitive terminology as “like the mute with the deaf” by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on his meeting with his British counterpart. (NOTE: the NYP, even in the updated version of the article, refers to Lavrov as the “Soviet” Foreign Minister, forgetting that the USSR hasn’t been around for over 30 years.)

Following the latest round of “sweeping” US-imposed sanctions on Russia, their Foreign Ministry announced, “we have reached the line where the point of no return begins.” Such sanctions are a form of warfare as deadly as bombs.

Upsides of war for the US and the downsides for everyone else

War is a great diversion for Joe Biden, whose popularity has been slipping due to a lackluster domestic performance. The US empire has much to gain: further unifying NATO under US domination, reducing Russian economic competition in the European energy market, justifying increasing the US war budget, and facilitating sales of war material to NATO vassals.

NATO has dumped over a trillion dollars in arms and facilities into the border countries next to Russia and continues to this day to pour lethal weapons into Ukraine. The leader of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi C14 recently bragged on YouTube (while other voices are censored): “We are being given so much weaponry not because as some say ‘the west is helping us,’ not because it is best for us. But because we perform the tasks set by the west…because we have fun, we have fun killing.”

More than 14,000 people have been killed in the eastern Ukraine region of Donbas in warfare between ethnic Russians and Ukrainian regular military/right-wing paramilitaries in the eight years since the coup. The self-proclaimed People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, beleaguered enclaves in the Donbas of largely ethnic Russians, seceded from Ukraine and were recognized by Russia on February 21.

The semi-governmental (over 80% US government funded) Rand Corporation’s playbook for the US and its allies says it all: “pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress – overextend and unbalance – Russia’s economy and armed forces and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad.”

The conflict could have ruinous consequences for the Russian Federation, according to western sources and even some people who identify as left in Russia. As a bonus for the US, according to Juan S. González, the US National Security Council’s senior director for the Western Hemisphere, the sanctions against Russia are “by design” intended to hurt Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, all targeted by Washington for regime change. And, of course, for Ukrainians of all ethnicities there is no winning in a war.

It is difficult to think what other options Russia has to defend itself. Perhaps there are some, but surely they are slim. It should be clear that the US has continually been the aggressor even if some do not agree with the Russian response. As Phyllis Bennis with the Institute for Policy Studies argues, the US provoked this war.

Severing Russia from Europe

The peaceful integration of Russia with the rest of Europe would be a great threat to the US empire. A unified or even a cordial Europe could truly herald the end of US hegemony. The long-game geopolitical goal of preventing the unification of Europe may well be the fundamental aim of US foreign policy in that continent.

What would become of “US strategic interests” if peace were to break out in Europe, and Russia would become partners with Germany, France, and Italy? A potentially more independent Europe, including Russia, would challenge the US-dominated Atlanticist project.

The extreme hostility that the US took to the Nord Stream 2 project, which would have piped Russian natural gas under the Baltic Sea directly to Germany, went beyond the narrow economism of favoring US liquefied natural gas (LNG) suppliers. Where Washington’s earlier efforts of imposing illegal unilateral economic sanctions on its NATO ally faltered, the current conflict will surely discourage any rational and cooperative economic association of Russia with its western neighbors.

The severing of Russia from the rest of Europe is a tremendous victory for the US imperial project. This is especially the case, when there were recent moves in the direction of economic, cultural, and political exchange, which have now been reversed.

Spheres of Influence and inter-imperialist rivalry

Russia shares a 1,426-mile border with Ukraine and considers that region within its security perimeter, vital to its national security. The US, which is 5,705 miles from Ukraine, considers the world its sphere of influence. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest.

The contemporary geopolitical dynamic has evolved from the one Lenin described in 1916 in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, which was then characterized as one of inter-imperialist rivalry. This theory is not entirely adequate to understand today’s world dominated by a single superpower (with its European Union, British, and Japanese junior partners). Surely, national centers of capital continue to compete. But over-arching this competition is a militantly imposed unipolar pax Americana.

There is just one superpower with hundreds of foreign military bases, possession of the world’s reserve currency, and control of the SWIFT worldwide payment and transaction system. Simply reducing the conflict to one of contesting capitalists obscures the context of empire.

Further, even if one just understands the present situation as one of a clash of two imperialist camps, that does not preclude taking sides. Surely World War II was an inter-imperialist war, but that did not prevent socialists from opposing the Axis pole and supporting the allies. The US is ever more aggressively stirring up the pot, not only in Ukraine, but also Taiwan, Africa, and elsewhere.

Asymmetry of the Forces

The forces are asymmetrical in this contest. Russia and the US may have comparable nuclear arsenals, but Russia has no bases of any kind in North America compared to at least six nuclear and many more conventional bases for the US in Europe. The US military budget is 11.9 times the size of Russia’s, not to mention the war chests of Washington’s NATO allies. Similarly, the US economy is 12.5 times as large as Russia’s. Of the Fortune 500 top international corporations, only four are Russian compared to 122 from the US. Russia’s labor productivity is only 36% of the US’s. In terms of finance capital, the US has 11 of the world’s top 100 banks; Russia has one. Far from being a key exporter of capital, Russia is a leader in capital flight, in part owing to sanctions imposed by the US and its allies.

As analyst Stansfield Smith concludes, Russia “plays very little part in the quintessential imperialist activity: the export of capital to the periphery and the extraction of profit from developing countries’ labor and resources.” Russia is a target of US-led imperialism; Ukraine is caught in the crossfire.

Hypocrisy of the “international community”

If only the outrage over the Russian invasion had some ethical grounding by what is misleadingly called the “international community,” but is in reality the US and its subalterns. Biden’s touted “rules based order” is one where the US makes the rules and the rest of the world follows its orders, in contradiction to the Charter of the UN and other recognized international law.

From Cuba, journalist Ángel Guerra Cabrera laments: “our region witnessed flagrant US violations of those principles in Guatemala, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada and Panama, the last three through direct invasions. Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are current examples of a US policy that flatly denies its assertion, not to mention Puerto Rico.”

International law expert Alfred de Zayas reminds us that the so-called “international community seems to have accepted egregious violations of Art. 2(4) [of the UN Charter] by the US against Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela; by NATO countries against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yugoslavia; by Israel against all its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians and Lebanese; by Saudi Arabia against Yemen; by Azerbaijan against Nagorno Karabakh, by Turkey against Cyprus, etc.”

How this war will end

Regardless of how one sides – or not – in the new cold war, it is instructive to understand the context of the conflict. This is especially so when views outside the dominant US narrative, such as those of Russian outlets Sputnik and RTthat hosted US intellectuals like Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, are being silenced.

This article addressed how this war began. How it will end or even if it will end is another story. The world is spiraling into a new cold war, emanating from a region formally at peace under socialism.

Expressing a view from the standpoint of the Global South, former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva commented: “we do not want to be anyone’s enemy. We are not interested, nor is the world, in a new cold war…which is for sure dragging the whole world into a conflict that could put humanity in danger.” If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that the end of endless war will come with end of the US imperial project that provoked this crisis.

counterpunch.org

Emmanuel Macron said in a speech Wednesday it’s a lie that Russia is fighting Nazis in Ukraine. But in 2014, the BBC, the NYT, the Daily Telegraph and CNN — not just CN — reported on the Nazi threat.

NYT Discovers Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis at War

Exclusive: Throughout the Ukraine crisis, the U.S. State Department and mainstream media have downplayed the role of neo-Nazis in the U.S.-backed Kiev regime, an inconvenient truth that is surfacing again as right-wing storm troopers fly neo-Nazi banners as they attack in the east, Robert Parry reports.

The New York Times reported almost in passing on Sunday (Aug. 10) that the Ukrainian government’s offensive against ethnic Russian rebels in the east has unleashed far-right paramilitary militias that have even raised a neo-Nazi banner over the conquered town of Marinka, just west of the rebel stronghold of Donetsk.

That might seem like a big story a U.S.-backed military operation, which has inflicted thousands of mostly civilian casualties, is being spearheaded by neo-Nazis. But the consistent pattern of the mainstream U.S. news media has been since the start of the Ukraine crisis to white-out the role of Ukraine’s brown-shirts.

Only occasionally is the word “neo-Nazi” mentioned and usually in the context of dismissing this inconvenient truth as “Russian propaganda.” Yet the reality has been that neo-Nazis played a key role in the violent overthrow of elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February as well as in the subsequent coup regime holding power in Kiev and now in the eastern offensive.

On Sunday, a Times article by Andrew E. Kramer mentioned the emerging neo-Nazi paramilitary role in the final three paragraphs:

“The fighting for Donetsk has taken on a lethal pattern: The regular army bombards separatist positions from afar, followed by chaotic, violent assaults by some of the half-dozen or so paramilitary groups surrounding Donetsk who are willing to plunge into urban combat.

Officials in Kiev say the militias and the army coordinate their actions, but the militias, which count about 7,000 fighters, are angry and, at times, uncontrollable. One known as Azov, which took over the village of Marinka, flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag.

In pressing their advance, the fighters took their orders from a local army commander, rather than from Kiev. In the video of the attack, no restraint was evident. Gesturing toward a suspected pro-Russian position, one soldier screamed, ‘The bastards are right there!’ Then he opened fire.”

Burying this information at the end of a long article is also typical of how the Times and other U.S. mainstream news outlets have dealt with the neo-Nazi problem in the past. When the reality gets mentioned, it usually requires a reader knowing much about Ukraine’s history and reading between the lines of a U.S. news account.

For instance, last April 6, The New York Times published a human-interest profile of a Ukrainian nationalist named Yuri Marchuk who was wounded in the uprising against Yanukovych in February. If you read deep into the story, you learn that Marchuk was a leader of the right-wing Svoboda Party from Lviv, which if you did your own research you would discover is a neo-Nazi stronghold where Ukrainian nationalists hold torch-light parades in honor of World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.

Without providing that context, the Times does mention that Lviv militants plundered a government arsenal and dispatched 600 militants a day to Kiev’s Maidan square to do battle with the police. Marchuk also described how these well-organized militants, consisting of paramilitary brigades of 100 fighters each, launched the fateful attack against the police on Feb. 20, the battle where Marchuk was wounded and where the death toll suddenly spiked into scores of protesters and about a dozen police.

Marchuk later said he visited his comrades at the occupied City Hall. What the Times doesn’t mention is that City Hall was festooned with Nazi banners and even a Confederate battle flag as a tribute to white supremacy.

The Times touched on the inconvenient neo-Nazi truth again on April 12 in an article about the mysterious death of neo-Nazi leader Oleksandr Muzychko, who was killed during a shootout with police on March 24. The article quoted a local Right Sektor leader, Roman Koval, explaining the crucial role of his organization in carrying out the anti-Yanukovych coup.

“Ukraine’s February revolution, said Mr. Koval, would never have happened without Right Sector and other militant groups,” the Times wrote.

Burning Insects

The brutality of these neo-Nazis surfaced again on May 2 when right-wing toughs in Odessa attacked an encampment of ethnic Russian protesters driving them into a trade union building which was then set on fire with Molotov cocktails. As the building was engulfed in flames, some people who tried to flee were chased and beaten, while those trapped inside heard the Ukrainian nationalists liken them to black-and-red-striped potato beetles called Colorados, because those colors are used in pro-Russian ribbons.

“Burn, Colorado, burn” went the chant.

As the fire worsened, those dying inside were serenaded with the taunting singing of the Ukrainian national anthem. The building also was spray-painted with Swastika-like symbols and graffiti reading “Galician SS,” a reference to the Ukrainian nationalist army that fought alongside the German Nazi SS in World War II, killing Russians on the eastern front.

The death by fire of dozens of people in Odessa recalled a World War II incident in 1944 when elements of a Galician SS police regiment took part in the massacre of the Polish village of Huta Pieniacka, which had been a refuge for Jews and was protected by Russian and Polish partisans. Attacked by a mixed force of Ukrainian police and German soldiers on Feb. 28, 1944, hundreds of townspeople were massacred, including many locked in barns that were set ablaze.

The legacy of World War II especially the bitter fight between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the east seven decades ago is never far from the surface in Ukrainian politics. One of the heroes celebrated during the Maidan protests in Kiev was Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose name was honored in many banners including one on a podium where Sen. John McCain voiced support for the uprising to oust Yanukovych, whose political base was among ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

John McCain addressing crowd in Kiev, Dec. 15, 2013. (U.S. Senate/Office of Chris Murphy/Wikimedia Commons)

During World War II, Bandera headed the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-B, a radical paramilitary movement that sought to transform Ukraine into a racially pure state. OUN-B took part in the expulsion and extermination of thousands of Jews and Poles.

Though most of the Maidan protesters in 2013-14 appeared motivated by anger over political corruption and by a desire to join the European Union, neo-Nazis made up a significant number and surged to the front during the seizure of government buildings and the climatic clashes with police.

In the days after the Feb. 22 coup, as the neo-Nazi militias effectively controlled the government, European and U.S. diplomats scrambled to help the shaken parliament put together the semblance of a respectable regime, although at least four ministries, including national security, were awarded to the right-wing extremists in recognition of their crucial role in ousting Yanukovych.

As extraordinary as it was for a modern European state to hand ministries over to neo-Nazis, virtually the entire U.S. news media cooperated in playing down the neo-Nazi role. Stories in the U.S. media delicately step around this neo-Nazi reality by keeping out relevant context, such as the background of coup regime’s national security chief Andriy Parubiy, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991, blending radical Ukrainian nationalism with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy was commandant of the Maidan’s “self-defense forces.”

Last April, as the Kiev regime launched its “anti-terrorist operation” against the ethnic Russians in the east, Parubiy announced that his right-wing paramilitary forces, incorporated as National Guard units, would lead the way. On April 15, Parubiy went on Twitter to declare, “Reserve unit of National Guard formed #Maidan Self-defense volunteers was sent to the front line this morning.” (Parubiy resigned from his post this past week for unexplained reasons.)

Now, however, as the Ukrainian military tightens its noose around the remaining rebel strongholds, battering them with artillery fire and aerial bombardments, thousands of neo-Nazi militia members are again pressing to the front as fiercely motivated fighters determined to kill as many ethnic Russians as they can. It is a remarkable story but one that the mainstream U.S. news media would prefer not to notice.

consortiumnews.com

Washington denies that the West played an active role in the massive protests that have engulfed the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. Yet the overall orchestration of the strife, in addition to the curious timing, points to some level of foreign intrigue.

“In politics, nothing happens by accident,” former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once remarked on the question of coincidences in political life. “If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

And nowhere are coincidences running more amok than in Kazakhstan, the Central Asia steppe country that became engulfed in civil strife virtually overnight after the government imposed a price hike on liquefied gas, which many Kazakh motorists use to fuel their vehicles. With shocking alacrity, bands of protesters managed to breach government buildings in major cities, including the Almaty mayor’s office, a towering post-modern structure that was gutted by fire. Such rapid success on the part of a supposedly leaderless street mob against heavily armed military and police units took experts by surprise.

Dr. Erika Madat, who specializes in security structures and the former Soviet space, told the UN Dispatch that “what we saw in Kazakhstan was both surprising at the scale and intensity that the events and mobilization unfolded…”

President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev quickly conceded to the demands of the protesters, returning gas to its former price, while sidelining Nursultan Nazarbayev, 81, who, despite vacating the presidency in 2019 after 29 years in power, continued to exert heavy influence as head of the Security Council. Despite these concessions, the mob smelled weakness and demanded more.

Almaty was founded in the imperial times as fort Verny, which means “loyal” in Russian. Grew into a million-strong megalopolis during the Soviet times and then doubled in size in the three decades of independence. pic.twitter.com/jJL6hfG56H

— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) January 7, 2022

The relative sophistication shown by some of the protesters, however, possessed as they were of firearms (strange considering that the Kazakh authorities placed tough restrictions on gun ownership following terrorist attacks in the city of Aktobe in 2016), urban camouflage and brazen street tactics, made Tokayev conclude that he was not merely dealing with outraged motorists, but rather “foreign-trained terrorists” seeking to overthrow his government.

The loss of internet service throughout the country makes confirming such allegations difficult to prove, yet intriguing nonetheless, especially coming as they did from the highest levels. Thus, when Tokayev pleaded for assistance, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), comprised of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, did not hesitate to send in the peacekeepers.

Successful urban fighting tactics aside, there are other things to consider, not least of all the uncanny timing of this latest anti-government outbreak smack on Russia’s border, which occurred just days before U.S., NATO and Russian officials are scheduled to hold security talks. Following meetings between U.S. and Russian officials on January 10th in Geneva, a delegation from Russian and NATO will convene on January 12th.

US ThinkTank land shows their hand:

“The volatile situation in Kazakhstan could limit Moscow’s options for an escalation or intervention in Ukraine (…) as the Kremlin could conclude that simultaneously increased tensions on two of its large land borders would be imprudent.”

— Pepe Escobar (@RealPepeEscobar) January 6, 2022

The planned meetings were organized in response to Moscow’s proposal for a security agreement that aim to halt NATO expansion into the former Soviet countries, including Ukraine, which has been actively seeking membership in the 30-nation bloc, a clear red line for Moscow. It would be difficult to imagine a more effective method for disrupting these talks than by conjuring up yet another mess on Russia’s border.

“I find it interesting that the unrest seemed somewhat coordinated across the country occurring during the Orthodox Christmas period and just before the U.S.-Russia security dialogue,” Executive Vice President of Eurasia Group Earl Rasmussen told Sputnik. “Coincidence? One needs to wonder,” he added.

Another oddity worth mentioning is that the U.S. Embassy in Nur-Sultan just happened to issue a ‘demonstration alert’ for several Kazakh cities on Saturday, December 16, 2021, more than two weeks before the real fireworks began in earnest. Yes, probably just more coincidence theory, but such diplomatic ‘warnings’ have come under criticism before, notably by Moscow; under the pretense of providing travel warnings to U.S. citizens, these social media messages arguably serve to promote anti-government events more than anything.

In August 2019, Russia summoned a high-ranking U.S. diplomat after accusing the State Department of meddling in the country’s internal affairs by publishing a map on the internet showing the route of an unsanctioned protest in the Russian capital.

Meanwhile, any discussion on the possibility of a foreign-hatched Color Revolution would not be complete without mentioning the premier financier, philanthropist and regime-change artist himself, George Soros; the Soros Foundation has a hand so deep in Kazakhstan’s pockets it almost reaches Almaty’s ankles. Perusing the list of activities and institutions by this one foundation (incidentally, the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law estimates there are some 38,000 NGOs operating in Kazakhstan, with much of their funding coming from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and others), leaves one struggling to understand how any country could tolerate this level of influence from a ‘foreign agent,’ who has already been politely shown the door in a number of countries, including Uzbekistan, Belarus and Russia.

The Soros Foundation, which opened its doors in Kazakhstan back in 1995, has a heavy footprint in all areas of Kazakh life – from art, to education, to the world of media and politics; all bases are covered. Such a profound influence has not gone unnoticed by political observers.

The Kazakhstani media have repeatedly covered the activities of the Soros Foundation. In 2010, the Pavlodar newspaper “Our Life” wrote:

“In 2010, Soros-Kazakhstan Foundation announced its new role as an intermediary between the state, business and civil society in shaping public policy. And this is despite the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On the activities of international and foreign non-profit organizations in the Republic of Kazakhstan’, which says: ‘In the Republic of Kazakhstan, the activities of international and foreign non-profit organizations, the goals or actions of which are aimed at interfering in the internal affairs of the state, are prohibited…’”

On this and similar questions, Nikita Danyuk, Deputy Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Forecasts of the RUDN University, penned a prophetic article back in 2016 entitled, ‘Kazakhstan under the gun of destructive political technologies.’

Danyuk writes: “The region of Central Asia, in particular Kazakhstan is an important geostrategic node, control over which makes it possible to influence the political and economic integration processes of the entire Eurasian space. Following Ukraine and Armenia, Kazakhstan over the past month has become another testing ground for the implementation of … destructive political technologies.”

Examining protests in Kazakhstan in the summer of 2016, which were focused on land reform, Danyuk reported that the “direct organizer of the protests was the Adil Soz International Foundation for the Defense of Freedom of Expression, whose donors include the U.S. and British embassies, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).”

While there is no doubt that Kazakhstan is plagued by a host of social and political problems – not least of all economic underdevelopment, inequality, corruption and kleptocracy – that does not mean there are no foreign players on the ground in the country eager to take advantage of these issues for strategic gain. All things considered, that will be Nur-Sultan’s greatest challenge moving forward – removing those self-interested foreign elements that are agitating on behalf of regional chaos at the earliest opportunity.

It seems that a very typical Color Revolution scenario is starting to play out in Kazakhstan just as it did in many former Soviet Republics. The big issue for those who are actually concerned with Human Rights is whether this will degenerate into a Ukrainian Maidan type of scenario leading to oppression, war and brutal poverty for the masses. So where is this all going and why is it happening now at this moment in history?

Picture: Augustus Bailey

Why does the chaos in Kazakhstan look like a Color Revolution?

Usually, it is something like elections or a new unpopular policy that gets people out onto the streets. The failed White Ribbon movement of 2010-2011 in Russia was in response to “electoral falsification” that seems to have been falsified itself. The Turkish Gezi Park protests of 2013 vastly overblew issues related to demonstrations for the good said park.

Screenshot: Video of a local Kazakh man saying the people want to live like in “Sweden or Norway” has gone viral on Russian social media. Vague plans with big promises and assertions of Western superiority are textbook Color Revolution strategies.

In the case of Kazakhstan it is the price of natural gas which has (ironically) sparked massive highly organized protests that seem to come out of nowhere. The demands of the disgruntled during a Color Revolution are always either abstract or impossible. Abstract demands are things like “we want Democracy even if we cannot define it” and impossible ones like “the entire government must step down because of feelings” are perfect examples. In Kazakhstan right now the protestors are demanding the latter, that the government should just go quietly off into the night of their own volition.

Since no government in history has unilaterally stepped down because of protestors’ fancy signs and pointing while sputtering we know that this demand cannot be met and thus is used as a justification for revolution and further action.

The Mainstream Media is also critical for any Color Revolution because they are the ones who can convince the public that the actual overthrow of the government has been completed. If every publication in the MSM tomorrow unilaterally said that the dollar is worthless, it would be. Thus, if all media shrieks that a revolution has taken place, then it essentially has. CNN is already on the case weaving their narrative but at least they were fair enough to point out that the government has already buckled to the gas price issue, giving the protestors in theory what they initially wanted, but that is not going to stop their organizers who have a whole laundry list of impossible to meet demands.

Will the scenario in Kazakhstan turn into Ukraine 2.0?

In many ways Ukraine and Kazakhstan are similar but they are far from being the same. Although the territory of Kazakhstan has been a part of Russia for hundreds of years and the majority of the population still prefers to speak Russian, the Ukraine is the inalienable cradle of Russian Civilization while Kazakhstan is a lovely later addition. You simply cannot trace the Tsars all the way back to ancient Almaty. Although the Russian-speaking population of the Eastern Steppe is big they are mostly non-ethnic Russians which can divide feelings in contrast to Russian-speakers in Ukraine, who mostly consider themselves Russian.

Screenshot: Color Revolutions take their toll on monuments – history and reality are the enemy.

As someone who lived in Kazakhstan for two years you could really feel the paradox of Kazakhstan being newly nationalistic yet favorable to the Russian language. The interpretation of historical events like the Russian Revolution and WWII were being quickly rewritten. At the time, even way back then, you could also see (that just like in Ukraine) Kazakhstan was trying hard to squeeze out Russian culture while making sure every child learned top-level English with Hollywood movies galore on TV. Both Kiev and Astana/Nur-Sultan have for years (even before the Maidan) tried to put governmental pressure onto the Russian language. This is an actual example of the “Institutional Racism” that our rainbow-haired friends always talk about, but because it happens to the Evil Russians it never counts.

Kazakhstan was able to drive out about half of its Russian population through various forms of intimidation and racist hiring practices in the government and big business. Non-Kazakhs especially Russians have complained to me that they simply had no choice but to leave or eternally be at the bottom economic rung of society.

This exodus means that only about one in four citizens of Kazakhstan are now Russians and they are mostly in the north. There were many rumors that in the early 90s the upper half of the nation could have broken away as it is far more industrial, Soviet-built, ethnically diverse, Russian-speaking and secular than the south. With far fewer Russians remaining and moving the capital from the extreme far southeast in Almaty, this potentially explosive issue seems to have been resolved, but if Kazakh nationalists start to put together their own Azov Battalions then a break-away people’s republic is sure to form in the north somewhere.

Screenshot: Protestors attack an ambulance. What an odd target.

In short, Kazakhstan’s government has acted much like the one in Ukraine pre-Maidan and there are some similar demographic, linguistic and cultural issues between the two, however they are less extreme as the Ukrainian situation, which almost looks like a nation designed to fail from the start that should break into two more logical pieces. Kazakhstan is potentially a watered down version of the Ukrainian Crisis.

The Russo-American factor is always at play

Coincidences are not proof of conspiracy, but it is certainly interesting that a new Color Revolution on Russia’s former territory that could lead to a Maidan scenario has flared up just days before the potentially historic big negotiation session between Putin and Biden.

Screenshot: Government buildings ablaze – very similar to the Maidan Revolution.

Although it is unclear of what exact positions have been unofficially agreed upon going into the meeting, starting a Color Revolution in Kazakhstan will not sit well with Moscow. However, the necessity to resolve the Ukrainian Crisis and make a final deal about how NATO’s troops and Washington’s nukes will be distributed in Europe is of such great importance to the Russians that anarchy in Kazakhstan can be ignored at least for now and the negotiations will go forward mostly unaffected.

We cannot forget that the U.S. and Russia were on the brink of nuclear war at least twice due to the Maidan Revolution: once over the absorption of the Crimea, and once due to the potential “big one” attack that was supposed to have been launched by an emboldened Kiev when Biden took office. You can only roll the dice so many times before eventually snake eyes come up, and anything happening in the heart of Central Asia cannot be allowed to force the great powers to keep rollin’ them bones.

So will Kazakhstan turn into post-Maidan Ukraine?

This is simply a matter of waiting a year to see if the Russians have really finally mastered the process of deflating Color Revolutions. They lost in Ukraine, won in Belarus and Kazakhstan will be the deciding “best of three” for their hopes of restoring their former glory and sovereign foreign policy.

So is that much fear and loathing all about gas? Not really.

Kazakhstan was rocked into chaos virtually overnight, in principle, because of the doubling of prices for liquefied gas, which reached the (Russian) equivalent of 20 rubles per liter (compare it to an average of 30 rubles in Russia itself).

That was the spark for nationwide protests spanning every latitude from top business hub Almaty to the Caspian Sea ports of Aktau and Atyrau and even the capital Nur-Sultan, formerly Astana.

The central government was forced to roll back the gas price to the equivalent of 8 rubles a liter. Yet that only prompted the next stage of the protests, demanding lower food prices, an end of the vaccination campaign, a lower retirement age for mothers with many children and – last but not least – regime change, complete with its own slogan: Shal, ket! (“Down with the old man.”)

The “old man” is none other than national leader Nursultan Nazarbayev, 81, who even as he stepped down from the presidency after 29 years in power, in 2019, for all practical purposes remains the Kazakh gray eminence as head of the Security Council and the arbiter of domestic and foreign policy.

The prospect of yet another color revolution inevitably comes to mind: perhaps Turquoise-Yellow – reflecting the colors of the Kazakh national flag. Especially because right on cue, sharp observers found out that the usual suspects – the American embassy – was already “warning” about mass protests as early as in December 16, 2021.

Maidan in Almaty? Oh yeah. But it’s complicated.

Almaty in chaos

For the outside world, it’s hard to understand why a major energy exporting power such as Kazakhstan needs to increase gas prices for its own population.

The reason is – what else – unbridled neoliberalism and the proverbial free market shenanigans. Since 2019 liquefied gas is electronically traded in Kazakhstan. So keeping price caps – a decades-long custom – soon became impossible, as producers were constantly faced with selling their product below cost as consumption skyrocketed.

Everybody in Kazakhstan was expecting a price hike, as much as everybody in Kazakhstan uses liquefied gas, especially in their converted cars. And everybody in Kazakhstan has a car, as I was told, ruefully, during my last visit to Almaty, in late 2019, when I was trying in vain to find a taxi to head downtown.

It’s quite telling that the protests started in the city of Zhanaozen, smack into the oil/gas hub of Mangystau. And it’s also telling that Unrest Central immediately turned to car-addicted Almaty, the nation’s real business hub, and not the isolated, government infrastructure-heavy capital in the middle of the steppes.

At first President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev seemed to have been caught in a deer facing the headlights situation. He promised the return of price caps, installed a state of emergency/curfew both in Almaty and Mangystau (then nationwide) while accepting the current government’s resignation en masse and appointing a faceless Deputy Prime Minister, Alikhan Smailov, as interim PM until the formation of a new cabinet.

Yet that could not possibly contain the unrest. In lightning fast succession, we had the storming of the Almaty Akimat (mayor’s office); protesters shooting at the Army; a Nazarbayev monument demolished in Taldykorgan; his former residence in Almaty taken over; Kazakhtelecom disconnecting the whole country from the internet; several members of the National Guard – armored vehicles included – joining the protesters in Aktau; ATMs gone dead.

And then Almaty, plunged into complete chaos, was virtually seized by the protesters, including its international airport, which on Wednesday morning was under extra security, and in the evening had become occupied territory.

Kazakh airspace, meanwhile, had to contend with an extended traffic jam of private jets leaving to Moscow and Western Europe. Even though the Kremlin noted that Nur-Sultan had not asked for any Russian help, a “special delegation” was soon flying out of Moscow. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautiously stressed, “we are convinced that our Kazakh friends can independently solve their internal problems”, adding, “it is important that no one interferes from the outside.”

Geostrategy talks

How could it all derail so fast?

Up to now, the succession game in Kazakhstan had been seen mostly as a hit across Northern Eurasia. Local honchos, oligarchs and the comprador elites all kept their fiefdoms and sources of income. And yet, off the record, I was told in Nur-Sultan in late 2019 there would be serious problems ahead when some regional clans would come to collect – as in confronting “the old man” Nazarbayev and the system he put in place.

Tokayev did issue the proverbial call “not to succumb to internal and external provocations” – which makes sense – yet also assured that the government “will not fall”. Well, it was already falling, even after an emergency meeting trying to address the tangled web of socioeconomic problems with a promise that all “legitimate demands” by the protesters will be met.

This did not play out as a classic regime change scenario – at least initially. The configuration was of a fluid, amorphous state of chaos, as the – fragile – Kazakh institutions of power were simply incapable of comprehending the wider social malaise. A competent political opposition is non-existent: there’s no political exchange. Civil society has no channels to express itself.

So yes: there’s a riot goin’ on – to quote American rhythm’n blues. And everyone is a loser. What is still not exactly clear is which conflicting clans are flaming the protests – and what is their agenda in case they’d have a shot at power. After all, no “spontaneous” protests can pop up simultaneously all over this vast nation virtually overnight.

Kazakhstan was the last republic to leave the collapsing USSR over three decades ago, in December 1991. Under Nazarbayev, it immediately engaged in a self-described “multi-vector” foreign policy. Up to now, Nur-Sultan was skillfully positioning itself as a prime diplomatic mediator – from discussions on the Iranian nuclear program as early as 2013 to the war in/on Syria from 2016. The target: to solidify itself as the quintessential bridge between Europe and Asia.

The Chinese-driven New Silk Roads, or BRI, were officially launched by Xi Jinping at Nazarbayev University in September 2013. That happened to swiftly dovetail with the Kazakh concept of Eurasian economic integration, crafted after Nazarbayev’s own government spending project, Nurly Zhol (“Bright Path”), designed to turbo-charge the economy after the 2008-9 financial crisis.

In September 2015, in Beijing, Nazarbayev aligned Nurly Zhol with BRI, de facto propelling Kazakhstan to the heart of the new Eurasian integration order. Geostrategically, the largest landlocked nation on the planet became the prime interplay territory of the Chinese and Russian visions, BRI and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU).

A diversionary tactic

For Russia, Kazakhstan is even more strategic than for China. Nur-Sultan signed the CSTO treaty in 2003. It’s a key member of the EAEU. Both nations have massive military-technical ties and conduct strategic space cooperation in Baikonur. Russian has the status of an official language, spoken by 51% of the republic’s citizens.

At least 3.5 million Russians live in Kazakhstan. It’s still early to speculate about a possible “revolution” tinged with national liberation colors were the old system to eventually collapse. And even if that happened, Moscow will never lose all of its considerable political influence.

So the immediate problem is to assure Kazakhstan’s stability. The protests must be dispersed. There will be plenty of economic concessions. Permanent destabilizing chaos simply cannot be tolerated – and Moscow knows it by heart. Another – rolling – Maidan is out of the question.

The Belarus equation has shown how a strong hand can operate miracles. Still, the CSTO agreements do not cover assistance in case of internal political crises – and Tokayev did not seem to be inclined to make such a request.

Until he did. He called for the CSTO to intervene to restore order. There will be a military enforced curfew. And Nur-Sultan may even confiscate the assets of US and UK companies which are allegedly sponsoring the protests.

This is how Nikol Pashinyan, chairman of the CSTO Collective Security Council and Prime Minister of Armenia, framed it: Tokayev invoked a “threat to national security” and the “sovereignty” of Kazakhstan, “caused, inter alia, by outside interference.” So the CSTO “decided to send peacekeeping forces” to normalize the situation, “for a limited period of time”.

The usual destabilizing suspects are well known. They may not have the reach, the political influence, and the necessary amount of Trojan horses to keep Kazakhstan on fire indefinitely.

At least the Trojan horses themselves are being very explicit. They want an immediate release of all political prisoners; regime change; a provisional government of “reputable” citizens; and – what else – “withdrawal of all alliances with Russia.”

And then it all gets down to the level of ridiculous farce, as the EU starts calling on Kazakh authorities to “respect the right to peaceful protests.” As in allowing total anarchy, robbery, looting, hundreds of vehicles destroyed, attacks with assault rifles, ATMs and even the Duty Free at Almaty airport completely plundered.

This analysis (in Russian) covers some key points, mentioning, “the internet is full of pre-arranged propaganda posters and memos to the rebels” and the fact that “the authorities are not cleaning up the mess, as Lukashenko did in Belarus.”

Slogans so far seem to originate from plenty of sources – extolling everything from a “western path” to Kazakhstan to polygamy and Sharia law: “There is no single goal yet, it has not been identified. The result will come later. It is usually the same. The elimination of sovereignty, external management and, finally, as a rule, the formation of an anti-Russian political party.”

Putin, Lukashenko and Tokayev spent a long time over the phone, at the initiative of Lukashenko. The leaders of all CSTO members are in close contact. A master game plan – as in a massive “anti-terrorist operation” – has already been hatched. Gen. Gerasimov will personally supervise it.

Now compare it to what I learned from two different, high-ranking intel sources.

The first source was explicit: the whole Kazakh adventure is being sponsored by MI6 to create a new Maidan right before the Russia/US-NATO talks in Geneva and Brussels next week, to prevent any kind of agreement. Significantly, the “rebels” maintained their national coordination even after the internet was disconnected.

The second source is more nuanced: the usual suspects are trying to force Russia to back down against the collective West by creating a major distraction in their Eastern front, as part of a rolling strategy of chaos all along Russia’s borders. That may be a clever diversionary tactic, but Russian military intel is watching. Closely. And for the sake of the usual suspects, this better may not be interpreted – ominously – was a war provocation.

The PBS NewsHour invited on just about the worst person in the U.S. government to help Americans understand the crisis in Ukraine, writes Mike Madden.

By Mike MADDEN

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, who choreographed the 2014 coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically-elected government and set the current crisis in motion, was invited by PBS NewsHour on Dec. 7 to explain the standoff in Ukraine.

Typical of Western media, the story began with Russia’s involvement in eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, which took place in March 2014. The crisis actually began a week earlier with the violent overthrow of democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014. While accusations flew of Russian aggression, invasion and annexation, there was not a word about the U.S. instigated coup or Nuland’s role in it.

For the sin of declining a Western aid package loaded with austerity measures, and accepting instead an unencumbered Russian package, Yanukovych became a target for U.S. regime change. Undersecretary Nuland’s role in the coup is essential to the story.

John McCain addressing crowd in Kiev, Dec. 15, 2013. (U.S. Senate/Office of Chris Murphy/Wikimedia Commons)

While Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy appeared on-stage in Kiev with far-right opposition leader Oleh Tyahnybok in support of the coup, Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt passed out cookies to anti-government protesters in Maidan Square. This would be like Russian parliamentarians and diplomats coming to Washington to encourage protesters to overthrow the U.S. government.

Behind the scenes, in an intercepted phone call with Pyatt, Nuland can be heard plotting the make-up of a government to succeed that of Yanukovych. “Yats is the guy” she said, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, America’s preferred leader for the Ukrainian people.

Her plan for the other two opposition leaders, Vitali Klitschko and Oleh Tyahnybok, was to keep them out, saying “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government” and “What he [Yatsenyuk] needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside.” As for Europe’s competing interests in the outcome of the affair, she infamously said “Fuck the EU.”

Nuland had told the U.S.-Ukrainian Foundation on Dec. 13, 2013, that Washington had spent $5 billion over a decade to support Ukraine’s “European aspirations,” in other words to pull it away from Russia.

To Nick Schifrin, the dutiful PBS reporter interviewing her, this episode was either not relevant, or an impolitic intrusion upon his esteemed guest. Or he was woefully uninformed.

While the United States was issuing stern warnings of restraint to Yanukovych, neo-Nazi tip-of-the-spear insurrectionists were stockpiling clubs, guns and Molotov cocktails in Maidan Square. With violence rapidly escalating, a deal was brokered between the government and the opposition on Feb. 21, 2014. Yanukovych agreed to immediate power sharing and early elections. In exchange, the opposition agreed to de-escalate the situation on the streets.

The opposition did not disarm as agreed. Smelling blood in the water, they went on the offensive again the next day. They overran security forces and ransacked government buildings. Snipers in opposition-occupied buildings shot police and protesters alike. Ultimately, over 100 people died, including more than a dozen police. Yanukovych and many of his Party of Regions allies fled for their lives. Ukraine’s democratically elected government fell on Feb. 22.

U.S.-backed, violent coup in Ukraine, 2014. (Wikipedia)

Neither Nuland nor Schifrin acknowledged this date, or any of the described events as contributing to the current crisis. It all fell outside their timeline.

“Yats” was sworn in as prime minister on Feb. 27, 2014. The U.S. now had its government in place. As violent as the coup had been, the real bloodbath was about to begin.

The Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, populated by a large number of ethnic Russians, did not recognize the coup government, whose first act was to outlaw the public use of the Russian language (which it later reversed). The Donbass immediately sought autonomy from Kiev. It saw the U.S.-installed regime as illegitimate and hostile to its interests and culture. In essence, it was defending a democratic election.

In April 2014, the Kiev regime launched “anti-terrorist” military operations against the breakaway provinces. Worse yet, it turned a blind eye to the real terrorists, neo-Nazi paramilitary squads like the Azov Battalion, that moved into the region. A bloody civil war was now underway, instigated by Kiev’s willingness to kill its own people in the Donbass. To date, the war has claimed 14,000 lives.

‘Invasion’

NATO and U.S. officials said regular units of the Russian military crossed a few kilometers into Ukrainian territory on August 2014, which Russia denied, when the separatist forces had been pushed eastward toward the Russian border and hundreds of civilians had been killed. On Aug. 25, 2014, 10 Russian paratroopers were captured 20 km inside the Ukrainian border.

Nuland called this “Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine.” The incursion would be more properly characterized as Russia exercising the liberal interventionists’ favorite Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

As happened in Georgia in 2008, a government militarily attacked its own people and Russia intervened to drive the military forces back and protect the local population. In that 2008 case, a European Union investigation determined that Georgia, not Russia, was the aggressor.

The U.S. had also claimed that Russia “invaded” Crimea in March 2014, when Russia already had troops stationed there under an agreement with Ukraine.  “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who voted in the Senate for what a real invasion looks like: the 2003 U.S. unprovoked attack on Iraq — on a completely trumped-up pretext.

July 7, 2016: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, right, beside Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Kyiv, following a bilateral meeting and news conference. (State Department)

Now there is incessant talk about another Russian invasion, though there was no word when the first one ended. Schifrin told PBS viewers that Russian military drills and a troop build-up today within in its own borders, signals that Russia is “ready for escalation,” though it is questionable how many troops there are where they are based.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden’s vow to send more U.S. troops to NATO’s eastern allies; NATO exercises near Russia’s borders and the supply of $450 million in weaponry to Ukraine are presented as the proper order of things: neither threatening, aggressive nor escalatory.

Two key demands by Russian President Vladimir Putin, namely, that Ukraine never host U.S. missiles or join NATO, were dismissed by Nuland saying, “Those are decisions for Ukraine to make and for NATO to make, not for the Kremlin to make.”

Schifrin could have reminded Nuland that the United States promised Russia in 1991 that NATO would not expand east of the newly reunified East and West Germany, but he didn’t. He also could have asked her if stationing missiles on the island of Cuba in 1962 was a sovereign decision to be made by Cuba and the Soviet Union, but he did not.

By excising her outsized role, PBS allowed Nuland to blame the entire crisis today on Russia.

It is clearly not the job of establishment media to challenge powerful government figures in any meaningful way. Its job is to build enmity in its audience toward official state adversaries and to cast government actions in the best possible light. PBS NewsHour has demonstrated that it is very good at its job, indeed.

consortiumnews.com

The seeds for the crisis in Ukraine were planted 25 years ago when the Clinton Administration decided to expand the North Atlantic Treaty into East Europe, accepting membership from former members of the Warsaw Pact. In doing so, Clinton turned his back on commitments from President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker in 1990 not to “leap frog” over a reunified Germany in order to expand NATO. Bush and Baker made this commitment in private discussions with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in order to gain the removal of 380,000 Soviet troops from East Germany and several East European states. Without this compromise, the reunification of Germany would not have been free of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union.

If the United States could find a way to acknowledge this betrayal and to concede that additional membership for Ukraine and Georgia would threaten Russia’s geopolitical universe, it would be possible to pursue a compromise to the current crisis. Russian President Vladimir Putin reasonably wants guarantees that NATO must halt its eastward expansion and not deploy certain weapons systems on its borders. In return, the United States should insist on the return to the Minsk II agreement in 2015 that was designed to ensure a bilateral ceasefire, to create security zones on the border between Ukraine and Russia, and to decentralize political power in eastern Ukraine (the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions).  Russia would be required to withdraw all foreign mercenaries from the regions.

Washington and Moscow were able to create a process for removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991; they should be able to find a compromise that recognizes Ukraine’s sovereignty but limits the Western military presence on Russia’s borders.  Arms control negotiations opened the door to Soviet-American detente in the 1980s.  A compromise on Ukraine would allow for improved bilateral relations in key areas between the United States and Russia.

Putin is not looking for either territorial gain or a revival of the Soviet empire in East and Central Europe, but the mainstream media is convinced that Putin is preparing a Russian military invasion of Ukraine that would destabilize all of Europe.  An editorial in the Washington Post last week, pointed to the 90,000 Russian troops on the border with Ukraine as well as the seizure and annexation of Crimea in 2014.  The Post and other major newspapers seen convinced that only the “political, economic, and military strength” of the United States will allow  a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Media commentary cites Putin’s reference to the collapse of the Soviet Union as a “geopolitical catastrophe.”  They fail to mention Putin’s view that, while it would take “no heart not to regret the dissolution of the Soviet Union,” it would take “no brain to believe that the Soviet Union could be reestablished.”

More importantly, the media fail to mention U.S. responsibility for the current tempest, which can be attributed to the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush that unwisely expanded NATO, bringing Russia’s immediate neighbors and even former Soviet republics into an alliance that now has 30 members.  NATO expansion is the major irritant in Russian-American relations and the leading cause of what appears to be the start of a new Cold War.  Gorbachev’s willingness to accept German reunification without security guarantees explains the Russian vilification of Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze to this day.  U.S. wholesale exploitation of Russian weakness in the 1990s explains Putin’s adamant insistence on calling a halt to the Western advance.

The United States has taken additional gratuitous steps on Russia’s doorstep over the past two decades.  The administrations of Bush and Obama deployed an advanced surface-to-air missile system in Poland and Romania, arguing that it was needed to counter a possible Iranian missile attack in Eastern Europe.  Such nonsense!  The U.S. and British navies continue to deploy naval combatants in the Black Sea that threaten to enter Russian territorial waters.  Various NATO members in East Europe and the Baltics are requesting additional Western military systems as well as a permanent U.S. military presence.  The presence of Germany military forces in the Baltics is a particular affront to Russia’s legitimate concerns about its safety and sovereignty.

President Joe Biden appears no wiser than his four predecessors.  He met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in September, and they signed a “Joint Statement on U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership.”  He sent Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Kiev in October to emphasize the importance of the “strategic partnership.”  Austin’s references to a “best case” that means “we won’t see an incursion by the Soviet Union in Ukraine” is the kind of Freudian slip that reveals the Cold War thinking of Biden’s national security team.

Currently, a team from the U.S. Air Force is in Kiev to assess Ukraine’s air defense requirements, and last week U.S. nuclear-capable bombers were flying over the Black Sea, posing a threat to Russia.  It doesn’t take much imagination to anticipate the U.S. reaction to Russian strategic aircraft and naval combatants operating in the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean.

Sending Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, an intense anti-Russian apparatchik, to Moscow to discuss the issue of Ukraine also points to the “group think” in Biden’s national security team.  Nuland is well known for her meddling in Ukrainian politics prior to the Russian seizure of Crimea. When she was told that our European allies have problems with our hard line on Ukraine, her response on a cellphone conversation was “Fuck the EU.”  Naming Nuland to the Department of State in the first place indicated that the Biden administration was tone deaf; sending her to Russia in the current circumstances is worse.  Or perhaps Biden genuinely believes that facing off with Russia over Ukraine plays to the political benefit of the United States.

Reinhold Niebuhr concluded that one of the greatest challenges in international relations was “finding proximate solutions to insoluble problems.”  The expansion of NATO and the Russian annexation of Crimea have created one of these problems.  It will be dangerous if the “group think” of Biden’s national security team, particularly the lack of any understanding of Russia’s “instinctive sense of insecurity,” prevents a diplomatic solution.

There is a Russian proverb that Biden’s national security team should take into account.  “Don’t try to skin the Russian bear before it is dead.”

counterpunch.org

(Click on the image to enlarge)