Ukraine - Escobar vs. Bilderberg's Coup-Meister KIssinger

Tony Gosling tony at
Tue Mar 11 00:41:22 GMT 2014

Fascists/neo-nazis Will Never Allow Real Elections In Ukraine
C'mon baby, light my (Crimean) fire
By Pepe Escobar
March 08, 2014 
Clearing House - 
Times" - March 16 is C Day. The Crimean 
parliament - by 78 votes with 8 abstentions - 
decided this is the day when Crimean voters will 
choose between joining the Russian Federation or 
to remain part of Ukraine as an autonomous region 
with very strong powers, according to the 1992 constitution.
Whatever "diplomatic" tantrums Washington and 
Brussels will keep pulling, and they will be 
incandescent, facts on the ground speak for 
themselves. The city council of Sevastopol - the 
headquarters of Russia's Black Sea fleet - has 
already voted to join Russia. And next week the 
Duma in Moscow will study a bill to simplify the mechanism of adhesion.
Quick recap: this is a direct result of 
Washington spending US$5 billion - a Victoria 
"F**k the EU" Nuland official figure - to promote 
regime change in Ukraine. On the horizon, Crimea 
may be incorporated into Russia for free, while 
the "West" absorbs that bankrupt back-of-beyond 
(Western Ukraine) that an Asia Times Online 
reader indelibly described as the "Khaganate of 
Nulands" (an amalgam of khanate, Victoria's 
notorious neo-con husband Robert Kagan, and no man's land).
What Moscow regards as an illegal, neo-nazi 
infiltrated government in Kiev, led by Prime 
Minister Arseniy "Yats" Yatsenyuk - an Ukrainian 
Jewish banker playing the role of Western puppet 
- insists Crimea must remain part of Ukraine. And 
it's not only Moscow; half of Ukraine itself does 
not recognize the Yats gang as a legitimate 
government, now boasting a number of oligarchs 
imposed as provincial governors.
Yet this "government" - supported by the US and 
the European Union - has already declared the 
referendum illegal. Proving its impeccable 
"democratic" credentials, it has already moved to 
ban the official use of the Russian language in 
Ukraine; get rid of the communist party, which 
amassed 13% of the votes in the last election, 
more, incidentally, than the neo-nazi-infested 
Svoboda ("Freedom") party, now ensconced in key 
government security posts; and ban a Russian TV 
station, which happens to be the most popular on Ukrainian cable.
Amid all the hysteria from Washington and certain 
European capitals, what's not explained to 
puzzled public opinion is that these 
fascists/neo-nazis who got to power through a 
coup will never allow real elections to take 
place in Ukraine; after all they would most certainly be sent packing.
This implies that "Yats" and his gang - on top of 
it reveling at their red carpet welcome at a 
pompous yet innocuous EU summit in Brussels - 
won't budge. For instance, they used heavy muscle 
to send pro-Russian protesters in front of the 
Donetsk government building running. Heavily 
industrialized Donetsk is very much linked commercially to Russia.
Then there's an even more sinister possible 
scenario looming in the horizon; an 
instrumentalization of the lunatic jihadi fringe 
of the 10% of Tatars in Crimea, from false flags 
to suicide bombings. The House of Saud, according 
to a solid Saudi source, is immensely interested 
in Ukraine, and may be tempted to do a few favors 
for Western intelligence.............

How the Ukraine crisis ends

By Henry A. Kissinger, Published: March 5
Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about 
confrontation. But do we know where we are going? 
In my life, I have seen four wars begun with 
great enthusiasm and public support, all of which 
we did not know how to end and from three of 
which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of 
policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a 
showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the 
West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it 
must not be either side’s outpost against the 
other ­ it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine 
into a satellite status, and thereby move 
Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to 
repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of 
reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine 
can never be just a foreign country. Russian 
history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The 
Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has 
been part of Russia for centuries, and their 
histories were intertwined before then. Some of 
the most important battles for Russian freedom, 
starting with the 
of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian 
soil. The Black Sea Fleet ­ Russia’s means of 
projecting power in the Mediterranean ­ is based 
by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even 
such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 
and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an 
integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its 
bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of 
the strategic element to domestic politics in 
negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe 
contributed to turning a negotiation into a 
crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element.They live 
in a country with a complex history and a 
polyglot composition. The Western part was 
incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when 
Stalin andHitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 
percent of whose population is Russian , became 
part of Ukraine 
in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by 
birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year 
celebration of a Russian agreement with the 
Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east 
largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks 
Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any 
attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the 
other ­ as has been the pattern ­ would lead 
eventually to civil war or break up. To treat 
Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation 
would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring 
Russia and the West ­ especially Russia and 
Europe ­ into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; 
it had previously been under some kind of foreign 
the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders 
have not learned the art of compromise, even less 
of historical perspective. The politics of 
post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates 
that the root of the problem lies in efforts by 
Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on 
recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one 
faction, then by the other. That is the essence 
of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and 
his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. 
They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have 
not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. 
policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the 
two parts of the country to cooperate with each 
other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various 
factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this 
principle. Each has made the situation worse. 
Russia would not be able to impose a military 
solution without isolating itself at a time when 
many of its borders are already precarious. For 
the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is 
not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his 
grievances, a policy of military impositions 
would produce another Cold War. For its part, the 
United States needs to avoid treating Russia as 
an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of 
conduct established by Washington. Putin is a 
serious strategist ­ on the premises of Russian 
history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology 
are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding 
Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining 
outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my 
notion of an outcome compatible with the values 
and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely 
its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I 
took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any 
government compatible with the expressed will of 
its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt 
for a policy of reconciliation between the 
various parts of their country. Internationally, 
they should pursue a posture comparable to that 
of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its 
fierce independence and cooperates with the West 
in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the 
existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. 
But it should be possible to put Crimea’s 
relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. 
To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s 
sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce 
Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the 
presence of international observers. The process 
would include removing any ambiguities about the 
status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People 
familiar with the region will know that not all 
of them will be palatable to all parties. The 
test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced 
dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these 
or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift 
toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list