zaterdag 26 februari 2022

US Tried to Impose Nazi Leader on Ukraine


US Tried to Impose Nazi Leader on Ukraine in WWII: CIA Leak 

    • Ex-U.S. agent Scott Rickard said U.S. foreign aid groups pumped US$5 billion into protests, above, against the democratically elected president in 2014.

      Ex-U.S. agent Scott Rickard said U.S. foreign aid groups pumped US$5 billion into protests, above, against the democratically elected president in 2014. | Photo: Reuters

    Published 23 May 2016he U.S. has long had a hand in numerous projects intent on destabilizing Ukraine's governments.

    The U.S. has long had a hand in numerous projects intent on destabilizing Ukraine's governments.

    A recent declassification of over 3,800 documents by the Central Intelligence Agency has revealed it operated two major programs intent on not only destabilizing Ukraine but ‘Nazifying’ it with followers of the World War II Ukrainian nationalist leader and nazi collaborator, Stepan Bandera.

    3 Dead in Ukraine Ahead of Anniversary of Deadly Fire

    The documents, which were released earlier in the year, said that the programs spanning over four years provided funding and equipment for such anti-Soviet Ukrainian resistance groups as the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, among a host of others.

    The papers gave details of the AERODYNAMIC program which intended to destabilize Ukraine, using exiled Ukrainian agents in the West who were infiltrated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

    "The purpose of Project AERODYNAMIC is to provide for the exploitation and expansion of the anti-Soviet Ukrainian resistance for cold war and hot war purposes,” the formerly top secret document dated July 13, 1953 says of the project.

    “Such groups as the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (UHVR) and its Ukrainian Insurgent Army (OUN), the Foreign Representation of the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (ZPUHVR) in Western Europe and the United States, and other organizations such as the OUN/B will be utilized," the document continued.

    WATCH: The World Today: Ukrainian Complexities

    The CIA documents show that under the AERODYNAMIC program the CIA operated an affiliate project codenamed CAPACHO.

    According to the Signs of the Times magazine CAPACHO “took on more of a psychological warfare operation veneer,” with the CIA setting up a propaganda company in Manhattan that “catered to printing and publishing anti-Soviet ZPUHVR literature that would be smuggled into Ukraine.”

    The AERODYNAMIC and CAPACHO projects continued in operation through the Richard Nixon administration during the 1970s.

    But the U.S. continues to implement destabilizing projects in Ukraine.

    Former U.S. agent Scott Rickard told Russia Today in 2014 that United States foreign aid agencies pumped US$5 billion into the groups protesting against Ukraine's democratically elected former president Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted from office in early February 2014. The head of state had indicated his intent to move closer to Russia instead of the EU and the West.

    Is America Training Neonazis in Ukraine?

    Historisch gesproken heeft de VS al sinds 1945 nauwe banden met Oekraïense nazi's, die vanwege onder andere het vermoorden van joden na de Tweede Wereldoorlog door de OSS en zijn opvolger de CIA werden geholpen om naar de VS te vluchten. Sindsdien zijn de banden tussen Oekraïense neo-nazi's en de Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten nooit verbroken:

    Is America Training Neonazis in Ukraine?

    Officially no, but no one in the U.S. government seems to know for sure.

    Will Cathcart

    Joseph Epstein

    Updated Dec. 08, 2019 2:18AM ET / Published Jul. 04, 2015 12:01AM ET 

    Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters

    There are no doubts about the neo-Nazi and white supremacist background of the Azov Battalion, a militia that has positioned itself at the forefront of the fight against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. As the founder and head of the battalion Andriy Biletsky once put it, “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival.”

    That Russian President Vladimir Putin and his propagandists exploit this fact, using it to build support for their aggression and to undermine the international effort to help Ukraine defend its independence, is undeniable. But knowing that, and wanting to resist that, does not resolve some very important questions about the basic facts.

    What is the relationship of the U.S. government to these people? Is it training them? Might it arm them? Is this, like the Afghan war of the 1980s, one of those cases where we aid and abet the kind of monsters who eventually become our enemies? Concerns about that possibility have been growing on Capitol Hill.

    Because of uncertainties surrounding the Azov Battalion’s role in the U.S. training initiative and worries about the possible supply of shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles to such characters, the House unanimously adopted bipartisan amendments to H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” And one of them specifically blocks training of the “Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia ‘Azov Battalion.’” Representatives John Conyers and Ted Yoho sponsored the amendment to the bill, which was passed unanimously by Congress.

    This is in addition to criteria established in an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, known as “the Leahy Vetting Process.” The Leahy process consists of screening foreign forces applying for U.S. Government training and support to certify that they haven’t committed any “gross human rights violations.” If they are found to have done so, support is withheld.

    But the highly problematic truth is that the U.S. currently has no real way of ensuring that members of neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Battalion are not being trained by U.S. forces, because most, if not all, have not committed a “gross human rights violation.” Even more difficult to determine is whether ex-U.S. military are training crypto-Nazis in a private capacity, and the issues speaks volumes about the complexities that have to be confronted by the United States in its efforts to help Ukraine defend itself from the Russian-supported secessionists.

    In an interview with The Daily Beast, Sgt. Ivan Kharkiv of the Azov battalion talks about his battalion’s experience with U.S. trainers and U.S. volunteers quite fondly, even mentioning U.S. volunteers engineers and medics that are still currently assisting them. He also talks about the significant and active support from the Ukrainian diaspora in the U.S. As for the training they have and continue to receive from numerous foreign armed forces. Kharkiv says “We must take knowledge from all armies… We pay for our mistakes with our lives.”

    Those U.S. officials involved in the vetting process obviously have instructions to say that U.S. forces are not training the Azov Battalion as such. They also say that Azov members are screened out, yet no one seems to know precisely how that’s done. In fact, given the way the Ukrainian government operates, it’s almost impossible.

    The Ukrainian Ministry of Interior brings what one U.S. official calls a “mishmash” of troops, consisting of volunteers, members of militia battalions and official army to be trained, and the Leahy process exists to check and see if any have committed a “gross violation of human rights,” which most likely they have not—at least not yet. But much less care is given to the question of ideology. When officials are asked for details of any kind regarding how the vetting process actually functions, answers are ambiguous, details are scarce and the explanations become contradictory.

    In an interview with The Daily Beast, the U.S. Army Public Affairs Officer from the 173rd Airborne Brigade training Ukrainian forces in Lviv in western Ukraine, Capt. Steven Modugno, says that no one from the Azov Battalion or Right Sector is being trained in Lviv because the embassy uses the Leahy vetting process, which is in place to make sure no one has committed any kind of gross human rights abuses. When asked about members of the Azov Battalion who have not committed gross human abuses, more specifically how they are screened out, he says, “You know that’s actually a great question. It’s one the State Department would need to answer.”

    The Daily Beast then interviewed State Department representative, Press Officer Yarina Ferentsevych of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. Ferentsevych told us, “At this point, as far as we are aware, no”—that is, no members of Azov. “Whether or not some may be in the lineup, that is possible. But frankly, you know, our vetting screens for human rights violations, not for ideology. Neo-Nazis, you know, can join the U.S. army too. The battalions that are in question have been integrated as part of Ukraine’s National Guard, and so the idea is that they would be eligible for training, but in all honesty I cannot tell you if there are any on the list we train. There were not any in the first rotation as far as I am aware.”

    Ferentsevych confirms that it is practically impossible to know which trainees are from which battalion, “It’s a mishmash of folks: volunteers, soldiers, war heroes, Maidan veterans—I mean I couldn’t tell you, you know, short of investigating the background of each guy.”

    At this point, she recommends that we speak to the press officer of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. We explain that he actually directed us to her. She laughs. Welcome to the United States Government.

    When we asked PAO Capt. Modugno whether it was possible to detect all the Azov guys who are dispersed into the national guard battalions, he told us, “I don’t know if any of them could get through.” He explained that he is not an expert on the Leahy vetting process, but, “From what I’ve seen here, I haven’t seen any extremists, I’ve seen patriots.” The acting head of Ukraine’s national guard, Mykola Balan, told The Daily Beast, “Azov hasn’t been trained by the U.S. military. Currently they are at the front line.”

    Regarding the Ukrainian government’s involvement in the vetting process, Capt. Modugno explains that one section of the government is doing all the heavy lifting, “I believe it is the Ministry of Interior that is picking companies to come here.”

    The Azov Battalion not only answers directly to the Ministry of Interior, but it is ingrained deeply in that structure. The founder and head of Azov, Andriy Biletsky works closely with the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior and as the BBC reported last year, “The Azov Battalion was formed and armed by Ukraine’s interior ministry.”

    Biletsky claims, however, that his battalion hasn’t been trained by the U.S. military. In a comment to The Daily Beast, he said: “No, American army representatives do not train and had never trained the battalion. What I know so far is that there are regular training of the Ukrainian armed forces and Azov has nothing to do with it.”

    Capt. Modugno says that he is more of a “boots on the ground type of guy… When it comes to vetting and the Ukrainian government, the most I can tell you is that we are training at the request of the government and where these guys come from and where they go—it is their [the Ukrainian government’s] decision not ours.”

    As for American private individuals training Ukrainians elsewhere, Capt. Modugno says, “I can’t tell you that no Americans are there because any American who believes in a cause can go anywhere in the world. I can tell you in an official capacity, no, there are no American forces east of Kiev.”

    When asked if, in an official capacity, any Azov members have been trained by the U.S. military in the past he says, “I don’t know. I don’t want to say ‘no’ because I am not a big history buff on military training here. As far as I know, no. But I also know the U.S. and other nations have been doing exercises here in Ukraine since like 2002. Rapid Trident is one of those exercises. I really don’t know what units would come to that because I believe that’s active duty military. So I’m not sure, but I don’t believe so.”

    Capt. Modugno continues, “As far as who has been trained here on the ground, there were two companies that came in the first rotation. They were called Jaguar and Cheetah Company. It is my understanding they were complete companies when they came here. They augmented them with some of their war heroes from the ATO [Anti-Terrorism Operations] from other locations. They just graduated this past week. And right now we have the North and East Company. They are kind of a mishmash of different units and soldiers being trained here. Part of the Ukrainian government’s intent here is that when they graduate they’re actually dispersing them throughout Ukraine so they can take some of these tactics and techniques and see what they’ve learned… to take back to their units.”

    This is exactly the concern of many about who is being trained by U.S. forces in Ukraine.

    “You know, I know I’m about to speak speculatively here and I say that because I don’t know the entire process. But I do know that the State Department is very aware of the concerns that many news agencies and U.S. citizens have, that as [The Daily Beast’s] article says, we’re training neo-Nazis over here. I’ve seen them. I keep up on the news. I’m not saying that’s what we’re doing. I think what is really happening is the U.S. State Department is taking a serious look at these guys before allowing them to come here [to Lviv]. Again, that’s entirely speculative. But I think because concerns are so high, they’re being very careful.”

    The captain continues describing what he has seen on the ground. “With most of the guys that I’ve seen here though, I haven’t seen anything extremist.” In order to convey the cultural diversity he has seen, he begins to name various sects of Christianity he has come across: “I’ve seen Roman Catholics; I’ve seen Mormon soldiers on the ground both U.S. and Ukrainian; I’ve seen Latter Day Saints; I just haven’t seen anything too crazy or anything you wouldn’t expect from any other military.”

    When asked if there are any Jewish Ukrainian forces he replies, “You know that’s a fair question and one I can’t answer. I know on the U.S. side we’ve had Jewish soldiers here. I don’t know for the Ukrainians.”

    Chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation for the United States Embassy in Ukraine, Col. Cynthia Matuskevich, also denies that U.S. forces are training anyone from the Azov Battalion. Col. Matuskevich says, “The [Ukrainian] National Guard has told us there are none and that they all went through the normal vetting process that we’re required to do by the State Department.”

    When asked for specifics on the vetting process she says, “Essentially, in its nearest sense, it’s like background checks on individuals. I can’t really elaborate, but we check with various agencies including the consular section and they just kind of do background checks. I can’t personally say what happens in D.C. because I’ve never been on that end of the process but the State Department in D.C. is the ultimate clearer—if you want to call it that.”

    When asked how the Leahy process weeds out Azov members, for instance those who have not committed “gross human rights violations” but identify themselves with the Nazis and even with the SS, Matuskevich explains, “Unfortunately I can’t comment anymore—I mean we have Leahy requirements and we ask for human rights vetting but I mean we don’t individually interview everyone and ask them what their individual philosophies are because we know people could lie. But we do our utmost to abide by the Leahy vetting and we work with partners that you know we trust and have told us that none of them are members of those organizations.”

    As for the “partners” they work with, Matuskevich says that they work directly with the Ukrainian National Guard, “which coordinates all the trainees. They fall under the Ministry of Interior, so our political section at the embassy would be the ones who are dealing with them… The Ukrainian Government, and I guess it’s in the form of the Ministry [of Interior] are the ones that nominate the candidates for the training.”

    When asked why the new House amendment would be necessary if the Leahy process was already in place, Ferentsevych said, “That’s a good question, you should ask the congressman.” So we did.

    In an interview with The Daily Beast, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) said: “This is an important precautionary action. The Leahy Law takes the essential retroactive step of prohibiting assistance to units that are credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights. The issue here concerns who is eligible for aid in the first place, and America must choose allies whose interests and ideas align with ours. Congress can—and should—provide additional guidance to the executive branch when candidates for U.S. security assistance are publicly associated with goals that conflict with our foreign policy.”

    Ferentsevych would seem to corroborate the need for the amendment, in effect, when she says, “If these guys have violated human rights, then you would think that you would know. But human rights and ideology are two different things. It’s kind of like hate speech, people talk trash, it’s one thing, but if they do something about it, oh my God…”

    When asked whether the Leahy process would screen out people with Nazi tattoos, she responds, “I have no idea… I don’t know. Is it on their neck where all the world can see it? Or is it on their bum, where nobody can see it? I don’t know. I’m not a legal expert.”

    Jack Harris, the Official Opposition Critic for Defense for the New Democratic Party of Canada raised concerns about what forces Canada could end up training. “If they’ve integrated (Azov) into the larger organization, then we will be seeking clarification from Mr. Kenney [Canadian Minister of Defense] about what is happening here,” Harris said. Retired Canadian diplomat turned consultant for the International Organization of Migration in Moscow, James Bissett has argued that it would not be possible to detect all the Azov members dispersed into the National Guard battalions. Bissett told the Ottawa Citizen, “These militias [such as Azov] are being merged with Ukraine’s military so we won’t be able to determine who we are training.”

    This is an issue that simply needs more attention than “I don’t know” from the United States Government. Even those most closely connected to the process seem unclear on the specifics of it.

    As Congressman Charlie Wilson, the godfather of American support for the Afghan mujahedeen once said, looking back on the disaster that followed their “victory,” “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world… and then we fucked up the endgame.” The United States’ desire to train Ukrainian troops comes from the right place—the need to stop Russian covert and overt aggression. The problem is that the Azov battalion is nuzzled so deeply into the Ukrainian government that they are nearly impossible to weed out.

    De NOS-Oorlog in Volle Gang

     Dit is de opgewonden verslaggeving van de staatsomroep de NOS. Geen wederhoor, veel woede, een distantie, geen onderzoek. De NOS is klaar voor oorlog. Althans, dat denken de hysterisch klinkende medewerkers, die zelf nooit een oorlog van nabij hebben meegemaakt. Bovendien is er geen bredere historische of militaire context. Meer meningen dan feiten. Dat alles om de bevolking gemobiliseerd te houden, zodat het publiek een mogelijke oorlog met massavernietigingswapens zullen steunen. Tenminste, zolang als dit duurt. De waanzin is op een hoogtepunt. Daar gaan we met de voorspelbare propaganda:



    'De rancuneuze dictator Poetin heeft iedere rationaliteit verloren'


    Ondanks de opbouw van troepen aan de Oekraïense grens, kwam de inval van Rusland voor de wereld toch plotseling. Het meest voor de hand liggende doel, zeggen experts, is het Oekraïense leger verslaan en de regering omverwerpen.

    Sancties, en daarmee dreigen, hebben Poetin niet op andere gedachten kunnen brengen. Waren we naïef over Poetins plannen? Wat beweegt hem en wat is hij nog van plan?

    Dit is een keerpunt in de wereldgeschiedenis. Rusland is vanaf nu een vijand.

    Ivo Daalder, oud-Amerikaans ambassadeur bij de NAVO

    "Ik denk niet dat Poetin het hele land wil en kan bezetten, daar heeft hij de mensen niet voor", zegt Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, oud-secretaris generaal van de NAVO en oud-minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, in Nieuwsuur. Poetin wil een regering in Kiev die volledig naar hem luistert, denkt hij, al "zal het voor hem nog niet zo makkelijk zijn om daar een club neer te zetten die naar zijn pijpen danst. De Oekraïense president Zelensky heeft veel mensen om zich heen die hem steunen."

    Poetin hoopt met de luchtaanvallen en andere snelle militaire acties Oekraïne vlug op de knieën te dwingen, zegt Oost-Europadeskundige Bob Deen. "Hij wil dat het land snel aan zijn eisen voldoet. Maar we hebben een strijdbare Zelensky gezien die het volk vraagt de wapens op te nemen."

    In deze afbeelding zie je waar vandaag luchtaanvallen en andere beschietingen plaatsvonden:



    De Hoop Scheffer vreest dat het conflict verder kan escaleren, zelfs naar NAVO-landen. "Poetin is wrokkig en rancuneus. Hij zegt: iemand die iets tegen mij durft te doen zal met wapens en geweld geconfronteerd worden wat de wereld nog niet heeft gezien. Dat is een onverhulde dreiging met kernwapens. Ik zou liever met een berekenbare dictator te maken hebben dan met een onberekenbare."

    Nietsontziend geweld in Syrië

    Heeft het Westen Poetin verkeerd ingeschat? Generaal buiten dienst en oud-NAVO-commandant Mart de Kruif vindt van wel. "We dachten: er is een verschil tussen wat hij kàn en wat hij doet. We schrikken hem wel af. Maar we schrokken hem niet af, dat is niet gelukt."

    Oud-Amerikaans ambassadeur bij de NAVO Ivo Daalder vindt dat het Westen al veel langer naïef was over Rusland. "Rusland heeft een veel sterker leger dan aan het begin van de eeuw. We hadden een steviger antwoord moeten hebben toen Rusland Oekraïne in 2014 binnenviel. We hadden de Oekraïners meer moeten helpen."

    Maar Europa en de VS waren te verdeeld: moesten ze toenadering zoeken tot Rusland en de dialoog openhouden of was juist afschrikking nodig? Daalder: "Sommige landen wilden dat laatste en zij hadden achteraf gezien mogelijk gelijk."

    "Poetin heeft een historie van nietsontziend geweld", vervolgt De Hoop Scheffer. "Hij heeft in Syrië ziekenhuizen en scholen gebombardeerd. Zo is hij groot geworden en zo voert hij nu zijn plan uit."

    Je ziet een doldrieste president Poetin die het contact met de realiteit kwijt lijkt.

    Laurien Crump, universitair docent internationale betrekkingen

    Toch vindt de oud-NAVO-baas niet dat het Westen de plannen van Rusland de laatste tijd verkeerd heeft ingeschat. "De Amerikanen lekten bewust inlichtingen om aan te geven hoe serieus de dreiging was. Je kunt niet zeggen dat we naïef waren. We hóópten dat het niet zou gebeuren."

    Bovendien: het Westen had weinig kunnen ondernemen tegen Poetin, benadrukt De Hoop Scheffer. "We gaan geen oorlog voeren met Rusland vanwege andere landen waar Poetin exclusieve invloed wil hebben."

    Alexander Vindman, voormalig lid van de Amerikaanse Nationale Veiligheidsraad en geboren Oekraïner, vindt dat we Oekraïne en de dreiging vanuit Rusland wel degelijk serieuzer hadden kunnen nemen. "Poetin bedreigde langzamerhand de Europese veiligheid en daar is niet genoeg op gereageerd. Oekraïne moet in elk geval voorzien worden van luchtdoelgeschut om het de Russen moeilijk te maken."

    Wrok over uitbreiding NAVO

    Niet alleen nam het Westen Poetins dreigementen niet serieus genoeg, maar ook zijn wensen, zegt Laurien Crump, universitair docent geschiedenis van de internationale betrekkingen. "Poetin wil niet dat de NAVO verder oprukt naar het oosten. Voor de Russen is de NAVO nog steeds het bondgenootschap dat is opgericht om de Russen eruit te houden."

    Na de val van de Berlijnse Muur "kreeg Rusland de mondelinge verzekering dat de NAVO na de aansluiting van Oost-Duitsland zich niet verder naar het oosten zou uitbreiden". De Amerikaanse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken zei in 1990 tegen Sovjetleider Michail Gorbatsjov dat de NAVO "geen inch" naar het oosten zou opschuiven. Die toezegging is nooit formeel vastgelegd, maar "vanuit Ruslands perspectief is het Westen deze belofte niet nagekomen", zegt Crump. Want uiteindelijk traden alle voormalige Oostbloklanden toe tot de NAVO, behalve Rusland zelf.

    Maar, benadrukt Crump, "dat rechtvaardigt op geen enkele manier dat hij Oekraïne aanvalt". Ook Daalder zegt: het Westen handelde misschien naïef, maar "de oorlog is niet uitgelokt en volledig de keus van Rusland".

    Nieuwsuur-verslaggever Gert-Jan Dennekamp reist vanuit Oost-Oekraïne naar het westen. Onderweg spreekt hij burgers over de Russische invasie:


    Als de Russische troepen je land binnenvallen

    Crump: "Dit is een flagrante inbreuk op de soevereiniteit van Oekraïne. Je ziet een doldrieste president Poetin die het contact met de realiteit kwijt lijkt."

    Dat beaamt De Hoop Scheffer. En daar zit ook precies zijn angst. "Hij is volstrekt onberekenbaar. Dat is een groot risico."

    Hij sluit uit niet uit dat Poetin na Oekraïne doorstoomt naar NAVO-landen in Oost-Europa. "Het is niet waarschijnlijk. Maar hij is onberekenbaar en wordt verteerd door wrok en rancune. Dan moet je niet uitsluiten dat hij een probleem creëert tussen Kaliningrad en Belarus. Dat gebied is vanuit West-Europa de toegang naar de Baltische landen. Als hij die passage afsluit, zou dat voor de NAVO een reden voor oorlog zijn."

    'Poetin zoekt onze zwakte'

    Ook Daalder maakt zich zorgen dat het Poetin niet alleen om Oekraïne te doen is. "Ik vrees dat het zoeken naar zwakte, wat Poetin doet, zal uitstrekken naar NAVO-gebied."

    "Dit is een keerpunt in de wereldgeschiedenis. Rusland is vanaf nu een vijand. We moeten zorgen dat Poetins plannen niet slagen."

    Speech President Putin

     Rik Min en 2 anderen hebben een bericht gedeeld.

    We want peace!
    We wanted to talk and negotiate.
    According to the Minsk agreements, we gave Ukraine a chance to reintegrate the republics of Donbass. Ukraine only needed to stop shooting at residential areas and listen to people that are living there.
    We wanted to talk to Europe and the United States, but in response we faced only neglect of our questions.
    All these years, the West supported the Ukrainian regime, pushing it to war with Russia. All these years we asked not to arm our neighbors, because these weapons are used against civilians in Donbass.
    Our opinion was ignored. At our border, they created a NATO bridgehead, the circle around us narrowed, while we continued to be strangled by sanctions for things that Russia did not do.
    We did not annex Crimea — the referendum was held so it returned to us.
    We did not fight in the Donbass — it was the Civil War in Ukraine.
    But now Ukraine has launched an attack on the republics of Donbass which are recognized by Russia. And the President of Ukraine at an international forum declares his desire to possess nuclear weapons in order to threaten Russia.
    The Ukrainian people are fraternal people for Russians, but their leadership and the United States lead them into the abyss, preaching hate for Russia.
    We will help to free the brotherly people of Ukraine.
    Ukraine will be free and independent. And friendly to Russia. We want the United States to retreat from our borders and to stop considering Ukraine its puppet.
    Our operation is peacekeeping and is aimed only at the demilitarization of a neighboring country. None of the civilians of the brotherly country should suffer!
    We are for peace! No to war! But we have to force peace and calm down the aggressors.

    Мы за мир!
    Мы хотели разговаривать и договариваться.
    Минскими соглашениями мы дали Украине шанс реинтегрировать республики Донбасса. Украине нужно было только перестать стрелять по жилым кварталам и услышать живущих там людей.
    Мы хотели разговаривать с Европой и США, но в ответ наблюдали лишь игнорирование наших вопросов.
    Все эти годы Запад оказывал поддержку украинскому режиму, подталкивая его к войне с Россией. Все эти годы мы просили не вооружать наших соседей, ведь это оружие используется против мирных жителей Донбасса.
    Наше мнение игнорировали. У нашей границы создавали плацдарм НАТО, кольцо вокруг нас сужалось, при этом нас продолжали душить санкциями за то, что Россия не делала.
    Мы не аннексировали Крым - он провёл референдум и вернулся.
    Мы не воевали в Донбассе - это была Гражданская война на Украине.
    Но теперь Украина начала атаку на признанные Россией республики Донбасса. А президент Украины на международном форуме заявляет о желании обладать ядерным оружием, чтобы угрожать России.
    Украинский народ - братский русским народ, но его руководство и США ведут его в пропасть, проповедуя ненависть к России.
    Мы поможем освободиться братскому народу Украину.
    Украина будет свободна и независима. И дружественна России. Пусть США отступит от наших границ и прекратит считать Украину своей марионеткой.
    Наша операция миротворческая и направлена только на демилитаризацию соседней страны. Никто из мирных жителей братской страны не должен пострадать!
    Мы за мир! Нет войне! Но мы вынуждены принуждать к миру и успокаивать агрессоров.

    Condemning War


    Condemning War

    W.J. Astore

    And so the dogs of war are off and running again, this time unleashed by Putin’s Russia against Ukraine. What is Putin up to? Is it a punitive raid against Ukraine, or a general invasion followed by an occupation, or something in between? Time will tell, but wars are unpredictable. Just look at America’s wars. Vietnam was supposed to be over with quickly after the U.S. committed large numbers of troops there in 1965. Afghanistan started as a punitive raid in 2001, then morphed into a wider invasion and occupation that persisted for two decades. Iraq was supposed to be over and done with in a few weeks in 2003, but that general invasion also morphed into an occupation that persisted for nearly a decade.

    At their best, wars are controlled chaos, and that contradiction in terms is intended. My best guess is that Putin sees this as an extended punitive raid to send a message to Ukraine and to NATO that Russia won’t tolerate NATO expansion into Ukraine. Put bluntly, NATO, led by the USA, got into Putin’s grill on Ukraine, and Putin calculated that drawing his saber was a better choice than simply rattling it. Whether he who lives by the sword will die by it remains to be seen.

    In the meantime, I took a quick look at how the mainstream media is covering the Russian invasion. I noted that NBC spoke of Russia’s “terrifying might,” while CBS spoke of “dozens reported dead” in Ukraine. CNN simply said that “Russia invades Ukraine” and that “Ukraine vows defiance.” I have nothing against these headlines, but I wonder if the same coverage would apply to the U.S. military. Would NBC speak of the “terrifying might” of U.S. military attacks? Would our mainstream media mouthpieces report on the deaths of foreigners from those attacks? Did we see terse headlines that read, simply, “U.S. invades Iraq” or “U.S. invades Afghanistan” or “U.S. invades Vietnam”? I can’t remember seeing them, since we like to think of the U.S. military as “liberating” or “assisting” other countries, or, even better, bringing democracy to them with our “freedom” bombs and “liberty” missiles.

    U.S. leaders like Antony Blinken and Nancy Pelosi have shown their toughness. Blinken said Putin will “pay for a long, long time” for his actions, and Pelosi said the Russian invasion is an “attack on democracy.” Did Ukraine truly have a functional democracy? For that matter, does the United States have one?

    I’m with Ike: I hate war with a passion. Most often it’s the innocent and the most vulnerable who end up dead. Whatever Putin is up to, it’s wrong and he should be condemned. But while condemning Putin for his invasion, we shouldn’t forget America’s wars. Indeed, in condemning Putin for his invasion, it offers us a fresh chance to condemn war in general — even, or especially, America’s own versions.

    Ukraine: Questions for the Corrupt Media


    Seyed Mohammad Marandi
    Why did the US back a violent coup in Ukraine against an elected government? Why did the US/EU support neo-Nazis militias? Why were they silent about attacks on Russian speaking civilians in Donbas? Why haven't any of these questions been asked by the cheerleading western media?

    Max Blumenthal: Evils Of the IDF