Washington's chosen...

Neo-Nazi vandals masquerading as champions of democracy, a foul-mouthed degenerate masquerading as a diplomat...
(I guess he picked up his oratory from Victoria Nuland).

Trust Putin's ***kissers to quote RT... Some source... Not that vandalism against embassies is OK, but given the tensions, it's hardly surprising. Having that Russian GRU (?) colonel Strelkov running things in the "independent" areas, shooting down planes and helicopters over Ukranian territory and using tanks, missiles and other weapons supposedly supplied by Russia might make the Ukranians a tad irritated.

Varangian wrote:Trust Putin's ***kissers...

I'll take Putin's cheeks over Obama's any day, thank you very much.

...to quote RT... Some source...

...which is neither better nor worse than CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.

Not that vandalism against embassies is OK, but given the tensions, it's hardly surprising. Having that Russian GRU (?) colonel Strelkov running things in the "independent" areas, shooting down planes and helicopters over Ukranian territory and using tanks, missiles and other weapons supposedly supplied by Russia might make the Ukranians a tad irritated.

Some Ukrainians might welcome the downing of aircraft that are bombing civilian areas...
http://www.voltairenet.org/article184082.html

Mike_L wrote:http://www.voltairenet.org/article184082.html

The 9/11conspiracy group?

No, the other voltairenet!

Mike_L wrote:No, the other voltairenet!

Oh right. In that case seems legit.

We don't have to stoop to RT and voltairenet. The lofty CNN covers it as well...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-luhansk-building-attack/

Necessary background to the Ukraine crisis goes back to the early 1990s...

At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev sought assurances from the HW Bush administration that, in return for Soviet withdrawal from Germany, NATO would not expand toward the east. Unfortunately, Gorbachev relied on a "gentlemen's agreement" and never got it in writing...

It began as a pledge by the first Bush Administration to Gorbachev that in return for German unification and liberation of the “captive nations” there would be “not an inch” of NATO expansion. It ended up its opposite, and for no plausible reason of American security whatsoever. In fact, NATO went on to draft nearly the entire former “Warsaw Pact”, expanding its membership by 12 nations. So doing, it encroached thousands of kilometers from its old Cold War boundaries to the very doorstep of Russia.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bill-clintons-epic-double-cross-how-not-an-inch-brought-nato-to-russias-border/


Says former CIA analyst Ray McGovern in the Baltimore Sun ...

It began to unravel in October 1996 during the last weeks of President Bill Clinton's campaign for re-election. Mr. Clinton bragged that he would welcome Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, explaining, "America truly is the world's indispensable nation" (and, sotto voce, can do what it wants).
Those three countries joined NATO in 1999, and by April 2009, nine more became members, bringing the post-Cold War additions to 12 — equal to the number of the original 12 NATO states. The additional nine included the former Baltic Republics that had been part of the USSR, but not Ukraine. NATO intentions, however, were made clear at its summit in Bucharest in April 2008, which formally declared, "Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO."
Even hawkish former American national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski now concedes, "It is reasonable for Russia to feel uncomfortable about the prospect" of Ukraine in NATO.

The expansion of NATO to the east — especially the decision to bring in Georgia and Ukraine — led, among other things, to Georgian-Russian hostilities in August 2008 and now to the current violence in Ukraine.

Then-U.S. Ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock, who took part in both the Bush-Gorbachev early-December 1989 summit in Malta and the Shevardnadze-Baker discussions in early February 1990, told me, "The language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no 'taking advantage' by the U.S. ... I don't see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but 'taking advantage,' particularly since, by then, Russia was hardly a credible threat."

That NATO's expansion in Eurasia is unsettling to Russia is beyond doubt. Seven years go Putin himself said the following...

“We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas — a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”

- Russian President Vladimir Putin, Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 2007

How would Washington react if Russia started "expanding to the West" with the installation of new weapons systems in Cuba and Mexico?

America's involvement in Ukraine became evident a decade ago with the role that it played (through NGOs) in the Orange Revolution of 2004.

Wikipedia...

Activists in each of these [social] movements were funded and trained in tactics of political organisation and nonviolent resistance by a coalition of Western pollsters and professional consultants who were partly funded by a range of Western government and non-government agencies but received most of their funding from domestic sources. According to The Guardian, the foreign donours included the U.S. State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the NGO Freedom House and George Soros's Open Society Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, has supported non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988.

See also:
Beware of aid agencies bearing gifts


The US was determined to exert its influence in Ukraine, investing "over five billion dollars" over a period of two decades...



And Victoria wasn't about to let all that lolly go to waste...



The most interesting part of Nuland's "fuck the EU" telephone call is not the casual and contemptuous use of vulgar language, but rather the context in which it appears. She has a wish list of who should be replacing Ukraine's democratically-elected president Viktor Yanukovych. One of them is Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom she affectionately refers to as "Yats". Yatsenyuk duly headed up Ukraine's "interim government" after the coup that ousted Yanukovych.

In order to appreciate the absurdity of this state of affairs, one can imagine an intercepted telephone call in which Russian politicians are heard discussing whom they favor as a replacement for Barack Obama... and whether or not Canada would approve. ("Fuck Canada!")

Nuland's little expletive also reveals Washington's contempt for European governments. Indeed, the USA has long been very ready and willing to undermine any government that acts in opposition to the will of Washington, even if it's the government of a European "ally".

It comes as no surprise that the CIA was (and doubtlessly still is) active in Ukraine...

CIA, FBI agents advising Ukraine govt - report
2014-05-04

Dozens of specialists from the US Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation are advising the Ukrainian government, a German newspaper reported on Sunday.

Citing unnamed German security sources, Bild am Sonntag said the CIA and FBI agents were helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set up a functioning security structure.

http://www.news24.com/World/News/CIA-FBI-agents-advising-Ukraine-govt-report-20140504

Also:
White House confirms CIA director visited Ukraine over weekend

Of course, many will insist that the Kiev street mobs represented the will of the Ukrainian people. But to do so is confuse democracy (elections, referendums) with ochlocracy (riots, intimidation, threats).

And they will point to the election of Petro Poroshenko as proof that the Ukrainian majority desperately desires closer ties with the West. Never mind that the referendum in Crimea (rejected by Russia's critics) took place under far more stable circumstances than did the Ukrainian election!
Oleg Tsarev was just about the only strongly pro-Russian candidate lined up to appear on the ballot papers. He was attacked and brutally beaten after appearing on a television chat show and later withdrew from the election race, saying that it would be "too dangerous" to compete.
In effect, the Ukrainian election didn't offer the people a meaningful choice between "pro-Russia" candidates and "pro-West" candidates. It was just a matter of: "which pro-Western candidate do you prefer?" Imagine an American presidential election in which only Republican candidates (and a few no-hope independents) run for office, the Democrat candidate having been forced to withdraw after a brutal assault by Tea Party members.

So, do those with pro-Russian sensibilities in the east of Ukraine have good reason to mistrust the new government in Kiev? Well, they're surely aware of statements made by the prominent Yulia Tymoshenko...



Then there was the Odessa massacre, in which pro-Russian Ukrainians were attacked in their tent encampment. Many of those who took refuge in a nearby trade union building were subsequetly killed when it was firebombed.
Incredibly, the Wall Street Journal suggested that the "rebels" sparked the blaze themselves when they "accidentally dropped Molotov cocktails". The preposterous claim is made despite the fact that there is video evidence of attackers hurling Molotov cocktails at the building...!



But yes, the Western media is the only voice that can be deemed trustworthy!

You find it hard to believe that nations that have been under Russia's boot are looking west for safety and trade? It isn't as if Moscow has endeared itself to Ukraine (or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and so on). The Soviet Union/Russia has been throwing its weight around for decades (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, almost Poland 1980), and while it can be argued that it is part of Russian mentality to perceive Russia as under siege, many millions of eastern Europeans have rejected the socialist dictatorships and chosen democracy. Only the ideologically blinkered or insane would argue that Russia of today is a model nation or a state to be trusted. But I bet you find leaders like Mugabe, Un and Maduro to be nuanced, trustworthy leaders just like Putin, and preferable to democratically elected statespersons in the west.

Replying to Varangian...

Again you're making no distinction between the USSR of the Cold War era and Russia-post-collapse-of-the-USSR!
Even American ambassadors recognise that the Russia of late 20th C was not a threat to Europe. One of the quotes from my post above...

Jack Matlock:
"I don't see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but 'taking advantage,' particularly since, by then, Russia was hardly a credible threat."

Varangian wrote:
It isn't as if Moscow has endeared itself to Ukraine (or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and so on). The Soviet Union/Russia has been throwing its weight around for decades (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, almost Poland 1980), and while it can be argued that it is part of Russian mentality to perceive Russia as under siege, many millions of eastern Europeans have rejected the socialist dictatorships and chosen democracy.

And nowhere have I contested this! I haven't said (or even suggested) that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, etc. ought to be shunning the West in favor of Russia's bosom. And if closer ties with the West is what a majority of Ukrainians want, then that's what they should have. But now there's no reliable way of knowing for certain what the will of the Ukrainian people is (except, of course, for Crimea and the eastern regions of Ukraine, which have emphatically rejected the post-coup Kiev government). Now there's only the result of a post-coup election. Coup first and then election! Is it any wonder that the eastern regions rejected the legitimacy of the election?
The great pity is that it need not have been that way! Thanks to the efforts of EU diplomats, the Yanukovich government was on the verge of allowing the people to have their say...

Wikipedia...

Deal
A compromise deal was agreed to (after hours of negotiations led by the European Union mediators and foreign ministers Radosław Sikorski of Poland, Laurent Fabius of France and Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany) and signed by both opposition leaders and the president after overnight negotiations. The deal agreed to: a restoration of the Constitution as it was between 2004 and 2010; constitutional reform to be completed by September; early presidential elections no later than December 2014; an investigation into the violence conducted under joint monitoring of the authorities, opposition, and the Council of Europe; a veto on imposing a state of emergency; amnesty for protesters arrested since 17 February; surrendering of public buildings occupied by protesters; the forfeiture of illegal weapons; "new electoral laws" to be passed and the formation of a new Central Election Commission. The three EU foreign ministers signed the document as witnesses; Russian mediator Vladimir Lukin did not sign the deal, as he had no mandate to sign an agreement on the crisis.

Parliament voted unanimously, 386–0, to return to the 2004 constitution, and then 332–0 in a vote to suspend acting interior minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko. Another bill made changes to the Criminal Code, allowing for the release of Yulia Tymoshenko. 310 MPs voted in favour of the measure, including 54 from the Party of Regions and 32 Communists. A bill was introduced in parliament on the impeachment of president Yanukovych, filed by Mykola Rudkovsky.

The way had been paved for "constitutional reform" and "early elections"... i.e. the perfect opportunity for change (if the majority desired it) through traditional democratic processes.
But that wasn't good enough for the Maidan militants, who were committed to ochlocracy rather than democracy. So Yanukovich was forced to flee, and is was "coup first, then election"... with the inevitable outcome that roughly half of the country rejects the result. And, thanks to the concerted efforts of EU negotiators, it need not have been that way. But, in the words of Victoria Nuland, "Fuck the EU!"

Varangian wrote:
But I bet you find leaders like Mugabe, Un and Maduro to be nuanced, trustworthy leaders just like Putin, and preferable to democratically elected statespersons in the west.

Oh, the irony!
The way "democracy" has unfolded in Ukraine with the efforts of Nuland et al actually bears a resemblance to the way it has "worked" in any number of failed states in Africa or South America. You can confirm this for yourself. Just Google "CIA and Patrice Lumumba" or "CIA and Panama"... for starters.

When Wikipedia say they are being edited by Russia to change the dialog you can say that something is stinking real bad in Russia.

I had sided with Putin at the start, I am now certain he was playing chess and the gambit has backfired. He is guilty of starting a coup and staging a banana republic... he is now elevated (or demoted) to 1960' American capitalist status.

Russia reminds me a lot of the UK, it just can't get around the fact that on its own it basically has no real power or influence. We are not empires any more, just middling countries that can be part of something a lot greater if they choose to be.

It's why UKIP and Putin are just two sides of the same coin

mrjonno wrote:Russia reminds me a lot of the UK, it just can't get around the fact that on its own it basically has no real power or influence. We are not empires any more, just middling countries that can be part of something a lot greater if they choose to be.

It's why UKIP and Putin are just two sides of the same coin

Accepting that you are of little importance in the world is a painful reality for little Englanders.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Russia reminds me a lot of the UK, it just can't get around the fact that on its own it basically has no real power or influence. We are not empires any more, just middling countries that can be part of something a lot greater if they choose to be.

It's why UKIP and Putin are just two sides of the same coin

Accepting that you are of little importance in the world is a painful reality for little Englanders.

We still have Dr Who.

Dr Who is an international illegal alien and not a British citizen

I will put it here because ..

ON THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF SECESSION. Critical remarks to mainstream theories

http://www.academia.edu/1535232/On_the_ ... m_theories

possibly for later use

Just in case some people are still labouring under the misapprehension that the Crimean crisis was a local, spontaneous affair... Official Russian channel will run a documentary on how it was all planned and orchestrated from Moscow.

Gosh, I'm shocked.

In related news, it is being reported that Lithuania has instituted conscription due to fears of a Russian invasion.