“Nikki Haley, ambassador to the United Nations, has resigned, leaving the administration with one less moderate Republican voice,” tweeted the New York Times, without defining what specifically is “moderate” about relentlessly pushing for war and starvation sanctions at every opportunity and adamantly defending the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters with sniper fire.

“Too bad Nikki Haley has resigned,” tweeted law professor turned deranged Russia conspiracy theorist Laurence Tribe. “She was one of the last members of Trumplandia with even a smidgen of decency.”

Well I’ve got some good news for those who lamented the loss of a virulent psychopathic war whore as UN ambassador, and bad news for any anti-interventionist Trump voters who’ve been secretly hoping this administration would use Haley’s vacancy to move in a less hawkish direction: you’re getting another one just like her. According to multiple sources, Trump has confirmed early rumors and selected State Department Spokeswoman and former Fox News pundit Heather Nauert as Haley’s replacement.

Ever since rumors emerged of Nauert’s selection for the job last month, the dominant criticisms have been that she lacks “experience” and “qualifications” for the job of US Ambassador to the United Nations. These criticisms have picked up ever since these early rumors were confirmed, and they are illegitimate for two reasons. The first is that a position as Fox News propagandist is very much the sort of experience an American needs to be a UN Ambassador, especially for this administration. The second is that all the job requires is a willingness to sell one’s soul for the promotion of US war agendas, and to occasionally help kick Palestinian human rights further into the gutter than they already are. No experience is required for this, and these are things we already know Nauert could do in her sleep.

As State Department Spokeswoman, Nauert’s messaging has already been moving in lockstep with that of Haley anyway. She speaks about Syria as though it is the property of the United States, routinely warning the Syrian government not to re-take its own land from the western-backed terrorist factions that nearly overran the nation. She regularly promotes the unrest in Iran that the Trump administration has been deliberately attempting to foment with starvation sanctions and CIA covert ops, and helps sell the absolute lie that Iran is “the leading state sponsor of terrorism”. She promotes anti-Venezuela narratives, anti-Russia narratives, anti-North Korea narratives, anti-Houthi narratives, and anti-Palestinian narratives. She’s been at this job since April of last year, and her talking points have consistently mirrored Haley’s.

Nauert is perfectly qualified for the job of UN Ambassador, because all that job requires is being a sociopathic war pig. She’s already been doing that.

All this fuss about Nauert’s “experience” highlights perfectly why Trump’s ostensible opposition has been almost entirely worthless: they don’t focus on any of the evil foreign policy decisions that this administration is actually advancing, because they don’t actually oppose those decisions. They aren’t concerned that Nauert will promote senseless, psychotic acts of military mass murder, they are concerned that she lacks the necessary qualifications to promote it skillfully and professionally. On this matter, as with all matters, Trump’s self-proclaimed “resistance” is perfectly comfortable with the blood-spattered face of world-dominating imperialism. They just want it to go back to smiling and saying things politely.

The problem with most of the opposition to Trump is that they’re not interested in waking up, they’re interested in removing an annoying wrinkle in their bedsheets so that they can go back to sleep. They don’t care about the monstrous acts of violence that are inflicted upon human beings on the other side of the globe in their name, so they focus on irrelevant nonsense like whether or not Heather Nauert is qualified to read from the same imperialist script that was read by Haley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice.

Those who care about reality don’t care about who’s reading from that script. It is the script itself they seek to burn.

caitlinjohnstone.com

Well, the US Department of State does.

Barely a week ago, the State Department, via the statement of a senior official, Ambassador Michael Kozak, publicly pledged that Washington would stay out of the contentious question of the status of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine: “any decision on autocephaly is an internal church matter.” (Without repeating all of the details of my previous commentaries on what some may regard as an arcane and peripheral issue, there is reason to expect that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople may soon issue a “tomos” [decree] of autocephaly [self-rule] for the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, thereby purporting to rip it out from the Russian Orthodox Church, of which the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has not asked for autocephaly, is an autonomous part.)

Especially for a government like that of the United States, which claims to have no particular religious agenda, respecting the internal canonical integrity of the Orthodox Church as a spiritual community was the only correct position.

But it didn’t last long.

Kozak’s declaration must now be considered inoperative. On September 25, the noted theologian Heather Nauert, the State Department’s spokesperson, issued the following statement:

Press Statement

Heather Nauert 
Department Spokesperson

Washington, DC

September 25, 2018

The United States strongly supports religious freedom, including the freedom of members of groups to govern their religion according to their beliefs and practice their faiths freely without government interference. The United States respects the ability of Ukraine’s Orthodox religious leaders and followers to pursue autocephaly according to their beliefs. We respect the Ecumenical Patriarch as a voice of religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue.

The United States maintains unwavering support for Ukraine and its territorial integrity in the face of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine and the Russian occupation of Crimea. We also support Ukraine as it charts its own path and makes its own decisions and associations, free of external interference. [emphasis added]

No doubt drafted not by Nauert herself but by someone in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR) the press statement avoids directly calling for autocephaly while unmistakably giving the impression of such endorsement, which is exactly how it was reported in the media, for example, “US backs Ukrainian Church bid for autocephaly.” The State Department’s praise for the Ecumenical Patriarchate reinforces that clearly intended impression.

Thus, the State Department must now be considered a party to triggering violent religious strife that will soon grip Ukraine and cause a split in the Orthodox world rivaling even the Great Schism between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism that took place in 1054. (Unlike the US, the Vatican commendably has maintained a principled position of non-interference. The Papal Nuncio in Kiev even issued a statement answering Ukrainian government spin that falsely claimed the support for autocephaly: “In order to partially correct the news given by official Government sources with regard to the meeting that took place yesterday… the Apostolic Nunciature in Ukraine wishes to once again state the position of the Holy See in the question of the creation of one Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church, namely that this is an internal question of the Orthodox Church, on which the Holy See never did and has no intention whatsoever of expressing any evaluation, in any venue.”)

No doubt the official US imprimatur will be taken both by Kiev and the Phanar (the district in Istanbul, formerly Constantinople, where the Ecumenical Patriarchate is located) as a green light to press forward with the impending schism. That in turn will inevitability lead to violence – which of course will be blamed exclusively on Ukrainians loyal to the canonical Church and on Russia.

The game plan for such seizures was laid out by false “Patriarch Filaret” Denysenko last week in Washington, in his remarks to the Atlantic Council. He specified that following expected recognition of autocephaly by Constantinople (which uncanonically claims such authority) members of Ukrainian parishes can choose which jurisdiction to adhere to by a two-thirds vote. This opens the door to packing the putative membership in a parish by people who have no connection to it and who might not even be Orthodox believers, who will then “democratically” outvote the genuine parishioners. As for monastic establishments, that’s simple according to Denysenko: the Ukrainian government will grab them. The Ukrainian Ministry of Culture has already begun compiling an inventory of properties belonging to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church in preparation for their forcible seizure by state authorities, to be turned over the Denysenkoite schismatics.

One should not suppose that the Nauert statement means the US government or the State Department has taken a sudden interest in theology and ecclesiology. Rather, it is a new twist in what always must be kept in mind (and certainly officials in Kiev never forget): that nobody in Washington really cares much about Ukraine or Ukrainians per se. They matter only to the extent to which US officials believe that keeping Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit means preventing Moscow from regaining superpower status.

To that end, pulling Ukraine firmly in to the western camp of NATO (the 2008 Bucharest declaration that Ukraine, along with Georgia, will become a member has never been rescinded) and the European Union presents Russia with an insoluble security vulnerability. Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko repeated insists Ukraine will become a “full member of NATO and of the European Union.”

Hence, Poroshenko’s drive for autocephaly has exactly zero to do with spiritual values and everything to do with slamming Russia: “We will have an independent Ukrainian church as part of an independent Ukraine. This will create a spiritual independence from Russia.” His rival for the presidency, front-runner and former prime minister, Yulia Tymochenko supports it for the same reason. If that results in bloodshed, well, too bad…

The State Department’s decision to become involved in a religious matter that does not concern the US is likewise narrowly political and reflects the schizophrenia in the Trump administration concerning Russia. Trump’s 2016 declarations that he wanted to improve ties with Moscow terrified the post-Maidan leadership in Kiev, who were overtly in Hillary’s camp. When Trump unexpectedly won, they were afraid he would make a deal with Moscow over their heads.

However, with the moving into political positions of influence strongly anti-Russian figures, many of them Bush retreads and even some with “Never Trump” credentials, Ukrainian officials have good reason to feel that that danger has largely been averted. With hostility toward Russia seemingly permanent and deepening, they believe they have Washington back where they want them.

Viewed through that lens, egging on religious dissension is just another item in the toolkit. 

Photo: uocofusa.org

The move intensifies US support for Ukraine's military. Previously, the US has provided Ukraine with support equipment and training, and has let private companies sell some small arms like rifles. The State Department approved on Dec. 20 a license for US manufacturers to sell .50 caliber firearms and smaller weapons to Ukraine, including assault rifles, combat shotguns, silencers, military scopes and flash suppressors. The package includes a license for the $41.5 million commercial sale of .50 caliber Barrett M107A1 sniper rifles and ammunition. Spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the license was “nothing new” since Ukraine has previously purchased small amounts of such weapons.

The action was actively supported by both high-level national security officials in the White House and members of Congress. President Trump approved the plan based on the suggestions from both the State Department and the Pentagon.

The US intensified support for Ukraine's military also comes amid discussions about sending UN peacekeepers to eastern Ukraine. There are major disagreements about how and where the peacekeepers would operate, especially about whether they would be deployed only on the "line of conflict" between separatists and the government. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has reported at least 1,000 ceasefire violations a day this month.

The move is likely to further damage already frayed relations between Washington and Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned US assistance would escalate the conflict. "Today the United States is clearly pushing the Ukrainian authorities towards new bloodshed," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in a statement on December 23.Acording to him, the decision will only make the conflict more deadly and suggested that Russia could be forced to respond. He also said the US can no longer cast itself as a mediator. "It's not a mediator. It's an accomplice in fueling the war." On December 18, Russia pulled its officers from the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination (JCCC), accusing the Ukrainian side of obstructing their work and limiting access to the front line. The talks between Kurt Volker, US Special Envoy to Ukraine, and Vladislav Surkov, Kremlin aide, have failed to make progress.

If the decision is implemented, it would risk turning the Donbass conflict from cool to warm—or even hot. Kiev will see the move as an explicit expression of US backing to provoke it into taking a more aggressive stand. With US arms flowing in, Ukraine will press harder for a military solution. The US says the weapons are “defensive” but big caliber rifles and anti-tank weapons are used in defense and attack as well. Ukraine is so unstable that no provisions included into the deal would guarantee the weapons don’t get into wrong hands.

Ukraine is hardly in a position to pay for the deliveries. If it does not, how will the administration explain the need to spend money on providing weapons to the world’s ninth -largest arms exporter? Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko has launched a program to make his country one of world’s “top five” global arms providers. Ukraine hopes to become a major arms exporter to NATO countries.

35 Javelin systems with 210 missiles as a well sniper rifles don’t change the balance of forces. Actually, with Ottawa taking a decision to allow arms sales Ukraine, the US could supply Kiev with weapons via Canada. But the decision entails more American military instructors in Ukraine. Whatever weapon one sells, training is to follow. It will increase even more the US military presence in Ukraine and, consequently, its involvement, making it a party in the ongoing civil war. That’s what Kiev wants – to suck the US into the armed conflict. The US already operates a naval facility in Ochakov. US warships will routinely drop anchor in Ukrainian ports, trainers to teach how to operate Javelins will be accompanied by other people, including interpreters and civilian personnel. Step by step, more Americans will be coming to Ukraine.

The decision will inevitably deteriorate the US-Russia relations, already at a low ebb, even further. Imagine Russia doing the same thing in Canada, Mexico or Cuba! Will the US turn a blind eye on such activities? Certainly not. Moscow will have to respond. For instance, it could deliver more contemporary weapons to the self-proclaimed republics in the east of Ukraine, among other things. The move will trigger violations of cease-fire in eastern Ukraine at the time of presidential race in Russia and undermine chances for the Minsk accords to succeed. But it will not benefit the United States in any way. Getting dragged into another conflict so far away from its borders is the last thing America needs now.