Thread: WORLD BRACES FOR WAR: Canada send Jetfighters to Poland to Bolster NATO Forces

Activists in Eastern Ukraine Sound Alarm on CIA-led Death Squads

CIA has overturned political movements unacceptable to the political and financial elite in U.S.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 8, 2014

Soon after the United States invaded Afghanistan, the Pentagon began to rely on CIA-trained Afghan paramilitaries to hunt down Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Kandahar, Khost, Paktia, Paktika and other provinces. The Counterterrorist Pursuit Team was modeled after U.S. Special Forces. It engaged in a number of activities, including delivering insurgents to the CIA for interrogation. In addition to Afghanistan, the team crossed over into Pakistan to hunt down senior al-Qaeda leaders, according to author Bob Woodward.



The CIA’s Special Operations Group was involved in Afghanistan prior to the invasion and establishing the elite Afghan paramilitary team. “They don’t play by the normal rules because they don’t have to,” Tod Robberson wrote for The Dallas Morning News in October, 2002. “That’s a big reason why the United States increasingly prefers to deploy CIA paramilitary troops whenever it prepares to enter global hot spots such as Afghanistan or Iraq. U.S. military officials and other analysts say the CIA has a long history of sending highly trained commandos to some of the world’s most dangerous places, sometimes well in advance of conventional fighting forces but often right alongside them.”
“At the end of the day, the most important aspect of these operations is that no one knows about them,” Charles Heyman, editor of London-based Jane’s World Armies, told the newspaper.

CIA in Ukraine
Despite this rule it is no secret both the CIA and the FBI are working with the February junta in Kyiv. The German tabloid Bild reported last Sunday the American agencies are “are advising the interim Kiev government on how to stifle the growing unrest in the country,” according to The Moscow Times.
Prior to this, in mid-April, it was discovered CIA director Brennan had visited the capitol of Ukraine. Speculation flew fast and furious, from Forbes speculating Brennan’s trip was about cyberwarfare to The Daily Beast suggesting the visit concerned intelligence-sharing.
Considering the overall objective in Ukraine, such speculation misses the mark. If the Kyiv regime is going to prevent secession and mutiny within the important industrial and agricultural oblasts of the country, it will use a heavy and brutal hand, one specializing in covert warfare, murder, and terrorism. The CIA was designed specifically to conduct unconventional war behind the scenes and not play by the rules.
“A source close to Ukraine’s security agencies has told the RIA Novosti news agency that Brennan came to Kiev last Saturday and met with Ukraine’s security chiefs before the Ukrainian Interior Ministry said it was launching a special operation against those pressing for federalization in the east of Ukraine,” The Voice of Russia reported on April 14.
The CIA boasts a long and sordid record in stifling political movements, often with violence, those unacceptable to the political elite in the United States.
“Secret CIA operations constitute the usually unseen efforts to shore up unjust, unpopular, minority governments, always with the hope that overt military intervention … will not be necessary. The more successful CIA operations are, the more remote overt intervention becomes, and the more remote become reforms,” writes former CIA case officer Philip Agee.

Ukrainian Fascists Instrumental During Cold War
Widely unknown and never mentioned by the establishment media is the fact the CIA has long shared a relationship with the ultra-nationalist and fascist faction now ruling Ukraine. The United States established important links with Ukrainian emigre groups beginning in 1945 at the outset of the Cold War began.
The Strategic Service Unit (SSU), the successor to the Office of Strategic Services, or OSS, during the Second World War, and the precursor to the CIA, learned ultra-nationalist groups in Ukraine were resisting Soviet occupation following the war. The SSU cooperated with a number of Ukrainian groups opposed to the Soviets, including those who collaborated with the Nazis during the war and harbored deep hatred toward Jews, Poles and Russians.
By 1949 the CIA use of Ukrainians received official sanction in Washington. Project CARTEL was initiated to support resistance within the Soviet Union. By 1950 the U.S. had entered into discussions with the British on further supporting the ultra-nationalist resistance to Soviet occupation.
The CIA “maintained an operational relationship with the Ukrainians that provided to be not only its first, but also among its most resilient projects with anti-Communist emigre groups,” writes Kevin C. Ruffner in a declassified CIA document. “With Agency funding, the Ukrainians established a research institute in New York and published a number of anti-Soviet publications… From this base in the United States, the Ukrainians continued their struggle against Soviet oppression until the collapse of the USSR.”
CIA collaboration with emigre Ukrainians continued after the fall of the Soviet Union, most successfully during the 2004 Orange Revolution, and included such notables as American-born Kateryna Yushchenko, the wife of Viktor Yushchenko, who was hoisted to power after the western-engineered revolution.
“Opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukrainian presidential elections is firmly backed by the Washington Consensus,” Michel Chossudovsky wrote in 2004. “He is not only supported by the IMF and the international financial community, he also has the endorsement of The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Freedom House and the Open Society Institute.”
NED is, for all practical purposes, the bastard child of the CIA. “We should not have to do this kind of work covertly,” NED president Carl Gershman told The New York Times in 1986, three years after the subversive organization was established. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA. We saw that in the 60′s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”
“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” added Allen Weinstein, who drafted legislation creating NED, a few years later.



While NED works over the board with NGOs and “democracy” groups in foreign countries to overthrow governments targeted by the financial and political elite, the CIA deals in the dirty business of violence against targets when the ballot box fails or a counter revolution begins.
It would be naive to assume the CIA is not currently working hand-in-hand with its Cold War partners, the neo-Nazi and fascist ultra-nationalists who are presently directing Ukraine’s security apparatus against opposition in the eastern and southern part of the country. This effort, as Brennan’s visit revealed, is of upmost importance following the failure of the Ukrainian military to impose junta rule in rebellious areas.

Punitive Action Against Resistance by CIA and Right Sector
Iskra-news.info, a Russian language site, believes the Natsgvardii, the Ukrainian National Guard, is working closely with Right Sector on a “punitive action” against activists in the east who plan a referendum on autonomy this Sunday.
“We understand that people are highly motivated. Because they have been three months in the Maidan. They are all volunteers. They agreed they want to defend Ukraine. They will be given the opportunity to show themselves,” Deputy Interior Minister Nikolay Velickovic said about new members of the National Guard in April.
“Kiev is not only faced with the stubborn resistance of the militia, but also to the unwillingness of the army to conduct large-scale operations. Soldiers do not have enough uniforms and supplies, vehicles or fuel,” a report posted on the site from eastern Ukraine states. “Therefore, to a large extent, the government is counting on the newly created Natsgvardii and the militant Right Sector.” The National Guard and Right Sector are “involved with foreign mercenaries.” These allegedly include the American firm Greystone (formerly Black Water) and “30 foreign military sabotage groups of between four to six people each from Germany, Poland, the United States and Georgia.”
Another Russian language website, 57.mid, carries a report from Ukraine claiming the CIA has teamed up with Right Sector to “maximize the number of casualties among the civilian population in order to outshine the massacre of May 2 [the House of Trade Unions fire that killed at least 46 people]” and terrorize the pro-Russian population of the Odessa, Mykolayiv and Kherson regions.
If these reports are indeed accurate, there may be a wave of terror and bloody reprisal in the lead-up to the referendum vote. Fascist gangs, steeped in ethnic hatred and a distorted nationalistic mythos, paired with neoliberal imperatives directed with ruthless precision by the CIA, will result in a new crisis, possibly one that will ultimately prod a reluctant Russia to intervene.
“When India was neoliberalized, far-right thugs backed by and even steered by local police, roamed the streets at night targeting the homes of various leftists such as labor leaders, writers and political opposition and dissidents,” writes Scott Creighton. “Countless people were dragged from their homes and beaten to death by the mobs in front of their wives and children while the law stood by and did nothing. This was done to ensure the stability of the new neoliberal system for years to come.”
The CIA cut its teeth on this sort of murderous behavior in Indonesia where it methodically compiled exhaustive lists of enemies, a tally ultimately resulting in the death of an estimated 250,000 people by the Suharto regime.
“For the first time, U.S. officials acknowledge that in 1965 they systematically compiled comprehensive lists of Communist operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres. As many as 5,000 names were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those who had been killed or captured, according to the U.S. officials,” the Spartanburg, South Carolina Herald-Journal reported on May 19, 1990.
A similar pattern appears to be unfolding in eastern Ukraine. “So going back to Friday’s slaughter of dissidents and labor leaders in Odessa. Sound familiar?” Creighton asks, comparing the CIA’s behavior in Indonesia to that now forming in Ukraine.
This article was posted: Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Related Articles

• CIA Will Soon Roll Out Death Squads to Deal With Activists in Eastern Ukraine
• The ‘Crackdown’ Begins: Ukraine Launches “Anti-Terrorist” Operations In Eastern Ukraine, Arrests 70
• Deadly gun attack in eastern Ukraine shakes fragile Easter truce
• Russia Says U.S. Mercenaries in Eastern Ukraine
• Why Russia Will Not Meddle in Eastern Ukraine

http://www.infowars.com/activists-in...-death-squads/

The Ukraine Headache

May 8, 2014 by Ben Crystal

THINKSTOCK

In 2012, President Barack Obama made a campaign strategy out of mocking Mitt Romney for warning about the growing threat in Moscow. Two years later, the same Democrats who laughed along at Romney’s supposed naivete are now trying to paint not only Romney, but true conservatives, as somehow cheering Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression because it comes at Obama’s expense. Sorry, but no one is buying it.
Ukraine is a lost cause. Whether we want to acknowledge it, it’s as clear as the Russian bombers making low-altitude flights over Kiev. While Obama and the European Union dither with meaningless discussions over even more meaningless economic sanctions, Putin is staging an airshow over the Ukrainian capital.
Barring a rather unlikely turn events in which Putin suddenly remembers that Russia+Power-Drunk Dictator routinely = bad, the Ukraine is looking at life as a client state in the throwback style of the old Warsaw Pact countries. They’ll enjoy nominal independence on matters like parking tickets and public drunkenness, but the heavy lifting will be done for them — and to them — in Moscow. It’s theoretically possible that the Ukrainian nation will rise up and maintain its true independence; but that version of the old David-and-Goliath tale pits David against not only Goliath, but a couple of Philistine tank divisions.
Ultimately, impact of the loss of Ukrainian independence is a matter of perspective. From a diplomatic perspective, Ukraine was unstable, somewhat isolated and, perhaps most importantly, not a member of NATO — meaning Ukraine was a not a signatory to any mutual defense treaties involving NATO (mostly American) men or materiel. From a geopolitical perspective, Ukraine had struggled in the post-Soviet years, remained an unsteady neighbor and, perhaps most importantly, shares borders with four NATO member states — meaning it provided a buffer between Russia and some of our newer pals. Those newer pals include places like Poland, Hungary and Romania — none of which is in any hurry to relive the Hammer and Sickle’s glory days. From the perspective of the interested observer, the likely dismantling of Ukrainian independence is a sad tale of a nation that escaped one of the most diabolical empires in human history, only to be dragged back into its resurgence. Everyone deserves at least a chance to be free, and they lost theirs just when they got their fingers on it. From the perspective of most Americans, Ukraine sounds like something a woman cites as an exit strategy from a bad date. “I’ve really had a great time, but I’ve got a terrible Ukraine.”
But Putin’s victory in the 2014 Crimean Shirtless Posedown, combined with the rhetorical knuckle sandwich he force-fed to Obama last year in Syria, proffers a cautionary tale. The Bear is back. And while I’m not the first to say it, I can’t help but notice that the Democrats are burying Putin’s Crimean gambit under piles of lapdog media spin. While Obama can’t be fairly blamed for the Russian roll into Crimea, there is no doubt that a resurgent Putin was emboldened by Obama’s asses-and-elbows approach to foreign policy — not to mention his thumbs-and-pinkies approach to explaining his actions to the American public.
Putin might be a pet cat and a monocle away from being the villain in the next “Austin Powers” movie, but he’s not stupid. Putin has noticed Obama’s ham-fisted mishandling of the Benghazi massacre. Putin has also noticed that Obama has somehow managed to engineer a policy that involves both targeting and arming al-Qaida. Putin knows Obama is too busy spying on his people and his friends, and then lying about it to both, to focus on Putin’s behavior. Hell, Obama is too busy getting his lies confused to focus on anything for particularly long — especially during the summer months, when the golf course calls early and often. And Putin no doubt remembers the Syrian spanking he gave Obama last year.
Russia’s de facto annexation of Ukraine might not be the reignition of the Cold War, but it is a frosty challenge from our old Cold War nemesis. And while Russia’s reabsorption of the Ukraine — like its recent digestion of Ukrainian neighbor state Georgia — requires no military action on America’s part, the worry now should be whether Putin’s appetite is sated or whether he’s eyeing vacation properties closer to the Mediterranean than the Black or Caspian seas.
–Ben Crystal

http://personalliberty.com/ukraine-headache/

Celente: The True Agenda Revealed!

Thursday, May 8, 2014 9:30
(Before It's News)
By Susan Duclos

Publisher of Trends Journal, Gerald Celente joins Radio 2GB Sydney, on May 7, 2014, where Celente reveals what is really behind events the world is watching unfolding across the globe, specifically who is behind the actions we are seeing in Ukraine. Celente suggests where to look and watch to see exactly what the United States and the European Union has done and why.

Celente reveals some very interesting deals that the new “leadership” in Ukraine have made lately which confirms his assertions.





Susan Duclos owns/writes Wake up America

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-con...d-2452060.html

Don't Drink And Drive Tanks

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/09/2014 15:47 -0400

For the longest time we thought it was impossible to flip a tank simply by driving it. Then this Ukrainian tank operator nearly proved us wrong.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...nd-drive-tanks

Ukraine, Europe Throw Hissy Fits Over Putin's Visit To "Annexed" Crimea

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/09/2014 12:23 -0400


While - for now - Sunday's referendum for Donetsk remains un-postponed despite Putin's diplomatic call for a delay, the Europeans and Ukrainians are extremely displeased with his visit to Crimea today:

• EU SAYS REGRETS PUTIN ATTENDED CRIMEA PARADE;
• EU SAYS HE SHOULD NOT HAVE USED VICTORY DAY TO SHOWCASE ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA; and
• Ukraine considers this step to be a blatant disrespect by the Russian side

The atmosphere in the nation is growing dark - as one source in Mariupol noted, "Electricity out in parts, barricades being pulled up. Feels like a country on the brink of civil war."

Olaf Koens @obk Follow Strange atmosphere here in Mariupol. Electricity out in parts, barricades being pulled up. Feels like a country on the brink of civil war.
11:09 AM - 9 May 2014





Olaf Koens @obk
Follow
Building clearly fired at with something heavier than a kalashnikov
10:22 AM - 9 May 2014



Ukraine is not happy about his visit...

Statement of the MFA of Ukraine on unauthorised visit by the Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine expresses the strongest protest against today’s unauthorised visit by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, temporally occupied by Russia.

Ukraine considers this step to be a blatant disrespect by the Russian side for the legislation of Ukraine, international law; gross violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, the United Nations Charter, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution "On Territorial Integrity of Ukraine ", as well as the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation of 1997.

This provocation makes yet another clear evidence that Russia has been consciously escalating tensions in Ukrainian-Russian relations and unwilling to bring bilateral disputes to diplomatic solution.

We demand the Russian side to return to the civilized way of international relations, listen to the decisive voice of international community, as well as repeal all the illegal acts on occupation and annexation of the part of Ukraine’s territory.

Europe is on their side...

• EU SAYS REGRETS PUTIN ATTENDED CRIMEA PARADE;
• EU SAYS HE SHOULD NOT HAVE USED VICTORY DAY TO SHOWCASE ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...annexed-crimea

Highlights From The Ukraine Civil War: Mariupol Soldier Firing RPG Caught On Tape

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/09/2014 11:35 -0400

When it comes to people-vs-tank videos, Tienanmen Square reigns supreme; but as tensions escalate hyperbolically in Eastern Ukraine, the following clip of a Mariupol soldier taking things into his own hands - and firing an RPG into the face of two oncoming tanks - confirms this nation's divide is growing wider by the day....

• THREE DEAD, 25 WOUNDED IN MARIUPOL CLASHES, LOCAL GOVT SAYS

As RT reports, the Victory Day 'celebrations' spilled over into deadly clashes between police and pro-Russian separatists after Kiev’s forces are using heavy weaponry and tanks in the eastern city of Mariupol. Sadly, we suspect, Mariupol may become the next Odessa this weekend.

Here's how it started...



And here's how he finished it...



But, as RT reports,

Kiev’s forces are using heavy weaponry and tanks in the eastern city of Mariupol to storm the local Interior Ministry building, where police have barricaded inside. After residents began flocking to the scene, Kiev fighters opened fire on civilians.

Many people came to mark Victory Day, but as the reports of shooting started coming in, they moved on to show support for a few dozen policemen who had barricaded inside the building, refusing to take orders from Kiev.

Federalization supporters screamed “Fascists!” as the Kiev forces approached.

One of the armored vehicles then opened fire at a group of unarmed civilians, according to a self-defense forces’ representative.

...

Ten people with gunshot wounds have been taken to one of the hospitals in Mariupol, local media reported.

Also, according to the 0629.ua news portal, “a tank was seized at the crossroads of Lenina and Torgovaya streets by the representatives of the Donetsk People’s Republic.”

Mariupol’s residents have put up barricades in the streets, burned tires and turned over cars.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...pg-caught-tape

Russia Celebrates Victory Over Nazi Germany, Putin Visits Newly "Acquired" Crimea, Ukraine Cries Foul

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/09/2014 08:35 -0400

A day after Russia shocked the world with an impressive demonstration of military preparation for what it dubbed was a "massive nuclear attack", the country is celebrating its traditional May 9 national holiday which marks the Soviet victory over Nazis in World War II. Among the people watching the traditional and impressive military demonstration on Red Square was Russian president Vladimir Putin.



This is a full replay of what he saw.



“It’s a day when we all especially keenly feel what it means to be faithful to the motherland and how important it is to be able to defend its interests,” Putin said at the Moscow parade. “It’s a holiday when the all-triumphant power of patriotism celebrates victory.”
However it is not Putin's presence as the rally that was notably, but what he did after, when hours after the he watched the tanks rumble on Red Square Putin flew to Crimea for the first time since its annexation, to oversee Russia's newest territorial expansion. This happened even as both Ukraine, Germany and the head of NATO all voiced strong objections to such a visit by Putin which not only formalizes the expansion, but spits in the eye of Western attempts to contain the Ukraine conflict and/or de-escalate:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said three days ago a visit by Putin to Crimea would be regrettable.

“The situation there is so grave that a trip like this could provoke greater violence,” Tatyana Stanovaya, an analyst at the Moscow-based Center for Political Technologies, said by phone May 7. “The visit would appeal to Russians at home who are happy to have Crimea back in the country’s fold.”
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said yesterday he’s concerned that Russia is “planning provocations” today.

Ukraine was even more despondent:

• UKRAINE FOREIGN MINISTRY PROTESTS PUTIN'S CRIMEA VISIT
• UKRAINE: PUTIN VISIT CONFIRMS RUSSIA WANTS TO ESCALATE TENSION

The tension started by a CIA-funded violent coup in Ukraine? Why yes. yes he does.
While we commiserate with the completely helpless and without leverage Ukraine government, as well as the reliant on Russian gas Germany, perhaps consider this a preview of what Putin will do next year when long after East Ukraine aka "Novorossiya" has seceded from the west, the Russian president will have a land route from the Kremlin all the way to Sevastopol. He may even ride a bear all the way from Point A to point B. Bare chested.




http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...cquired-crimea

Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the biggest War Criminals walking this earth; if you see this man coming your already in deep shit

Brzezinski endorses arming Ukrainian junta, to no avail
© Collage: Voice of Russia

The situation in Ukraine is on the verge of spiralling out of complete control, especially now that the junta's military and Pravy Sector irregulars are deployed against the citizens of the Southeast. The US is bunkering down in its support of the coup-imposed Ukrainian authorities with a renewed round of sanctions against Russia and Congressional chatter about arming the Ukrainian forces.

Among the strongest advocates of American aggression is former National Security Advisor and influential policy activist Zbigniew Brzezinski (incidentally, the strategic founder of the Mujahedeen), who in a recent article argues that the US needs to step up its military commitment to Ukraine. What is most striking, however, is that Brzezinski's attempts to paint Russia in a negative light betray a self-conscious guilt on the part of the American ruling establishment. As such, Brzezinski’s latest blather into public diplomacy should be seen as nothing more than the thinly disguised psy-op that it is.

Most news reports on Brzezinski's piece focus on his suggestion to arm the Ukrainian military (and by implicit understanding, the Neo-Nazi Pravy Sector forces now aligned with them) in order to create a type of guerrilla insurgency to sabotage any Russian peace and stabilization intervention in the beleaguered Southeast. This plan for proxy warfare reeks of the stench of 1980s Afghanistan, when the US (guided by Brzezinski) worked to trick the Soviets into a quagmire. A simple substitution shows that the US has a simple plan for copying this template into 2014 Ukraine. Whereas the Afghans had Stinger missiles, rural battlegrounds, and CIA-trained organization, the Ukrainians are envisioned to have hand-held rockets and anti-tank missiles, an urban battleground, and, like the Afghans, CIA organization as well. It's the same trick being played on the same audience, but this time the trickster himself is the fool.
Nowhere is this seen more explicitly than in Brzezinski’s plea for Obama to present a "comprehensive statement of what is really at stake". A point for point response as viewed by the Rest (non-West) follows:
Brzezinski: Why we are facing this problem?
Rest: There has been an explosion of Western-organized covert activity all across the world (Color Revolutions, "Arab Spring"), dangerously culminating on Russia’s doorstep. Brzezinski’s Arc of Crisis and Eurasian Balkans policy have leaped from the Mideast to Eastern Europe in order to separate Russia from Ukraine. Brzezinski wrote in his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" that keeping Ukraine away from Russia is absolutely necessary to prevent Russia from restoring an "empire". This line of thinking fulfils Hillary Clinton’s threat of "figure[ing] out effective ways to slow down or prevent [the Eurasian Union]".
Brzezinski: Why it is in our common interest to resolve it?
Rest: Nobody in Eurasia wants to see the Eurasian Balkans project succeed, because if it does, then a bloody divide and rule policy will conquer the supercontinent.
Brzezinski: Why, if negotiation does not work out, (do) we have an obligation to help Ukraine?
Rest: The entire world has an obligation to help the people of Ukraine, just not the junta. Color Revolutions and their spawn must be eradicated at the root, otherwise their non-state actor infrastructure will spread like weeds throughout the Eurasian lawn and choke out other Resistant and Defiant (R&D) States.
Brzezinski: Above all, the president must clarify why we cannot tolerate an international system in which countries are invaded by thugs and destabilized from abroad.
Rest: This is exactly what President Putin and the Russian Federation have been doing for years, and Putin most recently referred to the threat of Color Revolutions in his speech announcing the reunification of Crimea with Russia. Thugs have turned Libya into a "scumbag Woodstock", and they have been fighting for over three years to overthrow the popular secular government of Syria and replace it with an extreme Islamic dictatorship. Both are exported from abroad, and the US has now set its shadowy sights on Ukraine.
Brzezinski: And why this is a common responsibility not just for us but for our allies and other friends like the Chinese, whose stake in stability should be as great as ours.
Rest: China most certainly has a stake in Eastern European stability, so much so that it has just announced its cooperation in linking Crimea to mainland Russia.
The Rest understands the trick being played by the West, and they are not falling for the same games anymore. This is why Brzezinski implores Obama to address the American people, not the world, in pushing for an escalation of the crisis by arming the Ukrainian junta. It’s a lost cause to try to sell the same old shtick to a global non-Western audience that is becoming more politically and economically empowered with each passing year. And interestingly enough, it may even be a sign of desperation for Obama to so explicitly address his American subjects on this topic. After all, at the end of March, 46 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Obama was handling the Ukrainian Crisis. Western pundits may spin this as meaning that the public wants Obama to "get tough" on the issue, but the opposite may be true. One needs look no further for evidence of the US population's weariness for warfare than the extreme unpopularity that a US strike on Syria last year, to say nothing of taking measures that could theoretically push Russia and the US to nuclear brinksmanship.
The ultimate irony behind Brzezinski’s piece is it is he who engineered this entire Ukrainian destabilization strategy through the theories advocated in "The Grand Chessboard". It is not realistic that he, of all people, would suddenly turn into a dove after his policy has seen relative success in disrupting Russia's foreign policy with its largest Eastern European neighbor. Taken from this obvious perspective, his article and its "peaceful" recommendations (a trilateral economic framework) should be taken with a grain of salt. Cursory research would indicate that it was first Russia, not Brzezinski, who thought of the trilateral idea, although this was flatly rejected at the time.
Additionally, while using Turkey's 50+ years of trying to join the EU as some type of assurance that Ukraine would not immediately be gobbled up into the Union, Brzezinski conveniently omits the blinding speed that Brussels surged East into relatively poor and politically dysfunctional Bulgaria and Romania, to say nothing of formerly war-torn Croatia's ascension last year. The ease with which he mentions "vulnerable NATO countries" shows that he takes for granted these countries' membership in NATO in the first place, which itself clearly violates the agreement not to expand the alliance eastward after the Cold War. With these basic facts in mind, one can rightly (for once!) channel John Kerry and describe Brzezinski as the real "propaganda bullhorn" of the Ukrainian Crisis.

Andrew Korybko
Europe, Ukraine, US, CIA, politics, Right Sector, World
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_05_09/...no-avail-3995/

The Secret Back Story to Russia and Ukraine that Americans Never Learned In School

Submitted by George Washington on 05/09/2014 13:36 -0400

Preface: We believe that Soviet communism was an abomination. Stalin was certainly a tyrant: he killed countless political enemies or threw them into insane asylums. We also have littler tolerance for useful idiots who defend communism as a force for good. In short, we hate Soviet era communism.
And Putin also runs Russia like it’s his plaything, with little regard for the desires of his people.
But U.S. warmongers have also been hyping the Russian threat with self-serving lies – and committing atrocities and telling lies – for some 70 years. As an American, my concern is keeping America from destroying itself. And – unless we learn our history – we could get in a lot of trouble.

America Launched the Cold War Even Before World War II Had Ended

Joseph Stalin and the Soviets were key in helping the U.S. to defeat the Nazis. 20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis in World War II.

And yet the U.S. started competing against Stalin – and treating him like an enemy – before WWII had even ended.

Specifically, dropping atomic bombs on Japan had a duel purpose: defeating the Japanese, and sending a message to Stalin that the U.S. was in charge.

History.com notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reports:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

***

[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.

***

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.”

University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz says:

Increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

***

Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

General Dwight Eisenhower said, “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary” and “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

And Truman’s chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, who chaired the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claims:

The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

America Has Waged a Brutal Dirty Tricks Campaign for 70 Years

Right after the end of WWII, the U.S. backed Nazi fighters in Ukraine in an attempt to dislodge Soviet control of that country.

Moreover:

In late September 1947, [George] Kennan urged Forrestal to establish a “guerrilla warfare corps”—a suggestion Forrestal heartily endorsed—although the [Joing Chiefs of Staff] recommended against establishing a “separate guerrilla warfare and corps.” In December, Truman approved secret annex NSC 4-A, authorizing the CIA to conduct covert operations. He had dismantled the OSS’s covert parmilitary operations capabilities in September 1945, but now he brought them back in force. In the summer of 1948, he approved NSC 10/2, which called for “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.” These activities were to be done in a way that would always afford the US government plausible deniability. In August 1948, Truman approved NSC 20, which authorized guerrilla operations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe ….

***

Beginning with Truman’s first day in office, his receptiveness to the views of hard-line anti-Communists, his denial of Roosevelt’s understanding with Staling, the provocative and unnecessary dropping of the atomic bombs, his spreading a network of military bases around the world, Churchill’s speech at Fulton, Truman’s call for fighting Communism in greece, the division and remilitarization of Germany, the continued testing of bigger and bigger atomic and hydrogen bombs which he used to threaten the Soviet Union, Truman’s deliberate exaggerations of the Communist threat both overseas and at home and his persecution and silencing of those who challenged these distortions. In all these matters, with few exceptions, the United states, after successfully liberating Western Europe, was now signaling fear and aggression ….

The U.S. also admits that the U.S. and NATO also used false flag terror attacks to discredit the Soviets.

For example:

• The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister

• The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special

• As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

The U.S. and NATO Have Been Trying to Encircle Russia Militarily Since 1991

President George H. W. Bush promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that – if the Soviets broke up the Soviet Union and dissolved the Warsaw Pact – then NATO would not move into those former Soviet countries. This assured the Soviets that NATO would not encircle Russia.

Similarly, Germany promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch to the east.” As Andrew Gavin Marshall explains:

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 prompted the negotiated withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Eastern Europe. The ‘old order’ of Europe was at an end, and a new one “needed to be established quickly,” noted Mary Elise Sarotte in the New York Times. This ‘new order’ was to begin with “the rapid reunification of Germany.” Negotiations took place in 1990 between Soviet president Gorbachev, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and President Bush’s Secretary of State, James A. Baker 3^rd. The negotiations sought to have the Soviets remove their 380,000 troops from East Germany. In return, both James Baker and Helmut Kohl promised Gorbachev that the Western military alliance of NATO would not expand eastwards. West Germany’s foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, promised Gorbachev that, ” NATO will not expand itself to the East.” Gorbachev agreed, though asked – and did not receive – the promise in writing, remaining a “gentlemen’s agreement.”

But Bill Clinton broke America’s promise, and the U.S. has pursued a campaign of encircling Russia ever since:

Credit: Small People Against Big Government

And NATO has also broken its promise, and now largely encircles Russia:

In 1997 – as part of the strategy of encirclement – former U.S. national security advisor and high-level Obama policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called for the U.S. to take Ukraine away from Russia.
Cheney Has Controlled U.S. Policy Towards Russia with a Strategy of Global Domination For Decades … And Continues to Do So Today

The U.S. has also long exaggerated the “Russian menace” in order to justify its military spending and expansion.

For example, Dick Cheney made false claims exaggerating the threat posed by Russia’s weapons in the 1970s to ramp up cold war fears and justify huge increases in military spending.

Subsequent instances of fear-mongering by Cheney and his subordinates include:

• New York Times and Wikipedia, 1992: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere .… We do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others.”

• Toledo Blade, 2006: “Vice President Dick Cheney accused Russia of pursuing antidemocratic policies and using its vast energy supplies to blackmail neighboring countries”

• Wall Street Journal, 2008: “The vice president … accused Russia of seeking to reinvent the old Soviet Union’s sphere of influence, and beat back the advance of democracy in Eastern Europe …. ‘Let us make clear that the enlargement of NATO will continue as and where the allies decide,” Mr. Cheney said. ‘Allies agreed that those nations will be NATO members, and the time to begin their membership action plans has come.’ “

• Telegraph, 2008: “We believe in the right of men and women to live without the threat of tyranny, economic blackmail or military invasion or intimidation …. Ukrainians have a right to choose whether they wish to join NATO, and NATO has a right to invite Ukraine to join the alliance when we believe they are ready and that the time is right”

Todd E. Pierce – Major (ret.) U.S. Army Judge Advocate General – notes in a must-read article that “Cheneyism” has driven U.S. policy towards Russia for decades:

Dick Cheney’s ideology of U.S. global domination has become an enduring American governing principle regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office, a reality reflected in the recent Ukrainian coup ….

The final form of this ideology took shape in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union when the world was then to be subjected to eternal U.S. military dominance, as revealed in the leaked “Draft Defense Planning Guidance” (DPG) devised by Cheney’s subordinates when he was Defense Secretary under President George H.W. Bush.

Since then, Cheney has been so successful in propagating this ideology of permanent U.S. domination abroad and rule by a “unitary executive” at home that it has now survived multiple changes of U.S. presidents largely intact. It is so much attributable to Dick Cheney that it merits his name: Cheneyism.

As unprecedented as Cheneyism may be – not even history’s most power-mad conquerors ever envisioned anything like “full-spectrum dominance” – President Obama has cemented Cheney’s ideological legacy by continuing his unilateralism and even expanding it ….

Cheney’s ideology combines militarism under a state of permanent war with an un-American, anti-constitutional authoritarianism. It also embraces an aggressiveness toward past, present and possibly future adversaries, especially Russia.

Robert Gates, who was CIA director in 1991, has written in his memoir Duty that with the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Cheney “wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire but of Russia itself,” so “it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.”

Little wonder that Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded that denying Russian access to Crimean ports via the coup in Ukraine was just one step in a larger U.S. plan to deny Russia a means of naval defense, just as he might have seen the Kosovo War in the late 1990s as a move against a Russian ally.

***

There is virtually no deviation in the United States from the core of Cheney’s ideology. That is, the unrelenting pursuit of total U.S. global military domination as outlined in the Defense Planning Guidance.

This February’s successful subversion of Ukraine’s democratically elected government by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland is merely the latest example of U.S. policies first conceived and promoted by Cheney and like-minded ideologists, including Nuland’s husband, renowned neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century.

If there was any doubt about the continuation of Cheneyism under Obama, the activities of Nuland – a Bush-43 holdover who was promoted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then Secretary of State John Kerry – shows there was no real break in foreign policy with the change of administrations in 2009.

As revealed by Nuland, there has not been a Russian policy “reset” by the U.S.; it was a mere subterfuge. And as Putin is learning, any objection to U.S. strategic expansionism is treated as “terrorism” or “aggression” and becomes a pretext for U.S. diplomatic, economic and military suppression of the “threat.”
In 1991, as conceived by Cheney and other Pentagon ideologues, such as Paul Wolfowitz and David Addington, this strategy of constantly violating other nations’ sovereignty has been waged both by military and political means ….

***

For Cheney, it was as if he saw the Cold War as having been a winner-take-all contest for global domination. When the U.S. “won,” the countries of the world were to submit to global U.S. domination. As stated in Harper’s Magazine, the United States would move from “countering Soviet attempts at dominance to en*suring its own dominance.”

***

Clinton preserved the general outlines of the force structure and strategy that had been worked out under Cheney and Wolfowitz. Cheney’s ideology of permanent U.S. dominance achieved its purest form under President George W. Bush, with Cheney as his influential Vice President. But Cheneyism also has maintained a strong foothold in the five years of the Obama administration.

***

Cheney’s geopolitical ideas have become the consensus of both Republicans and Democrats and have assumed a permanent place in “mainstream” American political thought and governance under Obama.

***

For a foreign government to anticipate how the U.S. will act, their analysts need to understand Cheneyism as a controlling ideology in U.S. policy, just as American intelligence analysts were steeped in theories of Marxism and Stalinism during the Cold War. U.S. citizens should understand the tenets of Cheneyism, too, since this arrogant ideology has the potential
for disastrous consequences.

***

Indeed, there is a German precedent for Cheney’s ideology that is not Nazism. Following the failure of the Imperial German Army in World War I, philosophical militarists such as Ernst Junger and authoritarian legal philosophers like Carl Schmitt came together in the “Conservative Revolutionary Movement.”

Celebrating war and authoritarianism, they believed that Germany was the “exceptional” nation of Europe, deserving of military expansion in both eastern and western Europe. The German Conservative Revolutionaries didn’t all become Nazis, but they created a hospitable culture for them. With hindsight, they could have been called proto-Cheneyites.

Not only are Cheney and Neocons back … they never actually left.

The neoconservatives planned campaigns of destabilization all over the world 20 years ago, and Obama is implementing the same plans today.
The Bottom Line: Putin’s No Angel … But Americans Need to Gain a Little Perspective

Putin is no angel, and Stalin really was a murderous tyrant.

But Americans also need to understand that the U.S. and NATO have been seeking domination even before WWII ended.

Dick Cheney has dominated U.S. policy towards Russia for decades, and Obama is following Cheney’s playbook.

America needs to gain a little perspective.
See this for other interesting and little-known facts about Russia.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...learned-school