Tag Archive | "Ukraine"

Who is Volodímir Zelenski, the elected president of Ukraine?


NOVANEWS
Zelenski beat his opponent Poroshenko with a big advantage.

Zelenski beat his opponent Poroshenko with a big advantage. | Photo: EFE

The elected president of Ukraine is a comedian and actor without any political experience.

Volodímir Zelenski, 41, won the presidency of Ukraine with 73 percent of the votes in favor, compared to 25.5 percent of the outgoing president Petro Poroshenko. The Central Electoral Commission reported that participation reached 62.06 percent of the nearly 31 million Ukrainians.

READ ALSO: The pacts govern the debate in the elections in Spain

The president-elect, born in Krivói Rog, is a comedian and actor without any political experience. He was a law student, but never practiced. In fact, he chose a very different route: he took a liking to the humorous contest Club of the Fun and Ingenious People, of the Soviet television KVN. He started as a contestant, won and then joined as a scriptwriter.

In 2003 he started in the program of jokes and varieties Kvartal-95 (Barrio-95) of the Ukrainian television «1 + 1». He has also acted in films, participated in artistic projects with Russia and was a member of the board of directors of the Inter network.

Ver imagen en Twitter

Команда Зеленського@zeteam_official
Mes remerciements les plus sincères au président de la république Française @EmmanuelMacron, pour les félicitations et le soutien!

Thank you, Emmanuel Macron, for congratulations!

Дякую Президенту Франції Емманюелю Макрону за привiтання!

21:31 – 21 abr. 2019

Triumph of Zelenski 

Shortly after his election victory, Zelenski spoke to his followers to promise them solutions regarding the war in eastern Ukraine and corruption. He assured his voters that he will defraud us.

“Our first duty is to bring all detained citizens, all the soldiers who are in prison, we will continue to work with the Normandy process, as well as with the Minsk Agreements, we will restart negotiations and there will be new appointments,” he said.

For his part, outgoing President Poroshenko said he will not abandon politics. “Thanks to you and my children, my father for always being there, I know that the days to come – which will be psychologically difficult for me – I can count on you,” he said when addressing his family.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Who is Volodímir Zelenski, the elected president of Ukraine?

Ukraine’s presidential race takes bizarre turn


NOVANEWS
Ukraine’s presidential race takes bizarre turn as candidates take televised drug tests
Comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy challenged president Petro Poroshenko to the tests
 Image result for Petro Poroshenko CARTOON

Ukraine’s two remaining presidential candidates both underwent televised drug and alcohol tests on Friday, after a week of posturing by the two that has seen the country’s election take an unusual turn.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a comedian who swept ahead of incumbent president Petro Poroshenko in the election’s first round, had made the tests one of his conditions for facing Poroshenko in a pre-election debate. Zelenskiy, who has no political experience and stars in a hit sit-com as a man who unexpectedly becomes president, won Sunday’s first round vote by 30% — nearly double the amount received by Poroshenko.

With three weeks to go now before a run-off on April 21, Zelenskiy this week released a viral videolaying out his conditions for a debate with Poroshenko. Besides the drug tests those included that it be held in Kiev’s 70,000 seat Olympic stadium. He gave Poroshenko 24 hours to respond.

Poroshenko in a reply posted his own video, in which he agreed to the debate and mocked Zelenskiy’s demand that it be in a stadium with a macho shrug: “If you want there to be a stadium, let there be a stadium.”

Poroshenko also agreed to the narcotics tests and on Friday the two visited separate clinics for the tests, which Zelenskiy had said were necessary to show neither was a “drug addict or alcoholic”.

Poroshenko, 53, arrived with a crowd of journalists in tow at a clinic at the Olympic stadium, where Zelenskiy has demanded the debate be held. There, Ukrainian television channels showed the president rolling up his sleeves to allow a medic to take blood. He then gave a urine and hair samples.

Afterwards, Poroshenko said that he believed such tests should be compulsory for presidential candidates, saying it was a matter of “national security”. He also took a jab at Zelenskiy for declining to take the test at the stadium with him.

“I’m at the stadium today,” Poroshenko told reporters. “I came, but you didn’t. No matter, I am sure that he will pick up the courage and come here and the debate will happen.”

Zelenskiy meanwhile went to a private lab. His testing live-streamed on his campaign’s Facebook page, which showed him arriving at the lab with a similar mob of journalists and sitting in a chair while a doctor took blood.

“I took a blood test. They pumped all sorts of blood out of me. But thank God, I have enough of it. Young blood,” Zelenskiy, 41, told reporters afterwards.

Poroshenko’s results were announced rapidly by Volodymyr Yary, the chief doctor at a Kiev state hospital, who said that “no psychotropic substance” had been found.

The release of Zelenskiy’s results though became a gaffe. He initially posted a photograph on his Facebook page of a results sheet from the lab that showed no traces of various narcotics. But he removed that post after it was spotted that the document was dated to show the samples had been taken 3 days earlier.

Zelenskiy then shared a Facebook post from the laboratory, Eurolab, apologizing to him and explaining the discrepancy was a mistake by a lab worker who had accidentally written the wrong date. He then re-posted a new results sheet with the updated date.

There has been some speculation that Zelenskiy had set the unusual conditions not expecting Poroshenko– who challenged him first– would accept them. On Thursday, Zelenskiy threw in another strange curve-ball in a second viral video, proposing that the debate be moderated by Yulia Tymoshenko, a controversial former prime minister who placed third in the election’s first round.

Poroshenko on Thursday night responded by posting another video, telling Zelenskiy to stop setting conditions and to “be a man. Come to the debate.”

This week’s odd face-off via social media videos seemed to portend more of what’s to come in an election where television had already blended with reality. In his campaign, Zelenskiy has deliberately blurred the distinction between himself and his TV character in his series Servant of the People, a schoolteacher who is catapulted into the presidency after a rant he makes against corrupt officials goes viral.

Poroshenko faces an uphill struggle to beat Zelenskiy, whose outsider candidacy has played well among Ukrainians fed up with the country’s politics that are seen as deeply corrupt. A recent Gallup poll showed only 9% of Ukrainians have confidence in their government, the lowest in the world, while 91% believe corruption is widespread in government.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Ukraine’s presidential race takes bizarre turn

Why Russia Won’t Invade the Ukraine, the Baltic Statelets or Anybody Else


NOVANEWS

The AngloZionist propaganda machine is constantly warning us that Russia is about to invade some country. The list of candidates for invasion is long and ranges from Norway to the Ukraine and includes the Baltic statelets, Poland and even countries further West. Of course, we are also told that NATO and the US are here to prevent that. Well, thank God for them, right?

But what is conspicuously missing from this narrative is a discussion of the possible Russian motives for such a military move. Typically, we are merely told that Russia has broken the European post-Cold War order and borders by “annexing” Crimea and by sending military forces into the Donbass. Anybody with an IQ at room temperature or above by now realizes that both of these claims are total bunk. The ones who indeed broke the post-Cold War international order and borders were the NATO member states when they used military force, in complete illegality, to break-up Yugoslavia. As for the people of Crimea, they had the opportunity to vote about their future in a referendum, very much unlike the inhabitants of Kosovo which had no such opportunity. As for the 08.08.08 war, even the Europeans who eventually, and very reluctantly, agreed that it was, in fact, Saakashvili who started this conflict, not Russia.

But let’s set all this aside and assume that the Russian leaders would not hesitate to use military force again if it was to their advantage. Let’s assume that, yes, the Russians are up to no good and that they might well try to bite-off some other piece of land somewhere in Europe.

Such an assumption would immediately raise a crucial question: why would the Russians want to do that?

For some reason, this question is rarely, if ever, asked.

Oh sure, we are told that “Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union” or some other type of empire but, again, nobody seems to wonder why he would want that!

So let’s look at possible rationales for such an attack:

Reason number one: to gain more land

That is probably the least credible reason of all. Russia is a vast country (17,098,246 km2) with a relatively small population (144,526,636) resulting in a very low population density. Not only is Russia huge, but her territory has immense natural resources. The very last thing Russia needs is more land.

Reason number two: to increase the Russian population

Well, yes, Russia has a population deficit for sure. But that does not mean that just any population increase would be a bonanza for Russia. For example, Russia will only be in a worse shape if the number of people depending on unemployment, social services or pensions increases. Likewise, Russia would not benefit from a politically hostile population. So while Russia could benefit from having a larger population, what she needs is more young and well-educated *Russians*, not unemployed and destitute Ukrainians or Lithuanians! The massive influx of Ukrainian refugees, by the way, has already contributed to an increase in qualified specialists, including medical doctors and highly qualified engineers from the Ukrainian military-industrial specialists who, when they saw their bureaus and industries collapse in the Ukraine, moved to Russia to continue to work. There is no need for the Russia to invade anybody to get those highly qualified specliasts. As for Ukrainians without special qualifications, they have already shown up in Russia, and the last thing Russia needs is more of them (they can go scrub toilets in Poland or the UK). Furthermore, there are already a lot of immigrants from other parts of the world in Russia and getting more of them is hardly a good idea. So while Russia would benefit from more qualified young Russians, invading other countries is not the way to get them.

Reason number three: geostrategic reasons

What about the Baltic ports? What about the Ukrainian gas pipelines? The truth is that in the Soviet times the Baltic ports or the Ukrainian pipelines were crucial strategic assets. But since their independence, these countries have not only ruined themselves and destroyed the infrastructure they inherited from the “Soviet occupiers,” but Russia has also successfully replaced the infrastructure and industries she lost after 1991. Thus, for example, Russia has actively developed her own commercial ports on the Baltic Sea, and they have now outgrown the ones found in the Baltic states (see herefor a good comparative chart). As for the Ukrainian pipelines, not only are they in terrible shape, Russia has successfully built “North” and “South” streams which allow her to completely bypass the Ukraine and the need to deal with the crazy Banderite junta in Kiev. The simple truth is that while the Baltic statelets or the Ukronazis can fancy themselves as a very precious prize, Russia has absolutely no need for them whatsoever.

In fact, the opposite is true: right now, Russia can barely finance all the reconstruction programs which are so urgently needed after decades of nationalist rule in Crimea. In the future, Russia will also have to help the Donbass rebuild. Does anybody seriously believe that the Russians can afford to rescue even more countries or territories?!

Reason number four: revanchist motives


Reason number five: megalomania
That is the Hillary Clinton/Zbigniew Brzezinski argument: the Russians are inherently expansionists, imperialists, militarists, and revanchists and they don’t need a motive to invade somebody: that’s simply what they do – invade, terrorize, oppress. Well, a quick objective look at history would prove that it is the West which has always displayed such behavior, not Russia, but we can even ignore that fact. The truth is that while there are a lot of people in Russia who have good memories of their lives in the Soviet Union, there is just no constituency pushing for the re-birth of the Soviet Union or for any kind of imperialism. If anything, most Russians are much more isolationist, and they don’t want to get involved in wars or the invasion of foreign countries. This is not only a result of memories of wars in Afghanistan or interventions in Germany,

Hungary or Czechoslovakia, but also the bitter realization that even the so-called “Orthodox brothers” (some of whom even owe the existence of their country on a world map to Russia!) have now fully turned against Russia and have become willing NATO-colonies (think Bulgaria or Romania here). Yes, Putin did say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy (objectively, it was, and it brought immense suffering to millions of people), but that does not at all mean that Putin, or anybody else, actually wants to “resurrect” the Soviet Union, even if it was feasible (which it is not). If anything, it was the US, NATO, and the EU which, for purely ideological reasons chose to expand their influence to the East and which are now constantly engaged in a nonstop campaign of russophobia (phobia in both meanings of “fear” and “hatred”). Yes, Russians are disgusted with the West, but that hardly means that they want to invade it.

Well, maybe the Russians are mad that they lost the Cold War and now want to become a superpower again? In fact, no. Not at all. Not only do Russians not feel that they “lost” the Cold War, they even feel that they are already a superpower: one which successfully defies the Empire and which continues to struggle for full sovereignization at a time when all European countries are competing with each other for the title of most subservient lackey of the Empire. Just like the USSR after WWII, Russia, after the nightmare of the 1990s, has very successfully rebuilt, in spite of the constant subversion and sabotage of the “united West” which tried every dirty trick in the book to prevent Russia from recovering from the horrors which the western-backed (and, really, run) “liberal democracy” imposed upon her during the Eltsin years. Sure, Russians want their country to be prosperous and powerful, but that does not mean that they want to become a US-like world hegemon which gets involved in every conflict on the planet. Truth be told, even the bad old USSR was not anti-US and never had the kind of global ambition the US has (well, except for Trotsky, but Stalin gave the boot to those crazies, many of whom later emigrated to the US and re-branded themselves as Neocons). Of course, there is the eternal Russian “court jester,” aka “Zhirik” aka Vladimir Zhironovskii. He has made all sorts of threats (including nuclear ones) against various countries neighboring Russia, but everybody knows that he is just that, a court jester and that what he says is basically utter nonsense.

Reason number six: to save Putin’s “regime.”

It is true that unpopular regimes use war to distract from their failures and to make the population switch off their brains for the sake of “circling the wagons” and being “patriotic.” That is most definitely what Poroshenko is doing right now. But Putin has no such need! Even if the pension reform did cost him quite a bit in terms of popularity, he is still far more popular at home (and even internationally!) than any political leader in the West and the Russian economy is doing just fine, in spite of the famous sanctions. True, the mostly Atlantic Integrationist Medvedev government is not very popular, but those officials (like Shoigu or Lavrov) who are typically associated with Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists remain very popular. The simple truth is that Putin has no need for any “distracting crises” because he remains remarkably popular in spite of all the difficulties Russia is currently facing. If anything, it is the Trumps, Macrons, Mays, and Co. who need a distracting war, not Putin!

I could go on listing more nonsensical pseudo-reasons for why Russia would want to occupy some piece of land somewhere, each more far-fetched and baseless than the previous one, but you get the point: Russia has no interest whatsoever in military interventions. In fact, what Russia needs more than anything else is peace for as long as possible.

Now, let’s come back to reality,

Putin is a continuator of another great Russian reformer: Petr Arkadievich Stolypin

Petr Stolypin (1862—1911)

Petr Stolypin (1862—1911)

The Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Prime Minister of Russia from 1906 to 1911, Petr Arkadievich Stolypin, once famously said “Next comes our main task: to strengthen our lower classes. In them lies the strength of our country. There are more than 100 millions of them and the roots of our state will be healthy and strong and, believe me, the voice of the Russian government before Europe and the rest of the world will sound very differently. Our motto, of all of us Russians, should be a united, common labor based on mutual trust. Give Russia 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today’s Russia” (this is my own, free, translation. This is the original text: На очереди главная наша задача — укрепить низы. В них вся сила страны. Их более 100 миллионов и будут здоровы и крепки корни у государства, поверьте — и слова Русского Правительства совсем иначе зазвучат перед Европой и перед целым миром… Дружная, общая, основанная на взаимном доверии работа — вот девиз для нас всех, Русских. Дайте Государству 20 лет покоя, внутреннего и внешнего, и вы не узнаете нынешней Poccии).

Of course, Stolypin was eventually murdered by a Jewish revolutionary, Mordechai Gershkovich Bogrov, and Russia was forced to enter WWI. Eventually, the Russian monarchy was overthrown by a Masonic conspiracy led by Alexander Kerensky. These “liberals” (i.e., plutocrats) did exactly what their successors did under Eltsin and plunged Russia into utter chaos. Eight months later, the Bolsheviks seized power, and the civil war began. Instead of 20 years of peace, Russia got 30 years of wars. After immense sacrifices and many horrors, Russia only succeeded in recovering after the end of WWII.

Nobody in Russia wants to repeat this terrible experience even if, in the end, Russia would prevail. The costs are just too high.

Today, just like in 1911, Russia needs internal and external peace more than anything else, and that is not what she would get if she got involved in some foreign military adventure! In fact, attacking an alliance which includes three nuclear power would be suicidal, and the Russians are anything but suicidal.

If Russia needs peace so badly, why the constant rumors of war?

That is really simple! First, Poroshenko is in deep trouble and short of a major crisis his only option is to completely steal the election. That latter option might be tricky, because if the “collective West” as always, turns a blind eye to the actions of the Ukronazi regime, the internal opposition to Poroshenko might not. Then some serious civil unrest, or even a counter-coup, are real possibilities. Hence Poroshenko’s desperate need for a crisis.

They say that an image is worth a thousand words. Well, in that spirit, check this one:

Left: martial law regions Right: regions which voted against Poroshenko in 2014 (by the way, this does suggest some kind of future border, don\
Left: martial law regions Right: regions which voted against Poroshenko in 2014 (by the way, this does suggest some kind of future border, don’t it? 🙂

QED, right?

There is also another reason, a particularly shameful one: while it is true that Hitler and the AngloZionists did, eventually, fight each other, it is also true that in many ways Hitler truly embodied the dream of a “united Europe” and a “reborn western civilization” (albeit a pagan one!). In the history of European imperialism, Hitler represents something of an apogee, at least until the US superseded the Nazis as a global hegemon after WWII. There is not much difference between Hitler’s (oh so modestly promised) “thousand year Reich” and Fukuyama’s “end of history” (or, for that matter, the Marxist idea of realized Communism which also would end history by solving the dialectical contradictions which are the engine of history). On a psychological level, Hitler was the continuator of the Popes and Napoleon – a self-described “Kulturträger” bringing “western civilization” to the barbaric subhuman “Untermensch” mongoloid hordes of the East. So while Hitler was most definitely an “SOB,” he sure was “our SOB” (hence the impotent rage my use of the term “Ukronazi” elicits in various type of defenders of “Western civilization” or, even better, a supposed “White civilization”!). Well, we all know how these Nazi “culture-carrying” White supremacists ended, don’t we:

Sic transit gloria mundi indeed...
Sic transit gloria mundi indeed…

These carriers of the values of a “united Europe” and “western civilization” were totally defeated by these men:

These are the men who destroyed 80% of the Nazi military and who *really* won WWII (not Patton or MacArthur!)
These are the men who destroyed 80% of the Nazi military and who *really* won WWII (not Patton or MacArthur!)

These memories are what truly terrifies the western elites: the existence of a different civilizational realm which not only dares to defy the AngloZionist Empire openly, but which has already defeated every western hegemonic power which dared to attacked it in the past.

The Russian people, by the way, see the current confrontation in the very similar “mental coordinates” as the western Russophobes, just with an inverted value sign meaning that they perfectly understand that the kind of war the Empire is waging against Russia right now has its roots in the outcome of WWII. This is one of the reasons they all cherish the memories of the millions who died fighting “western civilization” and a “united Europe.” This is best shown by the “Immortal Regiments” in all the Russian cities:

The \"Immortal Regiment\" as an expression of the acute historical awareness of the Russian people
The “Immortal Regiment” as an expression of the acute historical awareness of the Russian people

This historical awareness is also shown in the parade of Ukronazi POW in Donetsk:

Again, the reference to WWII is unmistakable.

As I have said many times in the past, one of the most significant differences between Russia and the “collective West” is that Russians fear war but are nevertheless prepared to fight it, whereas the westerners do not fear war, even though they are not prepared for it at all. Truly, “fools rush in where angels fear to tread” (think Pompeo, Mattis and the rest of them here). And yet, despite this apparent insouciance, the leaders of the AngloZionists have an almost genetic fear and hatred of Russia, because they remember how all their predecessors were eventually defeated by the Russian nation.

And, finally, let’s remember the crucial question which Bertolt Brecht asked: “How can anyone tell the truth about Fascism unless he is willing to speak out against capitalism, which brings it forth?“. Yes, in words, and in words only, the collective West has condemned Fascism and National-Socialism. But in deeds? No, not at all. This is why Fascist scum à la Poroshenko *always* get the support of the western elites under the pious heading of “he is an SOB, but he is our SOB“?

Think of it,during the Crimean War the putatively “Christian West” united with the (Muslim) Ottoman Empire Against Russia. During the revolutionary years, US Jewish bankers fully financed the Bolsheviks. Just before WWII, the Brits likewise financed Hitler. During WWI and WWII the West backed Ukieseparatists, including bona fide Nazis. During the Cold War, the West fully backed the Wahabi nutcases in Saudi Arabia (no, MBS is not the first bloodthirsty Saudi maniac!) and in Afghanistan. The West also supported Apartheid South Africa for as long as politically possible. In Latin America the US gladly supported what Roger Waters called Latin American “meatpacking glitterati”, that is the many military regimes who all were garden variety Fascists. In Kosovo the USAF became the KLA‘s Air Force even though the US had previously considered the KLA as a dangerous terrorist organization (that was against the Serbs but, according to Strobe Talbott, the main goal here was to show Russia what could happen to her if she resisted). During the Chechen wars, the West fully backed the Takfiri crazies. Then, after 9/11, the US finally got fully in bed with al-Qaeda (especially in Syria) even though the official fairy tale wants us to believe that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible for the death of 3000 people (nevermind that NIST admitted by direct implication the destruction of WTC7 with explosives[*]). Does anybody doubt that if Satan himself took on a body and appeared before us the US would fully and totally back him as long as he promised to be anti-Russian or, even better, anti-Orthodox? By allying itself for decades with what can fairly be described as the worst evil scum of mankind, as the not already been allied with Satan for many, many, year?

Honestly, we should have no illusions about the nature of the western plutocracy, and we should always heed the Marxist truism which states that “the state is an apparatus of violence which fulfills the will of the ruling class.” We all know who the ruling class of the AngloZionist Empire is composed of, don’t we?

Western liberal democracies are, in reality, plutocracies which were created by a class of capitalist thugs with the purpose of controlling our entire planet. This was true before WWII. This was also true during and after WWII and this has not changed, notwithstanding all the sanguine denunciations of Fascism and Nazism.

What this means is that it is the western ruling elites which need war to survive and preserve the New World Order they have attempted to impose on all of us. Russia does not need war – she only needs peace.

Conclusion: relax, folks, the Russians ain’t coming, I promise!

I will let a much better person than myself conclude this article.AngloZionist paranoid collective hallucinations notwithstanding, the Russians are not coming. Yes, they will annihilate you if you are crazy enough to attack them but, no, they are not coming, at least not of their own volition. Not even to liberate the Russian minorities in Apartheid Latvia or the Nazi-occupied Ukrainian Banderastan. The Russian policy towards these regimes is very simple: let them collapse on their own. After all, they will all eventually come knocking sooner or later, as ideological delusions are powerless against geographical realities.

This is what Professor Stephen Cohen recently had to say about the risks of war:

He indeed is the “voice of one crying in the wilderness.”

Will enough people listen to him to avoid an apocalypse?

I don’t know.

Notes:

[*] The US government – through NIST – officially recognized the fact that the WTC7 building fell at a free-fall speed for 2,25 seconds (for a detailed discussion of this please check out the video which I posted here). Do those 2,25 seconds really matter? Hell yes!! What this means is that the US government admits that for 2,25 seconds WTC7 fell without any kind of resistance to slow it down and this, therefore, means that there was nothing under the collapsing section. So this begs an obvious question: since we now know that there was nothing under the collapsing section and since we also know that there was a steel frame building there seconds before the collapse – what happened in between those two events? There is only one possible answer to this question: the steel-framed section of the building which would have normally slowed down the collapsing section of the building was removed a) extremely rapidly b) symmetrically. There is only one technology which can do that: explosives. The above is simply not a matter of opinion. This is a fact. Likewise, it is a fact that fires could not have removed a section of WTC7 the way it was observed. Amazing but true: NIST itself admitted that explosives were used.

Posted in Russia, UkraineComments Off on Why Russia Won’t Invade the Ukraine, the Baltic Statelets or Anybody Else

Power and Money Are Driving the Ukrainian Church Crisis


One of the most contentious and significant controversies in the world today is also one of the least-well understood.

In part, this is because it involves matters of faith and church governance, the importance of which many people, especially some of a secular mind who scorn mere “religion,” tend to underestimate.

That is a mistake, certainly with respect to the storm that seems on the verge of plunging Ukraine into a new cycle of violence. That may happen if, as seems quite possible, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople recognizes an “autocephalous” (completely self-ruling) Orthodox Church in Ukraine over the objections of the Russian Orthodox Church, of which the Ukrainian Church is an integral part.

The head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate Metropolitan Filaret, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his wife Maryna © Mykola Lazarenko/Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/ / Reuters

This question is often misreported in the Western media as Constantinople’s response to a request from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for autocephaly. This is inaccurate. The only Ukrainian Orthodox body recognized as canonical by the rest of the Orthodox Christian world – even including Constantinople at this point – is the autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church under the authority of Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev, which is not asking for autocephaly.

So who is making such a request? People who have no authority to do so. This means first of all Ukrainian politicians, starting with President Petro Poroshenko (whose own Orthodox affiliation is subject to question), who evidently calculates that midwifing an independent Ukrainian national church completely divorced from Russia will enhance his re-election prospects next year. Not to be outdone, his rival, Yulia Tymoshenko also is in favor. These proponents of autocephaly are explicit that their goals are political. “Shortly, we will have an independent Ukrainian church as part of an independent Ukraine. This will create a spiritual independence from Russia,” Poroshenko told the Washington Post.

Also asking for autocephaly is so-called “Patriarch Filaret” Denysenko and his supposed Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the “Kiev Patriarchate,” which is recognized as canonical by exactly nobody. Denysenko, who was excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997, hopes that will change soon. Patriarch Bartholomew has dispatched to Ukraine two envoys (“exarchs”), one each from the US and Canada, to meet with Denysenko, possibly even to consecrate his “bishops” to give them supposedly valid status.

Unfortunately, there is also involvement from another direction by people whose agenda is entirely political. Western governments see a geopolitical opportunity in exacerbating an ecclesiastical crisis in Ukraine and pitting Constantinople against Moscow. Doing so, they believe, will undermine Russia’s geopolitical “soft power” through the Orthodox Church and further alienate Russians and Ukrainians from one another.

As explained by Valeria Z. Nollan, professor emerita of Russian Studies at Rhodes College, “The real goal of the quest for autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a de facto coup: a political coup already took place in 2014, poisoning the relations between western Ukraine and Russia, and thus another type of coup – a religious one – similarly seeks to undermine the canonical relationship between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Moscow. ”

The Western proponents are as crassly honest about the political aspects as the Ukrainian politicians. The German ambassador in Kiev, not known to have any particular theological acuity, opined in July, that autocephaly would strengthen Ukrainian statehood. The hyper-establishment Atlantic Council, which hosted Denysenko on a recent visit to Washington, notes“With the Russian Orthodox Church as the last source of Putin’s soft power now gone, Ukraine’s movement out of Russia’s orbit is irreversible.”

Likewise the US State Department, after a short period of appropriately declaring that “any decision on autocephaly is an internal church matter,” last week reversed its position and issued a formal statement“The United States respects the ability of Ukraine’s Orthodox religious leaders and followers to pursue autocephaly according to their beliefs. We respect the Ecumenical Patriarch as a voice of religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue.”

While avoiding a direct call for autocephaly, the statement gives the unmistakable impression of such endorsement, which is exactly how it was reported in the media, for example“US backs Ukrainian Church bid for autocephaly.” The State Department’s praise for the Ecumenical Patriarchate reinforces that clearly intended impression.

There may be more to the State Department’s position than meets the eye, however. According to an unconfirmed reportoriginating with the members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (an autonomous New York-based jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate), in July of this year State Department officials (possibly including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo personally) warned the Greek Orthodox archdiocese (also based in New York but part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) that the US government is aware of the theft of a large amount of money, about $10 million, from the budget for the construction of the Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas in New York (This is explained further below).

The warning also reportedly noted that federal prosecutors have documentary evidence confirming the withdrawal of these funds abroad on the orders of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. It was suggested that Secretary Pompeo would “close his eyes” to this theft in exchange for movement by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in favor of Ukrainian autocephaly, which helped set Patriarch Bartholomew on his current course.

Again, it must be emphasized that this report is unconfirmed, though one doesn’t see mainstream American media falling over themselves trying to track down the facts. The official statement of the Greek archdiocese does not report a personal one-on-one meeting between Pompeo and Archbishop Demetrios, but the message could have been communicated between subordinate personnel on both sides.

What lends the report an air of believability, however, is the depth of the scandal to which it refers. As few outside the Orthodox Christian community may recall, only one place of worship of any faith was destroyed on September 11, 2001, and only one building not part of the World Trade Center complex was completely destroyed in the attack. That was St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, a small urban parish church established at the end of World War I and dedicated to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, who is very popular with Greeks as the patron of sailors. The humble little church reportedly housed icons and relics donated to the parish by Russia’s last Tsar, Nicholas II, none of which were recovered.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, and following a lengthy legal battle with the Port Authority, which opposed rebuilding the church, in 2011 the archdiocese launched an extensive campaign to raise funds for a brilliant innovative design by the renowned Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava based on traditional Byzantine forms. Wealthy donors and those of modest means alike enthusiastically contributed to the effort. A major role was played by the archdiocesan women’s organization, the Ladies Philoptochos, who undertook it as a “sacred mission”“Together let us rebuild Saint Nicholas for all future generations, and for the many millions of people who will visit every year the new World Trade Center, the National September 11 Memorial Museum and our National Shrine, the only house of worship at Ground Zero.” By the end of 2017, almost $37 million had been raised and construction on this unique Orthodox Christian presence was proceeding apace.

Then – poof! – in December 2017 suddenly all construction was halted for lack of funds. Resumption would require on-hand an estimated $2 million. Despite the archdiocese calling in an audit by a major accounting firm, there’s been no clear answer to what happened to the money. Both the US Attorney and New York state authorities are investigating. There have been calls for Archbishop Demetrios’s resignation.

This is where we get back to Ukraine. If the State Department wanted to find the right button to push to spur Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to move on the question of autocephaly, the Greek archdiocese in the US is it. Let’s keep in mind that in his home country, Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew has virtually no local flock – only a few hundred mostly elderly Greeks left huddled in Istanbul’s Fener district. Whatever funds the Patriarchate derives from other sources (the Greek government, the Vatican, the World Council of Churches), the financial lifeline is Greeks (including this writer) in what is still quaintly called the “Diaspora” in places like America, Australia, and New Zealand. And of these, the biggest cash cow is the Greek-Americans.

That’s why, when Patriarch Bartholomew issued a call in 2016 for what was billed as an Orthodox “Eighth Ecumenical Council” (the first one since the year 787!), the funds largely came from America, to the tune of up to $8 million according to this writer’s sources. Intended by some as a modernizing Orthodox Vatican II,” the event was doomed to failure by a boycott organized by Moscow over what the latter saw as Patriarch Bartholomew’s adopting papal or even imperial prerogatives – now sadly coming to bear in Ukraine.

It’s an open question how much the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s shaking down the Greeks in the US to pay for extravagant boondoggles like the 2016 “Council” contributed to the financial mess at the New York archdiocese, which in turn may have opened them up to pressure from the State Department to get moving on Ukraine.

Finally, while the Ukraine controversy does largely involve politicians’ agendas and a struggle for supremacy between Constantinople and Moscow, it is not entirely devoid of moral and spiritual significance. It should be noted that among the most ardent nominally Orthodox advocates of Ukrainian autocephaly are groups of American academics like the purveyors of moral and sexual LGBT and genderqueer ideology “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” and the hardly less revolutionary “Orthodox Christian Studies Center at New York’s Fordham University.

Orthodoxy in Dialogue recently issued a call – accompanied by a pairing of an Orthodox cross with LGBT rainbow symbolism – to bishops in all US Orthodox jurisdictions to curtail their anti-abortion witness and adopt the immoral sexual agendas that have wrought havoc in the Western confessions, a call that should receive a sharp condemnation from the hierarchs.

No one – and certainly not this writer – should accuse Patriarch Bartholomew, most Ukrainian politicians, or even the fake patriarch Denysenko of sympathizing with such anti-Orthodox values. But the converse is not true. These advocates know they cannot advance their goals if the conciliar and traditional structure of Orthodoxy remains intact. Thus they welcome efforts by Constantinople to centralize power while throwing the Church into discord, especially the Russian Church, which is vilified in some Western circles precisely because it is a global beacon of traditional Christian moral witness.

This aspect points to another reason for Western governments to support Ukrainian autocephaly as a spiritual offensiveagainst Russia and Orthodoxy. The post-Maidan leadership harp on the “European choice the people of Ukraine supposedly made in 2014, but they soft-pedal the accompanying moral baggage the West demands, symbolized by “gay”marches organized over Christian objections in Orthodox cities like Athens, Belgrade, Bucharest, Kiev, Odessa, Podgorica, Sofia, and Tbilisi. Even under the Trump administration, the US is in lockstep with our European Union friends in pressuring countries liberated from communism to adopt such “European values.”

Ukrainians especially need to ask themselves why Western governments are so happy to cheer on developments that could plunge the Orthodox Church into worldwide schism, and Ukraine into another round of fratricidal violence. The unedifying behind-the-scenes machinations, many details of which remain under wraps, should give them further pause.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Power and Money Are Driving the Ukrainian Church Crisis

Rick Gates Testifies That Manafort Worked to Help Ukraine ‘Enter the EU’


NOVANEWS
Image result for ukraine cartoon
Sputnik 

Rick Gates, Paul Manafort’s longtime business partner, took the witness stand in Manafort’s financial crimes trial for the second time on Tuesday, this time revealing that the former Trump campaign chair had worked on policies to help bring Ukraine closer to the European Union.

According to Vice News, on the stand, Gates moved away from offering details on alleged financial crimes the two committed in their heyday and instead shed some light on Manafort’s work as a campaign consultant for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2010.

Gates claimed that Manafort had signed an annual $4 million advisory agreement to give life to campaign pledges that Yanukovych had campaigned on. One of the policies that Manafort was reportedly working on was called “Engage Ukraine,” a project meant to push Ukraine into the European Union, Vice reported.

“Engage Ukraine became the strategy for helping Ukraine enter the European Union,” the publication reported Gates telling prosecutors.

Although it’s unclear how long Manafort worked on this specific project, Gates stated that after Yanukovych resigned from office and fled to Russia in 2014, Manafort began to look elsewhere to replenish his income.

“They were out of power, so the income streams were more difficult to come by,” the 46-year-old said. Per Vice, it was after this that Manafort allegedly opted to tap US banks for a steady stream of income via loans.

This revelation is notable, considering that Yanukovych left Ukraine during the Maidan protests in Kiev, which painted the ousted official as being in favor of Russia and uninterested in integrating with the EU, an entity the protesters wanted to become closer with.

Protests began in November 2013 after Yanukovych declined to sign a free trade agreement with the EU, instead opting for close ties to Moscow. The perception that the former president was trying to establish stronger ties with Russia was further strengthened after Yanukovych accepted a $15 billion bailout from Russia that included cheaper gas prices. The bailout was to help boost the faltering Ukrainian economy.

In the Ukrainian capital, estimates suggest that some 400,000 to 800,000 demonstrators camped out in Kiev to demand that Yanukovych part ways with Russia and partner with the EU.

Yanukovych’s perceived closeness with Russia has also added fuel to the flames of speculation that it was somehow through this connection that Moscow allegedly sent tendrils into the Trump campaign. However, Gates’ testimony paints a picture of a lobbyist working to push Kiev West, not East. And he wasn’t alone: according to the New York Times, Gates also revealed that the Podesta Group and Mercury Public Affairs aided Manafort with “their policy consulting efforts.”

Gates, who previously pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and lying to the FBI, is considered a key witness for prosecutors trying to pin money laundering and conspiracy charges on Manafort. The Virginia trial focuses on Manafort’s alleged bank and tax fraud regarding income he earned in Ukraine and through lobbying efforts on behalf of the country.

A separate trial in Washington, DC, for charges of money laundering and obstruction of justice, is expected to begin in September 2018.

Charges against Manafort came out of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and collusion with the campaign of now-US President Donald Trump. Manafort was briefly Trump’s campaign chair in 2016.

The Russian government has repeatedly denied all charges of meddling and collusion, and the Mueller investigation into collusion has so far has turned up mostly financial crimes unrelated to the campaign.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Rick Gates Testifies That Manafort Worked to Help Ukraine ‘Enter the EU’

Ukraine Shifts to Nuclear Cooperation with US-Based Westinghouse


NOVANEWS

In January, Westinghouse Electric Company signed a nuclear-fuel contract extension with Ukraine’s State Enterprise National Nuclear Energy Generation Company (SE NNEGC) Energoatom.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Ukraine Shifts to Nuclear Cooperation with US-Based Westinghouse

Ukraine: Rights Groups Demand Nazi regime Stop Arming neo-Nazis


NOVANEWS

Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Human rights activists petition the court to cease Israeli arms exports to Ukraine since some of these weapons reach neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s security forces

An Azov militiaman with a Tavor rifle
An Azov militiaman with a Tavor rifleAzov YouTube channel screenshot

A group of more than 40 human rights activists have filed a petition with the High Court of Justice, demanding the cessation of Israeli arms exports to Ukraine.

They argue that these weapons serve forces that openly espouse a neo-Nazi ideology and cite evidence that the right-wing Azov militia, whose members are part of Ukraine’s armed forces, and are supported by the country’s ministry of internal affairs, is using these weapons.

An earlier appeal to the Defense Ministry was met with no response.

The ministry’s considerations in granting export licenses for armaments are not disclosed to the public, but it appears that the appearance of Israeli weapons in the hands of avowed neo-Nazis should be a consideration used in opposing the granting of such a license.

Nevertheless, this is not the first time in which the defense establishment is arming forces that embrace a national socialist ideology.

In the past, Israel has armed anti-Semitic regimes, such as the generals’ regime in Argentina, which murdered thousands of Jews in camps while its soldiers stood in watchtowers guarding the abducted prisoners with their Uzi submachine guns.

According to a freedom of information petition to Israel’s defense ministry from last January (Hebrew: read in full here), Israel also armed Bolivia’s military regimes, knowing that Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie was part of the regime. Legal documents used to convict the head of the junta also showed that Barbie’s death squads used Israeli Uzis.

In the case of Ukraine forces using Israeli weapons are openly stating their support for racist and anti-Semitic ideas, in various publications.

The Azov militia was established in Ukraine following the Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. The militia’s emblems are well-known national socialist ones. Its members use the Nazi salute and carry swastikas and SS insignias.

Moreover, some of them openly admit they have neo-Nazi sentiments and that they are Holocaust deniers. One militia member said in an interview that he was fighting Russia since Putin was a Jew. An Azov sergeant said that he was a national socialist, although he was not in favor of genocide, and as long as minorities in Ukraine did not demand special rights he would have no problem with them.

The militia’s founder, Andriy Biletsky, who is now a member of Ukraine’s parliament, formerly headed a neo-Nazi group called Patriot of Ukraine, now defunct. Its members comprise the founding core of Azov.

“Our nation’s historic mission at this critical juncture is to lead the final march of the white race towards its survival” Biletsky has said. “This is a march against sub-humans who are led by the Semite race.” According to reports by human rights groups militia members are suspected of war crimes, torture and sexual violence.

In tandem with the rising power of Azov, which has more than 3,000 members, there is a rise in anti-Semitic incidents and attacks against Ukraine’s minorities. Neo-Nazi groups have attacked Jews and Jewish memorial sites across Ukraine, as well as journalists, Roma and members of the LGBT community.

One member of parliament declared, in response to a question about the country’s “Jewish problem”, that “in the government there is non-Ukrainian bloodthis must be addressed.” Last May right-wing groups marched through Odessa, their leaders claiming that the city belongs to Ukrainians, not Jews, and that they would get rid of the latter.

All this is happening as the Ukrainian administration is trying to deny the country’s role in the Holocaust, just as is happening in Poland (now with the support of the Netanyahu government).

These attempts include rewriting the history of World War II and the glorification of Ukraine’s soldiers, using legislation and various publications, as well as concocting stories about Jews who were allies of national Ukrainian forces during the war, whereas in fact Jews had to hide their identity.

In 2015, the Holocaust Museum in Washington denounced Ukrainian legislation which was intended to prevent criticism of collaboration with the Nazis.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center and the World Jewish Congress condemned the decision to name central boulevards in Kiev after Nazi collaborators. If that weren’t enough, last April there was a march honoring Ukrainian Waffen SS units which massacred thousands of Jews during World War II. In June, Ukraine’s chief military prosecutor Anatoli Matios said in an interview that Jews want “to drown Slavs in blood.”

Since the spring of 2015 members of the Azov militia have been part of the regular security forces in Ukraine, a part of the National Guard which is under the country’s ministry of internal affairs. The militia encourages members and supporters to enlist in the army. However, the militia maintains itself as a separate organization.

In December of 2016 Ukraine’s internal affairs minister Arsen Avakov, considered Azov’s patron and a candidate for prime minister, met a Knesset delegation headed by MK David Amsalem, on an official visit to Ukraine.

Avakov has also met Arye Dery, the minister of interior. Avakov appointed Vadym Troyan, a senior Azov commander, as the head of Kiev’s police force. Another militia founder was given a different senior police post. These ties were formed when Avakov was a regional governor, cooperating with the neo-Nazi forces of the Patriot of Ukraine, the forerunner of Azov.

Last January the U.S. Congress prohibited any support for the Ukrainian militia. Since Israel’s defense ministry does not divulge any information on arms exports, particularly not to Ukraine, for fear of Russian wrath, it’s difficult to assess the extent of the ties with Kiev, but these are certainly in place.

The petition, submitted by attorney Itay Mack, contains abundant evidence showing the arming of the Ukrainian regime and its Azov forces.

Thus, for example, Ukrainian soldiers have been seen carrying Israeli-made Tavor rifles in military parades in Kiev. In February 2016 it was revealed that Elbit Systems will be part of a group investing in Ukraine’s defense establishment.

In April 2016 the chief of Ukraine’s air force met a representative of an Israeli defense company to discuss the upgrading of communications systems in that country’s warplanes and helicopters. The Ukrainian company “Fort” got Israel’s approval for making Tavor, Negev and Galil rifles.

In the city of Dnepropetrovsk in eastern Ukraine there is a military training school. Its website indicates that training there is provided former IDF officers and that its instructors were trained by Israelis.

The website has a photo of shooting practice with a Tavor rifle. It notes that the school trains units of the National Guard, whose members include Azov militiamen.

In May 2017 Ukraine’s Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman visited Israel and met with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman to discuss the arming of Ukraine’s military forces.

In December of that year a man claiming to be a former IDF officer was interviewed by Ukrainian media, saying that he had taken part in battles in eastern Ukraine, where he was instructing soldiers. The Azov website also shows militia members using Tavor rifles.

All of this is unambiguous proof that Israel is exporting weapons to Ukraine, knowing that they reach right-wing militias, some members of which are avowed neo-Nazis who enjoy the support of the authorities.

The ministry of defense, as is its wont, refuses to address this issue, responding only in generalities without detailing the considerations underlying its decisions approving arms exports. It seems that in this case the public deserves a more detailed response, as do Ukrainian Jews the Israeli government supposedly claims to protect.

Even if these weapons are currently directed at Russians, one should take into account the reasonable possibility that in the future they will be used to achieve other goals, perhaps aimed at minority groups in the country. It will then be too late to halt the collaboration of the Israeli establishment with the murder of Jews and others. This will be one more chapter in the dismal history of using Israeli firearms in acts such as these.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UkraineComments Off on Ukraine: Rights Groups Demand Nazi regime Stop Arming neo-Nazis

As Neo-Nazis in Ukraine Keep Gaining Power, the West Keeps Turning a Blind Eye


NOVANEWS

No one, including the most ardent pro-Kiev advocates in the West, disputes the existence of neo-nazis in Ukraine.

Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Volunteers of the Azov Civil Corps light flares during rally at the Ukrainian Parliament, Friday, May 20, 2016.

 

No one, including the most ardent pro-Kiev advocates in the West, disputes the existence of the far-right and openly neo-nazi groups in Ukraine. However, the common western reaction to this is that the numbers of their followers are negligent and therefore their impact on the political climate and life in the country in general can be easily dismissed.

This was the position of US and EU leaders from the beginning of so-called “Maidan Revolution” to the present day.

Well, the facts tell us a different story since those who are familiar with the real situation in Ukraine are sounding a great alarm that the influence of extremists is actually on the rise and, moreover, it can sway the results of the upcoming presidential elections, the shape of the new government and future parliament (Rada).

These days one has to be a super courageous individual to run for office on both, federal or local level, without taking into account how his or her views and political agendas are perceived by the radicals.

Indeed, what we see now are the numerous marches with torches through the streets of many cities, including Kiev, similar to those which took place in the Nazi Germany. Perhaps the best known scene from Leni Riefenstahl’s film “Triumph of the Will” features dramatic footage of torch bearers at a 1934 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg. Hitler himself made repeated references to torches as symbols of national and racial revolution in his book Mein Kampf.

Right Wing Extremists Condemned in Charlottesville, Funded and Armed in Ukraine and Syria

Members of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party carry torches during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine, Jan. 29, 2017, to mark the anniversary of a battle against Bolshevik Red Army forces near the town of Kruty in 1918. (AP/Sergei Chuzavkov)

Marches honoring SS Galichina, a Ukrainian division in Hitler’s Waffen-SS attract thousands of supporters and are often openly promoted even by the local governments, like, for example, during the recent April 28 march in the city of Lviv.

Street name changes honoring nazi collaborators became a routine government practice and it should come as no surprise that state-sponsored glorification of war criminals Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych lead to the anti-Semitic outbursts, synagogue firebombing, cemetery vandalizing and Nazi salutes displays during the torch-wielding rallies.

We see nazi sympathizers not only on the streets but in the highest government places as well. Ukrainian scholar Anton Shekhovtsov noted on the “creeping resurgence of the Ukrainian radical right” and according to American journalists Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal “the country has lurched far to the right when extreme right-wing nationalists occupy some of the most powerful roles in the new government.”

Many of these radicals are often welcome in Washington where they are met on the highest government level, including speaker Paul Ryan, senator John McCain, and other US officials.

Occasionally, we do hear some rare voices raising concerns about this problem. For example, Freedom House’s Ukraine project director Matthew Schaaf noted that “an increase in patriotic discourse supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia has coincided with an apparent increase in both public hate speech, sometimes by public officials and magnified by the media, as well as violence towards vulnerable groups.”

Amnesty International has also recently warned that “the Ukrainian state is rapidly losing its monopoly on violence” and US Congress sometime does express its concerns but so far it is limited only to the activities of Azov battalion while the problem is much larger.

Picture of Azov Battalion eastern in Ukraine.

A photo of the Azov Battalion – a regiment of the National Guard of Ukraine. (Photo: Twitter)

With the upcoming Ukrainian presidential elections and Poroshenko’s current unpopularity the influence of neo-nazis is definitely on the rise but the West is practically silent.

As Norton and Blumenthal mention this reveals the “extent to which Washington has cast aside any concern for democratic institutions and is willing to overlook open displays of violent Nazism in order to ratchet up the tension on Russia’s doorstep.”

As it often happens no one wants to learn from history but the history usually gets back to you, sometimes in the most unpleasant way.

 

Posted in UkraineComments Off on As Neo-Nazis in Ukraine Keep Gaining Power, the West Keeps Turning a Blind Eye

Ukraine’s story of thwarting journalist’s murder starts to fall apart


NOVANEWS
Ukraine’s story of thwarting journalist’s murder starts to fall apart
It didn’t take long for the story of a brave operation to prevent a Russian assassination in Kiev by faking a journalist’s death to start unravelling and revealing a crude publicity stunt.

On Wednesday, Ukraine’s national security service SBU shocked the world by revealing that it had staged the murder of Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko. The service claimed it was necessary to foil a real large-scale plot targeting Ukraine and masterminded by the Kremlin. By Thursday the shock effect wore off, and commenters started to tear apart the story they were fed.

According to the Ukrainian law enforcement, the biggest immediate win for the SBU in the case was the arrest of a Ukrainian businessman identified as “G”. He is accused of serving as an organizer of the hit on Babchenko on behalf of the Russian intelligence. He did hire a man, who was actually an SBU informant, and paid him $30,000 to kill Babchenko, the story goes. The SBU published footage of the arrest as well as a video taken by a hidden camera, which showed the money changing hands.

File photo of Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko. Vitaliy Nosach

The official narrative claims that the assassination was meant as a dry run for a larger plot, which would target some 30 prominent public figures in Ukraine. “G” was supposed to purchase 300 Kalashnikov assault rifles and ammunition and organize several weapon caches in central Ukraine, the SBU claimed.

The suspect was later identified by a Ukrainian court as Boris German. According to his public profile, he is 50, has some military background and is interested in firearms. He is also the son of a prominent Ukrainian businessman Lev German and owns several companies in the country.

There is little official information about the case. But some Ukrainian media turned to their sources and dug up some interesting, if yet unconfirmed, details.

According to ukranews.com, German was offered a deal by the investigators, who offered him leniency in exchange of testifying against a person who was not named by the officials. The source said he rejected the offer and also said the businessman works with arms procurement for the Ukrainian army.

Strana.ua said its source confirmed that German had connections in the arms business. It also added that he was apparently framed by the Ukrainian law enforcement, which offered him to take part in a sting operation.

“It was a clear set up, a provocation. Now the man, who came to him with the suggestion, has disappeared and the SBU claims he was working for the Russian intelligence, but they don’t have any clear evidence to prove it,” the source is cited as saying.

Kiev-based lawyer Andrey Smirnov said the apparent agent provocateur was working for SBU’s counterintelligence department.

Read more

Protesters demand investigation of the death of Pavel Sheremet on an anniversary of the crime. © Valentyn Ogirenko

All these reports are far from disproving the story, of course, but they are quite telling. Especially considering that the story itself is full of inconsistencies and outright sloppiness from the start. Babchenko’s  body soaked in pig blood on the photo released after his ‘assassination’ contradicted reports that he died in ambulance on the way to the hospital.

The “special operation” to stage the death was touted as highly secretive. The journalist even publicly apologized to his family for the grief he had caused by agreeing to take part in it. But Vasil Gritsak, the head of the SBU, said the family was warned beforehand. And Anton Gerashchenko confirmed in an interview he knew Babchenko was alive and well when he posted his self-righteous accusations of Russia for killing the man.

Another small detail. The footage released by the SBU makes it clear that G paid all the entire sum of $30,000 to the fake killer before he made his “attempt” to kill Babchenko. What was the purpose of the highly-public spectacle about his presumed murder then if not to get a record of the “killer” reporting his success to G and getting the final settlement for the hit?

The answer may be quite simple: the entire operation was conducted for the sake of bad publicity for Russia and good publicity for the SBU. Babchenko said his staged death was supposed to be timed with the final game of UEFA Champions League, which was held in Kiev last Saturday.

“In fact there were other, probably more large-scale and serious terrorist attacks, which were being arrange in earnest,” he explained. “This is why a week ago they said in Russia that some ISIS terrorists in Kiev were planning attacks before the Champions League. I suppose that was supposed to be me.”

Yep, “they” did say that. Except “they” were The Sun and the Daily Star. Oh, those Russians, how nefarious they apparently are!

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Ukraine’s story of thwarting journalist’s murder starts to fall apart

Ukraine’s Out of Control Militias (video)


NOVANEWS
The US burned Ukraine down

[ Editor’s Note: This video is a trip down the Yellow Brick Road, where the US turned most of Ukraine into proxy terrorist killing zone, when after supporting a violent coup with NATO and EU involvement the new government declared open season hunting on all ethnic Russians.

This included not only their possessions, but their lives, also. As for political blowback in the US for this act of mass murder, you needed a magnifying glass to find it even among the Democrats.

After several years now and all the carnage inflicted on so many Ukrainians, plus those on MH-17 that was shot down, we have seen no regrets in a West that thinks it can blame the whole event on Russia.

On the contrary they hate Russia for denying them their total victory, which would have had the US missile defenses right up on the Russian border so they could counter a Russian nuclear retaliatory strike from the Ural mountains base while they were ascending and most vulnerable.

Ukraine is where the US will be remembered for going rogue, Ukraine and Syria. And despite Obama’s miracle of the JCPOA, he will wear the stain of the Syrian peoples’ blood til his dying day... Jim W. Dean ]

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Ukraine’s Out of Control Militias (video)

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

November 2019
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930