Taken from the March 7, 2014 release of the World Affairs Brief
The Ukraine conflict has reached such a level murkiness and complexity due to deception and misdirection by all the parties involved that deciphering the situation taxes even the most experienced of conspiracy analysts. A lot of mistaken conclusions are being presented by both major and alternative media. The Ukraine opposition has been infiltrated by both Western globalists and Russia-controlled sleepers, so it’s hard to tell who is directing what. Russia is claiming that those providing “security” for the airports and major bases in Crimea are just “local militia”, but why do they wear masks and uniforms without insignias, and drive Special Forces vehicles with Russian tags? Supposedly, pro-Russian oligarches in official positions in eastern Ukraine have been replaced with pro-western oligarches, but all the “Post-Soviet” oligarches have been allies of the continuing Soviet leadership (who still run the show behind the scenes), why should we expect these new ones to be any different? This week, I’ll try and help readers figure out what real and what’s fake.
Let’s start with Russian President Putin’s press conference this week where he stated, “It was an unconstitutional overthrow and an armed seizure of power.”
First, every coup is an unconstitutional action—that’s a given—but it was Putin’s own pro-Russian majority party in Ukraine (Regions Party) that voted almost unanimously for Yanukovych’s ouster and the coup couldn’t have taken place without their wholesale agreement. So, if Putin is really complaining about the unconstitutional coup he has only his own lackeys to blame. As I said last week, the opposition could never have forced most of the Regions’ delegates to go along with the ouster—only Putin’s orders could have done that.
Second, if it was an “armed seizure of power,” where were the arms? Only the Berkut (Ukraine’s special police) and the regular police had any quantity of armed personnel and they were under the control of Yanukovych right up to the phony coup. The opposition may have had a few dozen hunting weapons but that isn’t enough for an armed seizure of power. As I pointed out last week, someone had to give the order to cause the armed forces to stand down—and that couldn’t have been the opposition.
Further, despite Putin’s rhetoric, this isn’t going to escalate into a world war with the West because 1) Russia isn’t ready to take on the West militarily and 2) the US and EU have showed no inclination to send in military forces as a counter force in Crimea, thus denying Russia any excuse to attack the West. How could Putin excuse attacking the West and starting WWIII if the West isn’t contesting his actions in Ukraine with anything other than weak rhetoric and tepid sanctions?
The US has made some token military moves. They moved six fighters to Poland, a frigate into the Black sea, and redeployed a Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response team to Spain. Even Russia’s claim to have authorized an invasion hasn’t amounted to anything except a few hundred Special Forces at best, and the repositioning of a few ships to the black sea.
Both sides are engaged in a symbolic show of force to probe how the other will react. For instance, after US fighters arrived in Poland, Russia began an air defense drill in response. Russia’s only direct confrontation inside Crimea with Ukrainian military was the shooting of a few rounds over the heads Ukrainian soldiers at a military base to test control.
Rumors that the Russian 20th and 48th armies are getting ready to invade Eastern Ukraine have not materialized. They may be drawing up contingency plans, as usual, but there have been no large troop movements of any kind. On the Ukrainian side, the provisional government mobilized troops and called up military reservists, but there is no corresponding movement of troops to indicate a direct confrontation with Russian forces. I think it is clear that neither side wants a shooting war over this, yet.
I watched with interest to see how fellow anti-globalists like Paul Craig Roberts and Paul Joseph Watson would react to my arguments that the coup in Ukraine was done by Putin and not by the globalists. Roberts, in particular, has been painting Putin as the victim of Western globalist aggression, a mistaken analysis, though he is correct in thinking that the globalists are predators with their own agenda. This week, Roberts was predicting this could lead to a nuclear war with Russia, showing he doesn’t yet understand what criteria, on both sides, have to be in place for that to happen.
He fails to realize that the globalist objective is not to push Russia out of Ukraine, but to provoke a long-term conflict there to help usher in World War III and ultimately stampede Americans into forming a militarized global government in response. But even the globalists have to wait until Russia and China make the big move. They can’t push so hard that it looks like the West is starting the war with Russia.
Paul Joseph Watson had a chance to respond to my claims on Monday during a show on the Alex Jones channel (Alex interviewed me and my point of view last Friday). The host mentioned that “we heard from Joel Skousen this week” that the evidence pointed to the pro-Russian forces being responsible for the coup. Watson, who does a great job pulling together the news stories for Infowars.com each week, responded by saying he disagreed and then proceeded to recite the evidence of Western influence and money on the opposition. But this misses the point.
I have never disputed that there is Western meddling in the Ukraine opposition, but this alone cannot and does not explain the coup. Watson never addressed my arguments that only pro-Russian forces could have ordered the defense forces to stand-down, or ordered the Regions Party to vote against Yanukovych.
Western meddling did and continues to occur, but it alone can’t explain the stand-down order and the too-good-to-be-true unanimous vote of the Regions Party, which hated the opposition, in favor of the ouster. Pro-Russian leaders wouldn’t have pulled this phony coup were they not in control of the opposition leaders, who are only playing along with the West so the West gets the blame when austerity measures and other problems become unpopular.
The Sniper Claim: This week, those who blame the coup entirely on Western intervention have a new argument that they say surely proves their point. Officers of Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) loyal to the ousted President Viktor Yanukovych hacked phones of Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet speaking with EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton. This was said 8 minutes into the conversation: [my comments in brackets]
Paet: “All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. … Some photos that showed it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it is really disturbing that now the new coalition they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened [this latter point may be evidence of a cover up but it doesn’t tell us anything about who is covering for whom. If the new opposition government is a phony opposition sleeper for Russia, as I claim, then it could just as well be covering for a pro-Russian sniper doing the false-flag shooting]. So there is now stronger and stronger understanding [he’s not fluent in English. The more correct word, given that he doesn’t really know is “suspicion”] that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” [Saying “somebody” shows that he doesn’t know and the people who talked to him don’t know—they, being from Regions Party, are assuming it’s the opposition. And, most of them may not actually know who is pulling the strings on the opposition. In fact, that is likely, so that the truth doesn’t leak out.]
Ashton: “I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh.” [indicates that 1) she wasn’t aware of any refusal to investigate and 2) that she is willing to investigate]
Paet (in an earlier part of the conversation): “[There is] no trust of the opposition, have dirty past.[true] I was talking to Regions (party)... “tremendous pressure on party members, univited visitors during the night, one parliament member beaten on the street by an armed group…[but only after they had voted for the ouster, proving that someone got to them before these obvious threats were made (for public consumption)] Opposition will not leave the streets until real reform happens [the real opposition members are different from the public opposition leaders, who are always created and directed by the powers behind the scene, just as in Moscow]—not enough to have a change of government.
Analysis: First of all, none of this conversation provides any definitive evidence justifying his pointing the finger at the opposition. What Paet says is clearly third hand information, first, from pro-Russian contacts in the SBU, and then to members of the pro-Russian Regions party who were feeding this info to Paet. We are left to presume the SBU extracted and compared the bullets killing the various protestors and police. But there are various levels of bullet analysis and his weak English recitation of facts is clearly insufficient to tell us what specifically was investigated.
But even if the Security Services did get a specific bullet match to a single rifle, it tells us nothing about who was behind the rifle and who he (or they) worked for. Until you find the shooter(s), which won’t happen unless someone on the inside talks, you have no evidence sufficient to blame one side or the other.
The Crimean conflict: Let’s now look at Putin’s claims justifying Russian aggression in Crimea and how he’s going to push these claims to his advantage (working off the list put together by the US State Dept):
1) That Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets.
That’s hard to justify. There never was any threat to Russian bases by the provisional Ukrainian government. In fact, Putin made his move before the new government was even a day old. You don’t restructure a government in that amount of time—which means that essentially, the same people are running the bureaucracy and military that was there during Yanukovych’s reign.
2) That “citizen defense” groups, not Russian forces, seized infrastructure and military facilities and who are rushing to lock down Crimea for Russia.
Not true. They may wear uniforms without insignia, but their vehicles have Russian military license plates and the types of vehicles are used exclusively by Russian Special Forces. Moreover, the kinds of automatic weapons being used are not available to civilians.
3) Mr. Putin claims that Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
Yes, but the 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in seizing control of Ukrainian military bases and civilian airports is clearly a violation of the agreement.
4) That the opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which opposition leaders signed.
Opposition leaders say that they were in the process of following through and that Yanukovych was to sign the legislation taking Ukraine back to the Constitution of 2004 within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. But Yanukovych (on the orders of someone) fled the country and did not sign. Naturally, Putin’s initial claim that Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine is also faltering. Putin now admits that there is no going back to Yanukovych, saying he “has no political future.”
5) That there is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.
Not true. There has been no action taken against the Russian speaking people, so why should they flee. The only people who claim to be threatened were members of the Regions party, and we suspect that’s only political theater to help justify why they suddenly switched their votes, without naming who gave them the orders. There is absolutely no evidence a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia or “mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine,” either.
6) Putin claims that the Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.
Yes, everyone is playing the Right-wing threat card. The Svoboda (Freedom) party is the only “far right wing ultranationalist group” that has published photographs of members wearing Nazi symbols or giving the Nazi salute. Normal, credible people don’t do this. Virtually every neo-Nazi group in the world that I have examined is run by or funded by government agents to give the right wing a bad name. Either Russia or the West could be behind promoting Neo Nazis—Russia to denigrate the opposition or the West to denigrate the most libertarian of opposition factions that they can’t control—by linking them in people’s mind with Nazism.
Besides the Russian military takeover of Crimea, the key move by Russia is to push for the appearance of a public demand for autonomy for Crimea. Russia used its influence to have a pro-Russian leader elected to the head of the Crimea regional government this week, who then got the Crimean parliament to declare its intent to become part of Russia by scheduling a vote on the issue set for March 16.
There will only be two options for voting: 1) merging Crimea with Russia or 2) restoring the 1992 Crimean Constitution, whereby the peninsula would remain an autonomous republic within Ukraine. There is no third option for voting for independence. Neither the globalists nor Russia want anyone to be independent anymore.
The West is verbally adamant against allowing Russia to merge Crimea within its borders, even though it has made no claims of military options to prohibit such a move. Even arch globalist Henry Kissinger emerged to write an op-ed piece in the Washington Post urging, in typically euphemistic language, that the West continue to placate Russia while encouraging compromise within Ukraine—in other words, stretch out the issue into the future.
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. [This policy is called Finlandization–exchanging superficial liberty for non-criticism of Russian dominance]
But in no case was Crimea to be allowed to go to Russia:
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.
As I said last week, this policy will not solve the tensions, but will ensure they can be shifted into the future when Russia is militarily able to take on the West and reabsorb by force all of the former Soviet states.
Earlier, Ukraine’s interim president met with leaders in France on Wednesday and strongly down-played any prospect of war with Russia—sending a message that there will be no military confrontation. The Franco-German plan for Ukraine is one that hopes to stabilize the current conflict and yet not resolve it in the long term. According to French foreign minister Fabius:
It envisages a national unity government, a pullback of Russian forces, the dissolution of extremist militias and moves to organize a presidential election as quickly as possible.
President Barack Obama said the Crimea referendum is illegal: “Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government… In 2014 we are well beyond the days when borders can be drawn over the heads of democratic leaders.”
Obama’s words are a violation of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence (1776), which clearly says that people have the right, without permission of government, to declare their independence when their fundamental rights are being violated and when petitions for redress have been ignored. It’s disturbing when the presumed leader of the free world denies the political justification for independence.
Secretary of State Kerry also had this little piece of hypocrisy to promote before leaving for Ukraine. Ben Swann hammered Kerry for telling NBC’s Meet The Press this week, “You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests… This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th century behavior in the 21st century.”
Swann responds,
Seriously? This from the same Secretary of State who pushed for the U.S. to fire cruise missiles on Damascus because of sarin gas that he “knew” was used by the Syrian government but later turned out could have been used by so called “rebels”? This statement from the same government that went to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. That kind of phony pretext?
Indeed! Gross hypocrisy.
Sanctions: Secretary of State John Kerry said in Kiev that the US and other Western nations are considering economic sanctions against Russia, including seizing of foreign bank assets and cutting off trade. Kerry said,
“every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion. They’re prepared to put sanctions in place, they’re prepared to isolate Russia economically.”
But so far, that hasn’t happened. Putin fired right back saying he would retaliate by cutting off gas supplies to the EU and stopping payment on all the money Western banks have loaned Russia. While many people are hyping the danger of Russia dumping US Treasuries, that’s not as much a threat to the US as the holder of bonds. Dumping causes the price to fall and the dumper loses more and more as he sells.
But Russia is tightly interlocked with Europe in trade and neither can afford trade sanctions. More than 70 percent of Russiás gas and oil flows to Europe pass through Ukraine, and Europe buys about 90 percent of Russiás oil exports. Stop buying Russian oil and such European gas prices skyrocket.
Then there’s the issue of natural gas. Germany gets 36% of its gas from Russia, the UK gets 25% from Russia, France about 15% from Russia and Italy, 27%. So total economic sanctions are a bluff. Neither side can afford them—and that is why Europe will never contest Russian aggression until it is too late, speaking of the long-term future.
Obama, rather than backing down on foolish sanctions, is playing a phony trump card: executive sanctions of a minor order: This week he announced that the Treasury Department will impose sanctions on “individuals and entities” responsible for Russia’s military takeover in Crimea or for “stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people.” That little stunt avoids targeting Russia while still appearing to be tough.
Obama also got the EU to announce the freeze of the assets of Mr. Yanukovych and of 17 of his closest aides and family members, holding them responsible for the embezzlement of state fund. He should also have included many wealthy opposition leaders like Yulie Tymoshenko who has embezzled millions in state funds as well.
US former Sec of Defense Robert Gates, who also headed the CIA, and is a globalist said that Putin “knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s trying to re-establish Russian influence and a measure of control over the former states of the Soviet Union.”
And, that’s exactly what the globalist knew he would do sometime after the phony fall of the Soviet Union, which they helped promulgate by not exposing what a sham it was.
Here are some excerpts from a quote from J R Nyquist on the overall nature of the deceptive fall of Communism and how it relates to Ukraine:
The KGB of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics relied on Tsarist methods of controlled opposition and networks of secret agents, many of whom pretended to be enemies of the government.
Because of the KGB’s ability to infiltrate Moscow’s opposition, all revolutions or political changes in former East Bloc countries are a puzzle [I claim they are a fraud]. We can never be sure who has actually won until we see, after time has passed, whether power has really changed hands; that is, whether the old Communist elite remains in charge of the army and police, the media and economic system, and key government posts.[and that is exactly what has happened in all the “former” Soviet satellite states] The analysis here is simple to do, but nobody in the West tries doing it. There is no career advancement in such analysis, especially in Western countries where the powers-that-be hear what they want to hear, and blot out the rest.
Sadly, Nyquist steadfastly refuses to believe there is a conspiracy in government and the media to blot out these truths—preferring to believe it is mere stupidity and the work of Communist infiltrators that explains all US foreign policy failures relative to communism. But he does agree with me here:
Therefore, the Soviet Empire remains intact through the operation of hidden structures. KGB-controlled opposition was the story in 1989 and 1991. It has always been the untold story. It will continue to be untold until the hidden Soviet Union is taken down, at long last. I have spoken to schoolmates of Vaclav Havel who described him as the perfect instrument of the Communist state – as a fake dissident and a man who could be trusted by the KGB. In 1992 a Fighting Solidarity leader told me that Lech Walesa was a long-time stooge of the Polish secret police. Since that time Walesa’s secret police codename (BOLEK) has been published
Nyquist has good insights into who’s fake and who’s real in the Ukraine opposition:
Who is on Moscow’s team in Kiev? Most of the parliament, for starters [including the major opposition leaders]; Yulia Tymoshenko in particular; the heads of the security services and military, excepting all those who are secretly working with the Ukrainian underground.
To know that there is a powerful underground movement,[in Ukraine] with its own tentacles burrowed into Moscow, is not mere optimism. The Ukrainians were Soviets, and as such they had access to the same game the Russians were playing on them. Ukrainians have experience, access, and a motivation for playing the Russians at their own game.
My only reservation about Nyquist’s claim about the strength of the Ukraine undergroundf is that these former Soviet Ukrainian insiders were mostly corrupt and are not inclined to help out real liberty as they are inclined to stay within the corrupt, but hidden, continuing Soviet system. Some of them became wealthy oligarches and took their corruption to the next higher level. Undoubtedly, there are a few principled people who are working the underground, but I doubt Nyquist’s claim that they have much ability to infiltrate back up the chain into Moscow. Evil can smell goodness and root them out, much easier than good people can see through evil masquerading as good. So I believe the true underground is small in number and weak.
The Kremlin has many weapons, many agents, and many deceptions at its command. A former socialist country must, in itself, resemble a “wilderness of mirrors.” The Communists like to confuse the political process in every country. This also applies to Germany, part of which was also a “Communist Country” (i.e., the German Democratic Republic). If we hear that (the conservative) German Chancellor Angela Merkel is now eager to meet with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who has recently been let out of prison, we must first reckon with Merkel’s Communist past before we reckon with Tymoshenko’s role as Moscow’s little helper; for both women have a peculiar relationship to Moscow which extends far back in time. [true]
A German journalist recently wrote to me about Merkel, saying that German intelligence attempted to warn the Christian Democrats that Merkel was “a dangerous person.” But the Christian Democrats didn’t listen, and now Germany is more dependent on Russian natural gas than ever before.
But like Marxist Tony Blair, who switched sides and became a globalist, it is very possible that Merkel has switched sides too. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t switch back again if the Soviets win the next war, but I think she knows they won’t—that Russia is being set up to be taken down in the next war. China will become the new hegemon and cold war enemy of the global government.
I had the chance to speak with Ukrainian activist Boris Chykulay , who explained the situation as follows: “Instinctively people know that they fight against a hidden USSR. You can see this in all the cities now with the fall of so many Lenin monuments.” [few Ukrainians see through the phony fall of Communism, but they hate Russian dominance past and present, which accounts for pulling down the memories of Soviet rule]
“The problem we now face,” Chykulay said, “is that Putin merely says goodbye to Mafiosi Yanukovych. Now he starts to work with normal agents .” [the controlled opposition] As another activist added, the politicians who are now coming forward to direct affairs are former Soviet Komsomol leaders (now in parliament), the most committed Communists of the old system. These are not democrats by any stretch of the imagination. According to Chykulay, these “normal Soviet agents” are telling the Maidan protestors to go home. The revolution has been won.
“They are trying to keep the old system, without any… changes, they want to close the case,” he explained. “Russia will try to control Ukraine through its old network; through Yulia Tymoshenko and others. She said, ‘Dear Ukrainians, I won’t let the government hurt you anymore.’ So you see, they already describe the Ukrainian government as something separate from the Ukrainian people. She doesn’t say the Ukrainians have any part in the government. They want to save the hidden Soviet structures. The Ukrainians are therefore told, in all seriousness, ‘you won’t be attacked.’”
Is there danger of Ukraine coming under direct attack? Could the Russians intervene with troops? Chykulay responds, “Yes, Western Ukraine is a potential target,” Chykulay replied. “They will say the people in Lviv are fascists, and they will depict the Ukrainians as right wing extremists.” The Kremlin has, indeed, threatened to invade any former Soviet country where the rights of the local Russian-speaking minority are not respected.
The Kremlin has many devices, and many tricks to play before things reach such an extremity… There is a cautious optimism on the part of Ukrainian activists. Previous attempts at freedom have been thwarted, it is true, but Maidan has good tactics and refuses to be fooled by Kremlin stooges. A Ukrainian analyst explained it thus: “As it happens, the people will not accept the leaders’ attempts to wiggle out. This morning Maidan had a massive meeting about Tymoshenko. They called it an ‘action meeting’ which was held against the return of Tymoshenko to politics. If she comes back, they said, the gangster clan will take over and nothing will change. They are demanding a total reset.”
Nyquist’s closing statement is optimistic:
The anti-Communist counter-revolution in Ukraine grows in power. Moscow sends its puppets into the meat-grinder. One is chewed up after another. Which will emerge as the new leader? Perhaps the controlled opposition game has exhausted its possibilities in Ukraine.
I’m not as optimistic. The opposition is weak and tired of being out in the cold. They may see through Tymoshenko, but if so, the Russians will keep searching until they find a believable opposition puppet. After all, like US conservatives, the Powers That Be know that in a democracy, the opposition has “no other place to go” than to vote for people the PTB allow to be elected.
Summary: I’m still convinced it’s too early for Russia to go to war with the West, so this situation will not trigger WWIII, but the Crimean referendum will surely tend toward cementing Russia’s claim to hold power there. By occupying Crimea, Putin will make sure that only Western Ukraine can negotiate with the EU in the future, and with Russian troops in Crimea, Ukraine won’t be able to join NATO.
The EU is already cementing ties with Western Ukraine by offering a $15B loan. It won’t even come close to solving Ukraine’s bankrupt status, but it will provide the excuse for closer ties and continuing bailouts and austerity measures that will eventually boost EU/Russian tensions.
I’m betting that the result of the Crimea election will be a semi-autonomous republic rather than leaving Ukraine. Secession would tend to force Ukraine’s hand militarily—which they cannot hope to win. It also makes a peaceful resolution much more difficult without losing face. But either way, there won’t be war in the near term.
The globalist agenda of further dealings with Russia, including disarmament, will be severely hampered if Russia gets too aggressive in taking back the Russian-speaking areas. Then again, I’ve known the globalists to turn a blind eye to much worse than this (savage suppression of the Hungarian revolution) and resume aid and trade with Russia, given enough time to let the public forget. Trouble is, there isn’t a lot of time left before the big confrontation that awaits us.
Lastly, if you want to know why the Ukrainians hate the Russians, watch this excellent video on YouTube about how Stalin systematically starved 7 million people in Ukraine. Horrific story.