Archive | Ukraine

Mr Jones: anti-Soviet propaganda gets thumbs up from Ukrainian president

The same old tired lies are being recycled under the guise of ‘fresh evidence’ in order to remind workers they must not think about taking state power.

Proletarian writers

A new film, Mr Jones, is receiving rave reviews from the corporate media, praised for bringing to life a forgotten Welsh hero who helped expose supposed Stalinist crimes in Ukraine. Nothing, however, is said of the fact that his journey to Soviet Ukraine began and ended in Nazi Germany, where he was the guest of Adolf Hitler.

Mr Jones – coming to a cinema near you

Presented as a mere ‘Welsh journalist’, Gareth Jones was not in fact anything like your average correspondent for the South Wales Echo. Jones was a well-educated Cambridge graduate, reputedly with family links to Ukraine, a multilingual onetime secretary to former British prime minister David Lloyd George. Strange, then, that he should be remembered merely as a newspaperman.

Gareth Jones travelled to Soviet Ukraine and soon afterwards brought back a story of terrible suffering at the hands of Josef Stalin. Mr Jones was not in the USSR for very long, and in the Ukraine for even less. He was caught by Soviet authorities and thrown out, later travelling to Asia where he was found dead, supposedly killed by Chinese bandits.

The new film from anticommunist Polish director Agnieszka Holland attempts to ‘bring to life’ the claims that Mr Jones travelled to Ukraine and witnessed first-hand a manmade famine there. Hunger he may well have seen, but who put the idea into his head (or into the director’s) that it was manmade, let alone that it was a genocide, as our anti-Soviet director declares (joined of course by the Guardian newspaper)?

Polish director a rabid anti-Stalin hack

At the Internationale FilmFestpiele in Berlin, Ruptly news agency recorded Agnieszka Holland as stating:

“Why Stalin is a hero for contemporary Russians? Don’t ask me. It shows an enslavement of the mind and soul. Stalin was one of the greatest murderers in the history of humanity … and he’s responsible for thousands of millions of lives.”

You would think that being responsible for thousands of millions of deaths, Ms Holland might be able to depict just one factual event from real life in her film about the ‘forgotten hero’ Jones and the mass killer Stalin.

Instead, in this excessive and ludicrous piece of anti-Stalin propaganda, the director portrays Mr Jones eating human flesh – a piece of fantasy so galling that it forced a relation of Mr Jones to write in to the Sunday Times to deny that his great-uncle had ever taken part in cannibalism and to admit that as far as the records show, he never even saw any bodies in Ukraine! (Mr Jones: The true story, as not seen on screen by Philip Colley, The Times, 26 January 2020)

Mr Colley Jr said: “In the film, they have got him up a tree eating bark, eating human flesh, tripping over dead bodies. He didn’t witness any dead bodies or any cannibalism, let alone take part in any.” (Daily journalist’s family hit out at Hollywood over film about his life by David Sharman, Hold the Front Page, 29 January 2020)

But that fact hasn’t stopped BBC Wales from reporting on the man who exposed “a manmade famine in 1930s Ukraine” or the Financial Times from noting: “While Graham Greene lends the film a plot point, George Orwell (Joseph Mawle) turns up on screen, inspired by Jones’s reporting to start work on Animal Farm.”

Readers might be interested to know that the family also deny that Mr Jones ever met Mr Orwell!

What do we know about Mr Jones and who he met?

One or two persons whom Mr Jones most definitely did meet with are Messrs Hitler and Goebbels.

Just days before his entry into the Soviet Union, Gareth Jones took a flight in a private jet with Adolf Hitler and ate dinner at a five-star hotel with Dr Josef Goebbels. His notebooks record the events and are held at the National Library of Wales, pages of which have been uploaded online.

In these notes, Mr Jones recorded his pleasant reflections on Mr Goebbels, whom he saw as jovial and laughing “all the time” with a tremendous sense of humour. The website dedicated to his work, garethjones.org, records that Gareth was in Moscow just ten days after his meeting with Hitler, who at the same time had set fire to the Reichstag.

The jovial arsonists Hitler and Goebbels took Mr Jones to Nazi party rallies and, after his deportation from the USSR, Mr Jones was back in Berlin on 29 March 1933 to tell the German people all about the horrors he had witnessed in the Soviet Union.

From Hitler to the modern-day fascists

Agnieszka Holland, who participated in the ‘Prague spring’, has been honoured by the Ukrainian government for this most recent work of fiction. When she collected an award from the neo-fascists, where only a couple of years ago scores of trade unionists were set on fire inside their offices in Odessa, she saw no irony in declaring:

“I do not normally wear jewellery, but today I’m wearing an earring which symbolises the millions of victims of the great famine orchestrated by Stalin in the Ukraine … It shows that social engineering and megalomaniac power can lead to the destruction of nature and suffering, and eventually the deaths of millions. At the same time, Stalin managed to convince the world he is in charge of an island of freedom and justice.”

“This is an allusion to populist leaders who believe that powers gives them the right to design human beings, to design societies, nature or destroy nature,” she said. “Unfortunately we have a lot of populist leaders at the moment.” (Holland picks up best-movie award for film about the Ukraine’s great famine by Matt Day, The First News, 23 September 2019)

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky awarded Holland the Order of Princess Olga.

Journalistic fraud in the 1930s

In the autumn of 1934, an American using the name of Thomas Walker entered the Soviet Union. After less than a week in Moscow, the remainder of his 13-day stay was spent in transit to the Manchurian border, at which point he left the USSR never to return.

Four months later, a series of articles began to appear in the Hearst press in America by Walker, who was described as a “noted journalist, traveller and student of Russian affairs who has spent several years touring the Union of Soviet Russia”.

The articles described a famine in Ukraine that had claimed six million lives, and was illustrated with photographs of corpses and starving children. Walker was said to have smuggled in a camera under “the most difficult and dangerous circumstances”.

Louis Fischer, an American writer living in Moscow at the time, was suspicious. Why had the Hearst press sat on these sensational stories for ten months before publication? He established that Walker’s short visit to the Soviet Union could not possibly have allowed him even to visit the areas he claimed to describe and to have photographed.

He also pointed out that Walker’s photographic evidence was distinctly odd: not only were the pictures suggestive of an earlier decade (Fischer thought probably of the 1921 Volga famine), but they contained a mixture of scenes from both summer and winter. Fischer also noted that the 1933 harvest in the Ukraine had been a good one.

Some of the pictures were subsequently identified as having been taken in the Austro-Hungarian empire and in World War 1, and it was known that Hearst newspapers were digging up old pictures and retouching them for use as anti-Soviet propaganda.

Pictures sometimes appeared labelled as having been taken in Russia, and at other times the same picture was relocated to Ukraine for obviously political reasons.

Not only were the photographs a fraud, and the trip to Ukraine a fraud, but Thomas Walker himself was a fraud, turning out to be an escaped convict by the name of Robert Green, who had served time in jail for forgery.

At his subsequent trial following recapture, he admitted that the series of pictures used in the Hearst newspaper articles were fakes and had not been taken in the Ukraine as claimed.

Despite these facts, the same photos are still used on commemoration posters and websites today, as well as featuring in the film Harvest of Despair.

Propaganda lies

Far from exposing the crimes of Stalin and the USSR, the new film Mr Jones exposes the utter bankruptcy of modern western cinema and the thoughtless, prejudiced, virulently anticommunist propagandists who fill positions at the Guardian and other such institutions.

These real falsifiers of history need to be exposed and confronted for the barefaced liars that they are.

Posted in Politics, Russia, UkraineComments Off on Mr Jones: anti-Soviet propaganda gets thumbs up from Ukrainian president

Biden’s Ukrainegate Problem

by GERALD SUSSMAN

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

In Danny Boyle’s 2019 movie comedy “Yesterday,” after a global blackout causes the near worldwide memory loss of the existence of the Beatles, an amateur musician from an English coastal town takes advantage of the situation to steal their songs and achieve instant global stardom. In this scenario, it is an accident that causes Beatles amnesia.

In the case of the Democrats’ obsession with Russiagate, a propaganda narrative delivered to and amplified by willing accessories in the mainstream media (MSM) through the initiative of the Central Intelligence Agency, there is a massive memory shutdown of just who the CIA actually is. This is the agency that has run US foreign policy for more than 70 years with a program of political destabilization, assassinations, lying to Congress about their illegal operations throughout the world, including the fabrication of Iraq’s supposed WMD program, spying on members of the Senate, and regularly dishing out black propaganda and disinformation for MSM distribution.

The leadership of the Democrats in hopes of flipping the White House to their party control have partnered with the CIA and the likes of its former director John Brennan (2013-2017), who introduced the Russia “hacking” story to the MSM in 2016. The Russian state, he claimed, had provided WikiLeaks with emails from the Democratic National Committee server that damaged the Clinton campaign and helped Trump win the election. The leaks included emails that exposed Clinton activities in securing quid pro quo deals with reactionary Middle East leaders in exchange for their large financial contributions to her and her husband’s private foundation.

They also exposed her collusion with the DNC for the purpose of undermining the presidential primary campaign of her rival Bernie Sanders and emails that showed that a longtime ally of Clinton and the DNC vice chair Donna Brazile had fed Clinton topics beforehand to be used in CNN “town halls”; that Clinton had a cozy relationship with Wall Street financial houses; that she in camera admitted that her public political statements contradicted her private beliefs; that she planned to invade and confront Russia in Syria; and that as a principle of foreign policy, she favored covert intervention in other countries’ affairs.

What the hawkish Clinton could not achieve, the less strident imperialist Joe Biden hopes to carry on. He comes from the same neoliberal and neoconservative mindset as the former first lady and secretary of state. As part of his campaign fundraising efforts to secure big bucks from big pocket corporations and billionaires, Biden recently assured the tycoon class that changing corporate behavior “is not going to require legislation – [and] I’m not proposing any.” As a senator, he always played ball with Republicans and conservative Democrats, and that’s how he hopes to win over independents and anti-Trump conservatives to his side.

The Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014, fomented by efforts to purge the government of its Russia-leaning leadership, has its roots in the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 2004, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) teamed up with the State Department, USAID, Freedom House, George Soros’s Open Society Institute, Britain’s Westminster Institute, the political consultant Dick Morris, and other government groups, including the CIA, to block Viktor Yanukovych from taking office as president following an election in 2004, which the US and domestic enemies of Yanukovych branded as rigged. That year alone, according to the State Department, the US spent about $34 million on regime change initiatives in Ukraine, while Soros pitched in about $1.6 million in support of a local “Freedom of Choice” NGO coalition and Ukraine’s “New Choice 2004.”

NED activists and Soros’s OSI employed a broad public relations strategy to aid a youth protest movement, bus paid out-of-town protesters into Kiev, create an online TV protest station, create agitation paraphernalia, and provide offshore training to the anti-Yanukovych student leadership based on a template “revolutionary” strategy and the writings of Gene Sharp they had previously successfully employed in Serbia with a youth group called “Otpor.” They also paid local pollsters to do exit polls in favor of the US backed candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. One of the paid polling groups had USAID, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the U.S. State Department, and Coca-Cola among its former clients.

The US involvement in the so-called “color revolutions” in former Soviet-allied states is discussed in extensive detail in my 2010 book, Branding Democracy: U.S. Regime Change in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe and in a shorter version published in the UK.

The US found a second chance, starting in 2013, to rid the country of then president Yanukovych and played an active role in a coup against his government. This time around, apart from its other standard tactics, the US supported a much more violent section of the protest movement, involving neofascist organizations such as Svoboda and the Right Sector, which strongly identified with the pro-Nazi nationalist movement in that country during World War II. Vice President Biden’s relationship with Ukraine intensified at that time when he played a key role in the “Maidan” uprising and the coup that overthrew Yanukovych.

This opened up the opportunity for State Department to install their anti-Russia choices for the new president and prime minister, respectively Viktor Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) showed up in the Maidan (square), where they shared the stage with the neo-Nazi Ukrainian leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, to cheer on the protesters. Once the neo-Nazi elements entered the Maidan and began to shoot police and throw gasoline bombs at government buildings, Yanukovych was forced to flee the country.

The assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland, a neocon, blatantly engaged in the protest, handing out cookies (let them eat cookies) to the demonstrators. This form of foreign intervention by public officials is unheard of. Nuland worked closely with the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, to handpick Yanukovych’s successors.

Nuland’s husband, the neocon Robert Kagan, had earlier been one of the architects of the plan (with Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, Richard Perle and other hawks and chicken hawks) under the Project for a New American Century to invade Iraq. Nuland and Kagan must have had intense pillow talk on the tactics of regime change.

While the Maidan protest was underway, in December 2013 Nuland spoke before the International Business Conference, a group sponsored by the US-Ukrainian Foundation, where she bragged that Washington had “invested” more than $5 billion over the years in support of opposition forces, routed through NGOs, and in backing Ukraine’s “European aspirations.” A couple of months later she would be caught on tape with the US ambassador in Kiev arrogantly raging that the US should “fuck the EU.” The US doesn’t influence foreign elections, it runs them.

Biden’s role in the Ukraine regime change, as Nuland put it, was to “midwife” the new government into existence and thereby incorporate another eastern European satellite into America’s orbit. This is what the neocons call “democracy promotion.” His efforts in Ukraine, however, proved disastrous.

Two years after the coup, Yatsenyuk, caught up in a corruption scandal and about to receive a vote of no-confidence, was forced to resign as prime minister. Later in 2016, after Poroshenko’s name was listed as one of the businessmen with offshore accounts hidden in the Panama tax haven, his trust rating sank to 13.7%, according to a poll by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology. Biden’s boys were busted. One can only imagine his reaction if Vladimir Putin had been involved in such a financial scandal and with such a low approval rating.

Poroshenko was well-known within the State Department for corruption as well as being a regular informant to the US embassy in Kiev years before he was put up for president. His dirty reputation didn’t trouble Biden at all, as the vice president had his own family business deals to sow, with Poroshenko as an accomplice. Two months after the Maidan coup and his anointment as president, Poroshenko’s repayment was to shepherd Biden’s son, Hunter, onto the board and as head of legal affairs at Ukraine’s largest gas producer, Burisma Holdings, run by the oligarch and former head of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, Mykola Zlochevsky.

Just two months after being booted out of the US Navy for cocaine use, Hunter was deemed fit to operate in Ukraine’s political culture, which for many Ukrainians must have been a grave insult. It is more to Joe Biden’s discredit, however, that he encouraged his son to be part of a regime that was ranked in 2015 the most corrupt country in Europe, and, according to Ernst & Young, has the highest level of fraud of 41 countries they surveyed (2017) and ranked second in the world in bribery and corruption (2017).

Burisma’s owner was notorious for using his high political position to convert privatized state assets into his personal coffers. The year and month young Biden was hired, April 2014, Zlochevsky came under the investigation of the government’s Serious Fraud Office for money laundering, tax evasion, embezzlement, and corruption, including his stashing of $23.5 million in his London companies and money laundering operations in Cyprus and Latvia.

Zlochevsky was also investigated for handing out oil and gas licenses during his time as minister to companies that he then owned. According to a Reuters report, while acting as legal advisor to the company, Hunter Biden failed to give any legal help to Zlochevsky during the shakeup. Zlochevsky fled the country and was last known to be living in the Riviera.

Biden used his position as vice president to coerce Poroshenko into firing his prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, as a condition for a US underwriting of an IMF $1 billion loan to Ukraine, in addition to assuring Biden that Ukraine was putting through the unnamed political and economic reforms demanded by the US and the IMF, including raising tariffs on Russian gas imports. This was captured in series of leaked phone calls between the then vice president and Poroshenko.

During a visit to Ukraine in December 2015, Biden told the Ukraine president, “I’m going to be leaving here in six hours. If the prosecutor’s [Shokin] not fired, you’re not getting the money.” Poroshenko, who owed his position to the Obama administration, followed orders. Biden later said triumphantly, “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.” It was the height of imperial swagger.

Biden’s defenders claim that the demand for Shokin’s sacking was simply to clean up the Ukraine government. However, a French documentary produced by the anti-corruption blog Les Crises indicates through extensive interviews with Ukrainian political leaders that Shokin, an experienced lawyer and respected by many within the country’s political circles for honesty, was the only state prosecutor who had actively investigated high-level corruption. Two months before he was fired, Shokin had the house of Zlochevsky raided and confiscated.

Biden and Zlochevsky desperately wanted him out not for incompetence, as Biden claimed, but because of the embarrassing details Shokin was discovering about Burisma’s bribery and financial chicanery until Poroshenko ordered him to shut down the investigation. Shokin’s replacement was Yuri Lutsenko, who prior to his appointment had been sentenced in 2012 to 4 years (serving 3) in prison for forgery and abuse of office.

In one of their phone calls, Poroshenko is heard asking permission from Biden to put Lutsenko in the prosecutor’s office. Biden tells him he wants to “huddle with my team” before giving approval. Three months into office, Lutsenko dropped the case against Zlochevsky.

Meanwhile, Poroshenko was making deals with Zlochevsky through an intermediary to end the prosecution against him in exchange for a major share of the profits from Burisma’s companies. Poroshenko’s method was to threaten oligarchs whose properties he coveted with prosecution and then demand payoffs or cut profit-sharing deals with them. During his 5 years in power, Poroshenko never put in prison any of the oligarchs accused of corruption.

Along with his confectionary companies, “Chocolate King” Poroshenko, as he is known in Ukraine, had investments in car manufacturing, shipbuilding, armaments, and TV stations, controlling some 20-30% of the country’s media market. The “Chocolate King’s” estimated worth is currently $1.4 billion.

Ousted from the presidency in 2019, his successor Volodymyr Zelensky is said to be under the patronage of another oligarch, Igor Kolomoisky, who is worth a trifling $1 billion.

While his son was ensconced at a very high salary in one of the most corrupt industries in Ukraine, Biden was busy lecturing the Ukraine parliament (Rada) in December 2015 that “senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interest and their government responsibilities.” Adding to such sanctimonious malarkey, he said: “I never tell another man or another nation or another woman what’s in their interest.”

The US does not regard its constant interventions in other countries’ affairs as “interference” when it has to do with US hegemonic power demands. Personal manipulation of foreign governments and their leaders is not at all considered illegitimate. Biden’s personal interest in Ukraine was that the prosecutor general Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings and its owner Mykola Zlochevsky too studiously. Zlochevsky hired Biden’s son, Hunter, in 2014 to be a “ceremonial figure” on the board of directors of his energy company, with a monthly stipend of $83,000, according to Fox News ($50,000/month according to the Wall Street Journal).

Neither Biden nor anyone else in the State Department at the time saw any conflict of interest between a vice president acting as a proconsul to another country on behalf of US interests, while his own son, who had no previous experience in the energy field, was making hay at the expense of the Ukrainian people and American taxpayers funding US assistance to one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet.

During his time on the Burisma board and as its legal advisor (2014-2019), Hunter Biden never bothered to visit Ukraine.

Posted in USA, UkraineComments Off on Biden’s Ukrainegate Problem

Jews Claim Newly Discovered Ukrainian Victims Of Soviet Holomodor Were Jews ‘Gassed’ By Nazis

By CFT TEAM 

78 years after they were allegedly ‘gassed’ by the Nazis, the remains of the bodies of 286 Jews, mostly women and children, were found in a basement under the market square in the town of Stanov in Khmelnytsky Oblast, Ukraine:

The remains of the bodies were collected in sacks – and these will be buried in a mass grave in the city’s ancient Jewish cemetery.

According to KGB documents and testimonies of Jews returning to the city after the war, on the night of May 14-15, 1942, the Nazis rounded up 286 Jews, mostly women and children, and put them in two cellars – where they killed them with gas. “The Nazis did not even use With bullets and killed the Jews with terrible cruelty in the cellars, “says Rabbi Alexander Feingold, rabbi of the Khmelnytsky and Ternopil districts in Ukraine, where about 7,000 Jews.

After the war, the cellars were opened, but it was decided to leave the bodies in place with a sign indicating that they had been murdered by the Nazis. Above the basements was a ruined house, and over the years the entrances to them disappeared. A large market operated for many years.

For the past six years, Rabbi Feingold has waged a struggle with the authorities and with the landowners to allow him to search for the remains of the bodies and remove them. The landowner refused, and the community waged a legal battle against him in which they lost. Eventually, they were able to reach an agreement with him and the community took ownership of the land.

In 2019, searches began at the site, and one of the basements was discovered. About 200 sacks were collected at the site, including human bones. “We brought in experts from Israel and the Ukraine and we could not find the second basement,” says Rabbi Feingold. “It was very hard work. We did a lot of drilling and lifted the ground with bulldozers, but we didn’t find any. At some point we were already discouraged. About two weeks ago we made another attempt, and then we managed to find the second basement opening.”

In the basement were the remains of the bodies of the Jews, along with pieces of clothing, children’s shoes, and even parts of arrangement with which they went to their deaths. “It was very difficult to collect the remains because they were connected to the ground. We also found a mezuzah house there, and from this we conclude that above the basement was a house of Jews.

We keep all the bags in the basement, and after we finish the work we will bury them in a mass grave in the old Jewish cemetery in the city where Jews have been buried for over 500 years. When you see shoes of children aged two and three it is impossible to describe the feeling. It’s really chilling.” According to Rabbi Feingold, the community will establish a park in memory of the victims near the site of the massacre.

We know there’s something fishy with this story because the mainstream Jewish news sites don’t mention any Nazi ‘gassings’ in the basement — merely that their were ‘suffocated’ — apparently even the Jewish editors at JTA didn’t believe the preposterous ‘gassing’ allegation.

Not only that, the Yad Vashem Museum in Israel claims the victims were either ‘suffocated’ or ‘starved‘ — which should set off alarm bells for anyone who understands real Ukrainian history.

The Nazis didn’t intentionally starve anyone to death — that’s what the Jews did to the Ukrainians during Soviet farm ‘collectivization’.

And, yes, the Ukrainian men and women were often separated — which accounts for why mostly women and children were discovered in the basement.

During the 1930s, the Jewish Bolsheviks, under direct orders from the Jew Lazar Kagonovich, at least 10 million White Christian Ukrainians were intentionally starved to death in what today is known as the Holodomor — the greatest single mass murder of the 20th century.

That’s what the so-called “Holocaust” actually is — an clumsy attempt to blame the Nazis for crimes against humanity committed by Soviet Jews — before, during, and after WWII.

That’s what the Jews attempted to do with their infamous mass murder of Poles in the Katyn Forest — blame it on the ‘evil’ Nazis.

And notice the story doesn’t mention any DNA tests that were run on the bodies found in the basement — the only ‘proof’ that the bodies were Jews is that there was allegedly a ‘mezuzah’ on the door way to the house — but all that means is that a Jew probably lived in that home at some time in the past.

Of course it would be very easy to prove that these people were ‘gassed’ by the ‘Nazis’ by detecting cyanide gas — or whatever gas was available — in the hair and clothing of the victims — but no such tests, of course, were done.

That’s because there is not one shred of objective evidence that even one single Jew was ever ‘gassed’ during World War II.

And the claims of mass cremations are scientifically and physically impossible.

Here’s what really happened: the local Jewish commissar ordered the corpses of a couple hundred dead women and children who were starved to death thrown in the basement of an abandoned house formerly owned by a Jew who fled the area once the mass killing started.  After the war, the Soviets didn’t want to go to the bother or expense of burying all those bodies, so they ordered the whole building bulldozed over — and if anyone asks questions, blamed it on the defeated Nazis.

And the greatest insult of this whole story is that Christian victims of Jewish genocide will be buried in a Jewish cemetery — and misidentified as ‘Jewish’ victims.

Posted in Germany, Russia, UkraineComments Off on Jews Claim Newly Discovered Ukrainian Victims Of Soviet Holomodor Were Jews ‘Gassed’ By Nazis

The Rhetoric of Democracy-building in Ukraine. NATO and the Militarization of Eastern Europe

Part I:“Linking People to Reforms”

By Lital Khaikin

Buying Freedom on the Free Market

Obscured by the mythology of pursuing economic and political autonomy, Ukraine plays the latest role in a long, unfolding process of western corporate, political and military interests establishing the “territorial integrity” not of independent Eastern European states, but of “NATO’s border” under the monolithic control of the United States. Ukraine has long served as a Western frontier—its political and economic ambitions co-opted by Washington’s pundits and financiers—and what the NATO Association of Canada has described as “the only country standing between Russia and the EU”.  

While NATO regularly conducts military training at the Russian border, including intensified military exercises through Forward Presence in Latvia, Canada maintains a presence in Ukraine through Operation UNIFIER, and in the Balkans through NATO’s Operation Reassurance. Canada’s own slogan for its military mission, Operation UNIFIER—“Linking people to reforms”—reflects much more than the military aid it has given to Ukraine, signifying the vast economic reforms imposed upon an “independent” Ukraine.

NATO has recently intensified its US-led military exercises in Eastern Europe by launching Defender Europe 2020, the largest exercise in 25 years, based on an imaginary war in 2028. The exercise shipped 20,000 American soldiers to Europe, and spans Russia’s borders with the Baltic States, Poland and Georgia.

In the media’s flaunting of NATO militarization in Eastern Europe, however, it’s often overlooked that the encroachment of NATO bases and intensifying military exercises in Eastern Europe have long been in blatant violation of an agreement that “broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable”, “not one inch eastward”—as was agreed between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990. The question of NATO’s military expansion was deliberated within the context of competing economic systems.

“You are moving to a price system that is very important,” Baker had praised the perestroika during their conversation, “I am delighted that you made the decision and it is not easy to get there.”

Just three years earlier, during a meeting on March 30, 1987, Gorbachev had confronted Margaret Thatcher about the “whiff of the spirit of the 1940s-1950s” that was present in Thatcher’s earlier speech in the English resort town of Torquay. “Again Communism and the Soviet Union were presented as the “evil forces”, he stated, “again the same words about the need to grow a position of power in the West.”

“We duly appreciate the contribution of the bourgeoisie to the historical process,” Gorbachev quipped, remarking on what he called the “sophisticated mechanism” created by the powerful class under capitalism. “It is you who does not acknowledge socialism’s contribution, or even its historical right to exist. With this we emphatically disagree.”

When Margaret Thatcher visited Ukraine three years later—in June 1990, while the country was still part of the Soviet Union—her visit was seen as symbolic of Ukraine’s transition to a “market economy”, prescient of the first privatization law that Ukraine adopted in March 1992. Thatcher’s guiding light has since left a strong impression on Ukraine. In an interview with Euronews in 2013, former Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Leonid Kozhara—who is presently under investigation for the murder of an advertising executive—praised Thatcher, “Her personal contribution into the new composition of a new Europe is a great one. That’s why we are all today in great sympathy to this great person.”

As NATO continues to scoop up the Baltic States—including North Macedonia on March 27, 2020—Washington’s stance has been to aggressively push for the integration of Ukraine and Georgia. Former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma famously declared the intention for Ukraine to join NATO in May 2002.

Proposals have since been floated for Ukraine to act as a neutral buffer state—notably proposed by political scientist John Meirsheimer in his controversial critique of the West’s role in aggravating conflict in Eastern Ukraine. This “buffer” role would supposedly position Ukraine akin to Finland or Switzerland, though even Finland has experienced pressure to align with NATO.

But opposition to Ukraine as a “buffer state” has been louder, claiming without a hint of irony that neutrality would be “meddling” by “external actors”, and that “buying sovereignty with neutrality simply does not compute”. Clearly, Ukraine’s independence from Washington, and its Canadian military support base, is not realistic. Ukrainian political leaders have consistently proven that the country will be harnessed to serve American interests in Washington’s wars on Afghanistan and Iraq—despite majority domestic opposition to Ukrainian deployment in the early 2000s, and polls that reflected more concern from Ukrainians over George W. Bush as a threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein.

On February 5, 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Cabinet of Ministers approved the 2020 Annual National Program, which intends for Ukraine to join NATO within five years—on the basis of what the Cabinet has referred to as the “human-centric approach the North Atlantic Alliance is committed to”. Additionally, this past May 27, Zelensky signed off on an agreement that pushes ahead Ukrainian military and civil reforms to meet the criteria for NATO membership. Zelensky’s acceleration of reforms is just a continuation of former President Petro Poroshenko’s own pledge for reforms in 2017, which was intended for Ukraine to meet NATO requirements already by 2020.

Yet, even within NATO there has been no consensus on Ukraine’s place in the US-led military alliance. Washington’s push for the addition of both Ukraine and Georgia has consistently been met with reservation from some European members—notably France and Germany—as it would risk further destabilization in Eastern Europe. During the Bucharest NATO Summit in April 2008, leaders of France and Germany opposed George W. Bush’s position on Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, although it was ultimately agreed that Ukraine would eventually join the alliance.

Eastern European militaries are widely introducing reforms and upgrades for “interoperability” to meet NATO military standards, which are essentially set by the United States. In September 2019, for example, the U.S. approved the “potential” sale of 32 F-35 fighter jets to Poland, worth $6.5 billion (USD). The fighter jets are described in the United States’ 2018 Nuclear Posture Review as an integral part of NATO military capacity, and are ultimately intended to carry upgraded B61 nuclear bombs.

For Ukraine to meet the conditions required to join NATO, it must introduce both military and economic reforms. In 2015, Ukraine adopted a National Security Strategy that would prioritize a “maximum level of interoperability” and the implementation of NATO standards. Its Annual National Program also includes reforms for the introduction of a civilian, parliamentary oversight committee for the Ukrainian military—which, since 2014, has integrated extremist, far-right militias like the Azov, Dnipro and Donbas battalions. These reforms go hand in hand with the privatization of state-owned weapons manufacturing enterprises.

Bulgaria, for example, had begun the process of privatizing its arms production companies in 1997, apparently to recover from debt but also as a strategy to join NATO—leading up to its admission to the alliance in 2004. During Bulgaria’s early years of privatization, Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned of the dangers posed by Bulgaria’s stocks of surplus weaponry as, in its reforms to meet NATO standards, the country sought to buy new weapons from the West. This is particularly an issue when military technology quickly becomes obsolete.

Already in 1998, HRW reported that a suspicious arms deal of surface-to-air missiles was halted, en route for Zambia from Bulgaria—while the Angolan government claimed that Bulgaria was in fact arming Angola’s UNITA, following the party’s shift from socialism to supporting capitalism. HRW was informed by government officials, and an end-user certificate, that the missile deal “was brokered by a U.S.-Ukrainian company registered in the United States, Miltex”—though, at the time, this was denied by Ukrainian officials. Bulgaria is still considered to be the centre of European manufacturing of AK47s; the town of Kazanlak subsists on the Arsenal factory’s continued manufacturing of the assault rifles, now for Europe and NATO, despite growing illegal proliferation.

“Bulgaria has a long record of exporting surplus weapons to war-torn countries,” wrote HRW in those first years of Bulgaria’s reforms. “Such sales demonstrate the potential for NATO-inspired military modernization to generate a dangerous “cascade” effect, providing a source of weapons to abusive military forces.”

The story is no different for Ukraine today, as the privatization of weapons manufacturers creates “favourable investment conditions” for opportunistic Western companies to set up shop with their own weapons and munitions factories in Ukraine. The privatization of Ukraine’s weapons manufacturing was part of an Agreement on Friendship and Cooperation signed between Kuchma and former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on October 24, 1994, which sought for the Ukrainian military industry to become “technologically and economically competitive”.

The Canadian Liberal Party under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau jumped at the opportunity to construct a jointly-owned ammunition factory in October 2017, shortly before Canada added Ukraine to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List (AFCCL) in December 2017, allowing the export of Canadian-made sniper rifles. By July 2019, Trudeau had confirmed that an unnamed Canadian company had invested in an ammunition factory, and Zelensky confirmed during a joint meeting on defense cooperation, “We already see the investments from Canadian companies in the production of ammunition in Ukraine.”

Amid the ongoing Donbass conflict and NATO’s aggressive maneuvers on Russia’s borders, Washington’s own pundits are salivating at the thought of turning Ukraine into “a leading supplier of weapons”. Michael Carpenter of the Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement at the University of Pennsylvania, and non-resident fellow of the Atlantic Council, clearly reflects this perspective and has been widely quoted in the media.

Ukroboronprom is a state-owned association of around 130 enterprises in the military sector, and regulates export licenses and imports of foreign military equipment. The association should face reforms that “essentially gets rid of Ukroboronprom in its current form,” Carpenter wrote in 2018, and should be replaced with an “independent” supervisory board that consists of, naturally, representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, Lithuania, Canada, Germany, and Poland. The “corporatization” and “injection of foreign capital” into Ukroboronprom’s newly formed constituents, Carpenter described, would groom Ukraine’s military companies for privatization.

Ukroboronprom’s reforms began in 2015, eliciting support from Anthony Teter, former head of the US’ Advanced Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and later DARPA director Steven Walker, who provided Ukraine with assistance on information warfare. Under the guidance of Teter, Ukraine and its American partners have endorsed the creation of a DARPA analogue through the Kiev Polytechnic Institute.

The “corporatization” of Ukroboronprom is but one part of Ukraine’s Annual National Program, accompanied by other requirements for a “shaped market economy”—considered to be part of ongoing “democratic transformations”. Ukraine’s extensive privatization is also a condition pushed upon the country by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of its provision of a $17.5 billion loan to the country.

The IMF has been pushing Ukraine to “accelerate reforms” including privatizing remaining state-owned enterprises, introducing pension reforms that include an increase in age of retirement (called “modernizing”), and restructuring “excessive regulation” that currently deters foreign investment. Poroshenko’s government approved the privatization of 23 large state-owned companies in July 2018, primarily in the industrial and medical sectors. These included an insulin manufacturer that sells within Ukraine, as well as to Moldova, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Brazil; electricity companies; as well as mining and chemical companies. That same year, Ukraine invited a delegation of twelve “large American companies” for an exclusive tour of the state assets being sold off. But while these “market-friendly” reforms characterized Poroshenko’s own term, such neoliberal reforms have just accelerated under Zelensky.

It was only recently, on October 28, 2019, that Zelensky overturned a two-decade old law that prevented the privatization of state-owned companies. Zelensky also lifted a moratorium on selling Ukrainian agricultural land, a move that was opposed by Ukrainian farmers, with fears that foreign land owners would take away Ukrainians’ ability to farm and work on their own lands, on their own terms.

Ukraine has also been obligated by the IMF to raise gas prices for domestic consumers, though the IMF claimed in 2017 that utility subsidies were “hiked to limit the impact on the poor”. Clearly, this wasn’t the case for long, as cuts to subsidies have been ongoing—such as those in 2016, and more recently in 2019 to “reduce budget deficit”. The latter cuts under Poroshenko proved to be an election issue in May 2019, gaining votes for Zelensky.

The IMF describes these cuts to subsidies as beneficial for Ukraine, reducing corruption from businesses that divert subsidized gas from households to their own purposes. Meanwhile, American policy analysts have centered US interests in Ukraine’s gas, advocating for the privatization of Ukraine’s gas production, which would “prove popular among the international donor community and those looking to do business in the country”.

More recently, at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22, 2020, Zelensky offered a five-year “tax vacation” to lure foreign capitalists willing to invest at least $10 million into state enterprises now being privatized. Ukrainian debt bonds were put up for sale following this “tax vacation” overture, shortly before the quarantine and pressures of COVID hit with full force—with recent buyers including Abderdeen Standard Investments.

One of Ukraine’s early debt owners was American investment firm Franklin Templeton, which bought $7.4 billion in debt bonds between 2011 and 2014, and was notoriously accused of money laundering, selling its bonds in 2017. Franklin Templeton has also bought bonds out of Italy and Spain’s economic troubles—when the appeal of Italian debt was described by Franklin Templeton’s David Zahn as “a sweet spot between too risky and too safe”, and Spain’s debt was summarized as “No risk, no return”.

Under the economic pressures of COVID, Ukraine’s intensifying austerity measures have also included cuts to the cultural sector—usually one of the first social sectors to see devastating cuts. Zelensky’s government announced in April 2020 that funding will be cut for all activities of the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy, threatening the very existence of cultural funds and organizations like the State Film Agency of Ukraine, the Ukraine Cultural Fund, and the Book Institute.

Meanwhile, in the months to come during the economic fall-out of the COVID crisis, the US is expected to push for Ukrainian partnerships between companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. American exceptionalism is fully on display with similar investments by China denounced as “predatory”, and US investments described as “an opportunity”.

As George Soros proclaimed that South Africa was “in the hands of international capital” at the 2001 World Economic Forum in Davos—a new bourgeois business class ushered into the post-apartheid era by foreign capital—so it is with Ukraine today1. The IMF describes its reforms as intended to “fight corruption” and “reducing the role of the state and oligarchs in the economy”. But the IMF’s missions to Ukraine make no note of the role of international financiers and Western oligarchs.

Back in 2014, Greek economist and former member of Syriza, Yanis Varoufakis wrote, “the IMF cannot wait to enter Russia’s underbelly with a view to imposing another ‘stabilization-and-structural-adjustment program’ that will bring that whole part of the former Soviet Union under its purview.” Varoufakis has recently remarked on how Greece itself has remained in the chokehold of the IMF and its demands for cuts to social services and sweeping privatization reforms—despite the comfortable returns for foreign investors on their debt bonds. Indeed, last March, the IMF stated that “Greece should reconsider recent changes in collective bargaining policies and press ahead with its unfinished reform agenda.”

History has shown that promises by the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization of “trickle down” wealth and empowering a middle class—dare they even mention the unnamable working class and poor—have proven to only enforce reforms that exacerbate income inequality. In this long-game, the conditions are being created in order to concentrate income among a few, foreign capitalists and their Ukrainian partners. Clearly, Ukraine’s future is being shaped into only one possible form—that of free market capitalism. Ukraine’s democracy, and political and economic autonomy, has ultimately been equated with reforming the country in a vision that suits American foreign policy, and the model is being strong-armed by the IMF, WB, and WTO. But these reforms rarely meet the criticism they deserve, lest this critique trample on the fragile illusion of a so-called democracy.

Posted in USA, Europe, C.I.A, NATO, UkraineComments Off on The Rhetoric of Democracy-building in Ukraine. NATO and the Militarization of Eastern Europe

Mr Jones: anti-Soviet propaganda gets thumbs up from Ukrainian president

The same old tired lies are being recycled under the guise of ‘fresh evidence’ in order to remind workers they must not think about taking state power.

Proletarian writers

A new film, Mr Jones, is receiving rave reviews from the corporate media, praised for bringing to life a forgotten Welsh hero who helped expose supposed Stalinist crimes in Ukraine. Nothing, however, is said of the fact that his journey to Soviet Ukraine began and ended in Nazi Germany, where he was the guest of Adolf Hitler.

Mr Jones – coming to a cinema near you

Presented as a mere ‘Welsh journalist’, Gareth Jones was not in fact anything like your average correspondent for the South Wales Echo. Jones was a well-educated Cambridge graduate, reputedly with family links to Ukraine, a multilingual onetime secretary to former British prime minister David Lloyd George. Strange, then, that he should be remembered merely as a newspaperman.

Gareth Jones travelled to Soviet Ukraine and soon afterwards brought back a story of terrible suffering at the hands of Josef Stalin. Mr Jones was not in the USSR for very long, and in the Ukraine for even less. He was caught by Soviet authorities and thrown out, later travelling to Asia where he was found dead, supposedly killed by Chinese bandits.

The new film from anticommunist Polish director Agnieszka Holland attempts to ‘bring to life’ the claims that Mr Jones travelled to Ukraine and witnessed first-hand a manmade famine there. Hunger he may well have seen, but who put the idea into his head (or into the director’s) that it was manmade, let alone that it was a genocide, as our anti-Soviet director declares (joined of course by the Guardian newspaper)?

Polish director a rabid anti-Stalin hack

At the Internationale FilmFestpiele in Berlin, Ruptly news agency recorded Agnieszka Holland as stating:

“Why Stalin is a hero for contemporary Russians? Don’t ask me. It shows an enslavement of the mind and soul. Stalin was one of the greatest murderers in the history of humanity … and he’s responsible for thousands of millions of lives.”

You would think that being responsible for thousands of millions of deaths, Ms Holland might be able to depict just one factual event from real life in her film about the ‘forgotten hero’ Jones and the mass killer Stalin.

Instead, in this excessive and ludicrous piece of anti-Stalin propaganda, the director portrays Mr Jones eating human flesh – a piece of fantasy so galling that it forced a relation of Mr Jones to write in to the Sunday Times to deny that his great-uncle had ever taken part in cannibalism and to admit that as far as the records show, he never even saw any bodies in Ukraine! (Mr Jones: The true story, as not seen on screen by Philip Colley, The Times, 26 January 2020)

Mr Colley Jr said: “In the film, they have got him up a tree eating bark, eating human flesh, tripping over dead bodies. He didn’t witness any dead bodies or any cannibalism, let alone take part in any.” (Daily journalist’s family hit out at Hollywood over film about his life by David Sharman, Hold the Front Page, 29 January 2020)

But that fact hasn’t stopped BBC Wales from reporting on the man who exposed “a manmade famine in 1930s Ukraine” or the Financial Times from noting: “While Graham Greene lends the film a plot point, George Orwell (Joseph Mawle) turns up on screen, inspired by Jones’s reporting to start work on Animal Farm.”

Readers might be interested to know that the family also deny that Mr Jones ever met Mr Orwell!

What do we know about Mr Jones and who he met?

One or two persons whom Mr Jones most definitely did meet with are Messrs Hitler and Goebbels.

Just days before his entry into the Soviet Union, Gareth Jones took a flight in a private jet with Adolf Hitler and ate dinner at a five-star hotel with Dr Josef Goebbels. His notebooks record the events and are held at the National Library of Wales, pages of which have been uploaded online.

In these notes, Mr Jones recorded his pleasant reflections on Mr Goebbels, whom he saw as jovial and laughing “all the time” with a tremendous sense of humour. The website dedicated to his work, garethjones.org, records that Gareth was in Moscow just ten days after his meeting with Hitler, who at the same time had set fire to the Reichstag.

The jovial arsonists Hitler and Goebbels took Mr Jones to Nazi party rallies and, after his deportation from the USSR, Mr Jones was back in Berlin on 29 March 1933 to tell the German people all about the horrors he had witnessed in the Soviet Union.

From Hitler to the modern-day fascists

Agnieszka Holland, who participated in the ‘Prague spring’, has been honoured by the Ukrainian government for this most recent work of fiction. When she collected an award from the neo-fascists, where only a couple of years ago scores of trade unionists were set on fire inside their offices in Odessa, she saw no irony in declaring:

“I do not normally wear jewellery, but today I’m wearing an earring which symbolises the millions of victims of the great famine orchestrated by Stalin in the Ukraine … It shows that social engineering and megalomaniac power can lead to the destruction of nature and suffering, and eventually the deaths of millions. At the same time, Stalin managed to convince the world he is in charge of an island of freedom and justice.”

“This is an allusion to populist leaders who believe that powers gives them the right to design human beings, to design societies, nature or destroy nature,” she said. “Unfortunately we have a lot of populist leaders at the moment.” (Holland picks up best-movie award for film about the Ukraine’s great famine by Matt Day, The First News, 23 September 2019)

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky awarded Holland the Order of Princess Olga.

Journalistic fraud in the 1930s

In the autumn of 1934, an American using the name of Thomas Walker entered the Soviet Union. After less than a week in Moscow, the remainder of his 13-day stay was spent in transit to the Manchurian border, at which point he left the USSR never to return.

Four months later, a series of articles began to appear in the Hearst press in America by Walker, who was described as a “noted journalist, traveller and student of Russian affairs who has spent several years touring the Union of Soviet Russia”.

The articles described a famine in Ukraine that had claimed six million lives, and was illustrated with photographs of corpses and starving children. Walker was said to have smuggled in a camera under “the most difficult and dangerous circumstances”.

Louis Fischer, an American writer living in Moscow at the time, was suspicious. Why had the Hearst press sat on these sensational stories for ten months before publication? He established that Walker’s short visit to the Soviet Union could not possibly have allowed him even to visit the areas he claimed to describe and to have photographed.

He also pointed out that Walker’s photographic evidence was distinctly odd: not only were the pictures suggestive of an earlier decade (Fischer thought probably of the 1921 Volga famine), but they contained a mixture of scenes from both summer and winter. Fischer also noted that the 1933 harvest in the Ukraine had been a good one.

Some of the pictures were subsequently identified as having been taken in the Austro-Hungarian empire and in World War 1, and it was known that Hearst newspapers were digging up old pictures and retouching them for use as anti-Soviet propaganda.

Pictures sometimes appeared labelled as having been taken in Russia, and at other times the same picture was relocated to Ukraine for obviously political reasons.

Not only were the photographs a fraud, and the trip to Ukraine a fraud, but Thomas Walker himself was a fraud, turning out to be an escaped convict by the name of Robert Green, who had served time in jail for forgery.

At his subsequent trial following recapture, he admitted that the series of pictures used in the Hearst newspaper articles were fakes and had not been taken in the Ukraine as claimed.

Despite these facts, the same photos are still used on commemoration posters and websites today, as well as featuring in the film Harvest of Despair.

Propaganda lies

Far from exposing the crimes of Stalin and the USSR, the new film Mr Jones exposes the utter bankruptcy of modern western cinema and the thoughtless, prejudiced, virulently anticommunist propagandists who fill positions at the Guardian and other such institutions.

These real falsifiers of history need to be exposed and confronted for the barefaced liars that they are.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Mr Jones: anti-Soviet propaganda gets thumbs up from Ukrainian president

The Real UkraineGate Scandal: There’s No Longer Any Question that Joe Biden Carried Out a Cover-Up in Ukraine

By Andrew Korybko

Trump stands vindicated for accusing Biden of trying to cover up his son’s corruption in Ukraine after one of that country’s lawmakers released audio recordings of the former Vice President’s numerous conversations with former President Poroshenko to that effect, proving that the real Ukrainegate scandal has been about the Democrat front-runner all along.

Caught Red-Handed

Ukrainian lawmaker Andrei Derkach released audio recordings that he claims to have received from journalists which convincingly sound as though they’re truly of former President Poroshenko’s numerous conversations with former Vice President and current Democrat front-runner Biden. The content of their chats concerns the latter’s efforts to pressure the then-Ukrainian leader to remove General Prosecutor Shokin, which Trump and many of his surrogates have claimed was undertaken in an attempt to cover up his son Hunter’s corruption at the Burisma gas company where he was employed and which was the subject of an investigation by Shokin. The recordings are remarkably frank, with Poroshenko proudly pledging fealty to Biden and regularly updating him on the progress that he’s made in keeping what he refers to as his “promises” to the former Vice President.

The Real Ukrainegate & Russiagate Scandals

The Daily Beast reported that suspicions are swirling over whether the leak was an inside job in Ukraine or the result of so-called “Russian hacking”, but that’s just an attempt to distract from the calls, just like the unproven claims that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC’s emails four years ago. The real Ukrainegate scandal therefore wasn’t over the now-debunked allegations that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo with current Ukrainian President Zelensky in an attempt to reopen this investigation for supposedly political reasons, but over Biden’s attempts to cover up his son’s corruption in Ukraine in order to not hurt the Vice President’s future campaign prospects. This is similar in essence to how the real Russiagate scandal wasn’t about Russia allegedly helping Trump, but about Hillary trading the US’ strategic uranium deposits for Clinton Foundation kickbacks.

Pattern Of Hypocrisy

The pattern at play is unmistakable, and it’s that the Democrats have recently taken to accusing Trump of the same spirit of what they themselves are really guilty of. Be it in carrying out shady deals with Russia, Ukraine, or whichever other country’s dirty laundry has yet to reach the light of day, the Democrats have a track record of international corruption unlike Trump, who comes off as squeaky clean in comparison. That’s not to absolve the sitting American President of whatever his administration might secretly be doing abroad, but just to point out that the two highest-profile accusations of corruption against him have been proven to be false and much more applicable to the same party that publicly made them in the first place.

Intriguing Timing

The timing of the Biden-Poroshenko leaks is intriguing and deserves some further analysis. It’s unclear why they weren’t released any earlier considering that the fake Ukrainegate impeachment conspiracy against Trump began last summer, which suggests that they might have either only been recently obtained or strategically kept in reserve to unveil at an opportune moment during the 2020 campaign. If the latter, then the current timing might be connected to the Democrats’ desperate attempts to pin the blame for the US’ controversial handling of World War C on Trump personally in yet another effort to impeach him or at the very list tilt the upcoming vote to his opponent’s favor. Regarding that selfsame opponent, Biden seems to be afflicted with dementia and is widely considered to simply be a stand-in functioning as a puppet of more shadowy party interests.

A “Dark Horse” For The Democrats?

There’s been some debate in Democrat circles about the wisdom of promoting him as their candidate of choice, but they probably didn’t have any more viable option since the other politicians in the primary either didn’t manage to generate any genuine grassroots support from their party’s base or were considered too radical and therefore unable to appeal to the on-the-fence voters in “Main Street” America who’ll likely decide this election like usual. With that in mind, these criminally incriminating leaks could either throw the party further into disarray or present an opportunity for a so-called “dark horse” replacement to be put forth by the party during its summer convention, meaning that they might have been an inside job by disgruntled Democrat “deep state” operatives who don’t believe in Biden’s ability to beat Trump and want to force the party to replace him.

Democrats = Corruption

It can only be speculated who’s really behind the leaks and why, but they’ll likely end up being extremely damaging to Biden’s campaign. He’s now been caught red-handed doing exactly what his party wrongly accused Trump of last summer, and the average American — while generally susceptible to partisan propaganda from both sides of the aisle — isn’t so stupid as to not realize that. At the very least, these leaks confirm that the Democrats are indeed the party of corruption seeing as how they denied Trump’s original accusations against Biden but then subsequently concocted a literal conspiracy to try to impeach him once it was proven that he took tangible action to revive the investigation into Hunter’s corruption. They wouldn’t have done something so dramatic if there wasn’t any corruption there to begin with, which makes them look even guiltier. in hindsight.

Concluding Thoughts

There’s no longer any question that Biden carried out a cover-up in Ukraine, with it now remaining to be seen how this will impact his campaign and the Democrats more broadly. In all likelihood, the party will be unable to recover from this enormous blow to its reputation, though there’s still a faint chance that they might seek to reinvigorate their electoral prospects by replacing Biden with a “dark horse” candidate during this summer’s convention. Should that transpire, then that individual would probably be distanced from the Obama Administration since it’s now forever tainted with corruption after the second most powerful man in the country at that time has now been proven to have engaged in high-level corruption and foreign meddling. Politically speaking, Biden is now a “dead man walking”, and it wouldn’t be surprising if the Democrats dump their puppet in favor of one who they can at least portray as being “less controversial” than Trump.

Posted in USA, UkraineComments Off on The Real UkraineGate Scandal: There’s No Longer Any Question that Joe Biden Carried Out a Cover-Up in Ukraine

Ukraine: Ticking Time Bomb

BY: THE SAKER 

Between the fallout of the murder of General Soleimani and the coronovirus, the Ukraine has been somewhat forgotten, which is understandable, but also potentially dangerous. The “young and dynamic” President Zelenskii has more or less been forgotten, especially by the legacy corporate ziomedia. This does not, however, mean that the situation there did not evolve or, in fact, that it is not becoming extremely dangerous. So for those who did not keep an eye on the Ukraine, here is a short summary of what has been going on:

Summary of developments

First, Zelenskii has proven to be a total ZERO. Simply put, neither he nor his team can get anything done, anything at all. I really mean nothing, nothing at all.

Second, while initially the victory of Zelenskii seem to indicate that the Ukronazis had suffered a crushing defeat, it now is completely obvious that Zelenskii lacks the will, or the means, or both, to tackle this huge problem. Now the Ukronazis are back in force, they provoke Zelenskii on a daily basis, but the man is simply unable to react and reassert his authority.

Third, in social and economic terms, the Ukraine is in free fall. Following years of chaos and corruption the Ukraine is now a deindustrialized country which can sell only three things: men (for menial jobs in Poland and in the EU), women (prostitution) and its “black soil” (chernozem). Once the land is sold, it will give the Ukrainian budget enough money to keep up the appearance of a state for a few more month, maybe a year or so. After that – it’s show over, curtain down, lights off and everybody go home…

Fourth, it is pretty clear who the kingmaker of the Ukraine is: Arsen Avakov, the “eternal” (by Ukrainian standards) Minister of the Interior. He not only has real firepower, he also seems to be able to turn the Ukronazi “spigot” on and off depending on his personal needs and circumstances. Unlike the bona fide nutcases, Avakov does not strike me as a Nazi at all, in fact, I would say that he is non-ideological – he is all about “pure power”. This makes him a much more desirable “partner” for the Empire than real nutcases.

Fifth, while the Minsk Agreements are still more or less on the agenda, at least officially, the Ukronazis have been vocal enough in their protests to basically completely stall any meaningful negotiations. Yes, prisoners will probably be exchanged, but beyond that I see any real progress as exceedingly unlikely. For all practical purposes, the regime in Kiev has made it very clear: there will be no negotiations with the Donbass, which simply means that there will be no negotiated solution. It’s that simple, really.

Six, COVID19 has hit the Ukraine very, very hard. The problem is that the authorities, which fully knew that they had no means to do anything meaningful began by thumping their chests and saying that there were no cases in the Ukraine only to then suddenly decree drastic quarantine measures. And yet, the true information is seeping out: Ukrainians hospitals are full of cases, mostly un-diagnosed, and many have already died. Officially, and as of right now, there are only 14 confirmed cases in the Ukraine, and only two fatalities. But absolutely everybody knows that these numbers are totally fictional and that the real number of cases remains unknown due to a lack of testing kits, not a lack of cases. MDs in Ukrainian hospitals are sounding the alarms, but nobody is listening.

Seventh, the situation is made even worse by the fact that there are not credible alternatives to Zelenskii. There IS an opposition in the Ukraine, the typical Ukronazis nutcases and the generally pro-Russian politicians who are categorically and absolutely unacceptable to the (much larger) Ukronazi opposition. Thus, there does not appear to be any political solution or alternative to the current regime. Right now, the two politicians who appear to be the most competent are Vadim Rabinovich and Elena Lukash. These two are very sharp and, frankly, very courageous, but they don’t have a power base powerful enough to take on the Nazis. Finally, there is Viktor Medvechuk whose main quality is also his biggest weakness: he is considered close to Putin. These are all rather smart and courageous figures, but compared to the power of an Arsen Avakov – they are just soap bubbles. Will that change in the future? Maybe, but not in the foreseeable future.

Possible scenarios

When a country enters a dramatic and deep systematic crisis, something must inevitably eventually give. Right now there are relatively few protests simply because there is no political force of personality which could inspire people to rally and struggle for change. Most Ukrainians are both absolutely exhausted and absolutely desperate. They are into the “survival mode” which history has taught them and they simply wait. Frankly, I can’t blame them. My advice to all my Ukrainian contacts has been “get out of there while you can”, but if you can’t get out, then going into a survival mode is the only option.

Right now, the Ukronazis feel energized and they are back with a vengeance demanding that the Ukraine finally be transformed into the Banderastan they have been dreaming about for generations (except they don’t use the word “Banderastan” but prefer the expression “Banderstat”. Their strength is in their unity and firepower. Their main weakness is that most Ukrainians hate them. A most dangerous combination.

Some observers have suggested that a coup might take place. I doubt it because I don’t see any person capable of leading such a coup. Avakov would be ideal, but he is *already* in power, he does not need a coup at all. Furthermore, if an openly Ukronazi regime replaces Zelenskii, this will only further deepen the distress of the general population.

The truth is both as simple as it is terrible: there is no solution for the Ukraine. None whatsoever.

So what could happen next?

The basic ingredients are pretty predictable: protests, civil unrest, violence and, eventually, a break-up of the Ukraine into several entities.

In theory, this could be avoided, but in order to do this, at the very least, the following basic conditions have to be met:

  1. The West and Russians must work together in a major reconstruction effort to rebuild the entire country, not only the war-devastated Donbass
  2. The regime in Kiev must be acceptable to all three: the West, Russia and the Ukrainian people
  3. The Ukronazis need to be disarmed and, when needed, either jailed or expelled

As you can immediately tell, this is not happening.

Yes, some have begun thinking about this issue, see, for example, this very interesting report from the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG), in particular, take a good look at the “Economic Steps” and “Political Steps” suggested in this report. The fact that a guy like Gen (Ret) Breedlove, former SACEUR and rabid Russia-hater, could sign this document is, by itself, quite amazing.

However, with the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic AND a brutal oil war threatening most economies of our planet, I expect the western nations to simply lose interest in the Ukraine: they will be too busy scrambling to recover from the political fallout of the SARS-CoV-2 crisis. As for Russia, there is absolutely no way that she will agree to foot the bill for the reconstruction of the Ukraine, nor will she provide the forces needed to get rid of the Ukronazis. Which means that for the foreseeable future, the Ukraine will be mostly left on its own. Russia will, of course, continue to support Novorussia (for example, SARS-CoV-2 testing kits have already arrived from Russia) while distributing Russian passports to anyone wanting one (the vast majority of the people of Novorussia).

Conclusion

The SARS-CoV-2/COVID19 pandemic will have huge political repercussions worldwide because in this specific case, not only will the AngloZionist propaganda machine not be able to hide the truth from the people (if anything, all sorts of fake news and crazy rumors will have more “street cred” than what the politicians tell us), but the consequences of this crisis will be felt everywhere, including at home. So Trump can go on in each of his pressers about how everything in the USA is “the best”, “the greatest” and “the mightiest”, but the truth is that the this virus will reveal not only the total inability of the private sector to save the day, it will also reveal how utterly dysfunctional the US, along most other western states really are (no, Walmart and Amazon will not save the day). No wonder the western politicians are scrambling to show how “involved” they all are – they are simply trying to cover their rear end for the inevitable “lessons learned” moment coming for all. Maybe at some point in the future will see most US Americans reconsider what they think they know about Socialism and Libertarianism, especially when it becomes clear how different the reaction to the virus was in China and Russia compared to the EU or US.

The sad truth about the “indispensable nation” is not slowly coming out. First and trickle, but then the inevitable tsunami

The sad truth about the “indispensable nation” is not slowly coming out. First and trickle, but then the inevitable tsunami

Them Chinese commies not only beat the virus in a record time, they are helping the dying capitalists (who, by the way, are not helping each other!)

Them Chinese commies not only beat the virus in a record time, they are helping the dying capitalists (who, by the way, are not helping each other!)

But what will be only embarrassing for US politicians will, barring some kind of miracle, hit the Ukraine with consequences far worse than what we have seen up until now.

For the time being, the Ukronazis are explaining that the Nazi salute is just perfect for this situation: not only do hands not touch, but the palm of the saluting head is facing the sun, which is hygienically good (that, and a lot of Nazis are pagans, sun worship is common amongst them).

Right now, in what are still the early stages of the pandemic, almost nobody is paying attention (most folks in the West have yet to understand that security, any and all form of security, must always be collective to be effective). Right now, the bigger danger comes from the Ukrainians returning home from abroad. But this will soon change, and the danger will become Ukrainians leaving the Ukraine. At this point the EU countries will have to turn to the Kremlin for a common response to what promises to be a major disaster.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Ukraine: Ticking Time Bomb

The Most Hated Man Who Ever Lived

by GAITHER STEWART

Western journalists covering the Euromaidan riots and murders in Kiev in late February of 2014 encountered a historical figure few recognized. The black-and-white image of pasty-faced Stepan Bandera was plastered everywhere in the Ukraine capital— on barricades, over the entrance to Kiev’s city hall, and on the placards held by demonstrators calling for the overthrow of the Russian-friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych. Now who in the hell is that? Bandera, the journalists likely thought, had simply been a nationalist … even though controversial. But so what? The Russians said he was a Nazi and an anti-Semite but according to Western media that was just more Moscow propaganda. So foreign journalists hedged in their reports from Maidan. The Washington Post reported that Bandera had had only a “tactical relationship’ with Nazi Germany and that his followers “were only accused of committing atrocities against Poles and Jews.” According to the New York Times he had been vilified by Moscow as a pro-Nazi traitor. Foreign Policy simply dismissed Bandera as “Moscow’s favorite bogeyman and metonym for all bad Ukrainian things.” Whoever Bandera was, he couldn’t have been as nasty as Putin claimed.

Some historical figures seem to just fade away into the gossamer past. They gradually sink into oblivion. But this man Bandera? Who was he anyway? Well: the name of Stepan Bandera (b, 1909 in West Ukraine, d. Munich1959) is today the symbol of Ukrainian Nazism, the symbol of the ideology and practice of the big, new-old nation of Ukraine, a former Republic of the Soviet Union. In the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv—better known as Kiev—once one of Russia’s major cities, the name Bandera lives again. To his memory are dedicated streets, squares, monuments in Ukraine, especially in his native West Ukraine. Today, Nazis of all nationalities pay homage to his memory.

But then those terrible Russians were right again. For the vast majority of Russians, the term Banderovtsy or Banderite is even worse than Liberal applied to that small minority who worship Western things, yearn for America, the European Union and NATO and detest Putin and Russian nationalists.

In his lifetime, however, the little Bandera—he stood 5 feet and 2 inches—Russian-hating, West Ukrainian Nazi was detested literally by everybody. His political opponents within the Ukrainian independence movement hated him, as did many of his own allies and followers. Jews and ethnic Russians hated him for his crimes against them. Even his German Nazi masters considered him despicable because he betrayed and murdered his own people. The masses of displaced Ukrainians living in West Germany after World War II hated him for his crimes against other Ukrainians. Elements of the post-war German government and many of Germany’s American occupiers hated him… even those he served. Poles hated him for his crimes against the Polish people. Russians hated him in a special way because Bandera, in his German SS uniform, was responsible for the elimination of hundreds of thousands of Russians, soldiers, prisoners of war and civilians alike. Today his figure is hated by nearly all Russians because of everything he stood for. Ukrainian immigrants in Russia hate him and dislike being called Banderites simply because they are Ukrainian.

Yet, among nationalists in western Ukraine, he is revered as a patriotic freedom-fighter, a martyr who led the struggle for independence from the Soviet Union, though in the pro-Russian east of the country he is reviled as a fascist traitor and terrorist who collaborated with the Nazis and whose followers murdered thousands. But Bandera remains a hero in the eyes of the growing number of extreme rightists and Nazis in today’s nationalist, jingoistic Ukraine, among Ukrainian nationalists abroad and right-wing extremists elsewhere..

In 2010, Stepan Bandera was named “Hero of Ukraine” by the pro-West President Yushchenko. His image was honored on a postage stamp while his memory assumed founder-of-Ukrainian-nationalism proportions. Moscow Avenue in the Ukraine capital of Kyiv was changed to Bandera Avenue. Meanwhile, articles galore have emerged in the international press of the life of an ugly and justifiably hated man, especially in Polish, German and English writings which can be seen on Internet. To the joy of re-flowering Nazi-Fascist organizations and parties across Europe in today’s Ukraine the Nazi- Banderite Svoboda (Freedom) and Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) parties run things.

Bandera was the son of a nationalist-minded Greek Catholic priest. Stepan was a self-punishing fanatic who stuck pins under his fingernails to prepare himself for torture at the hands of enemies. As a university student in Lviv (Lvov), he is said to have whipped himself with a belt. “Admit, Stepan!” he would cry out. “No, I don’t admit!” Yet a follower said Bandera was hypnotic: “You couldn’t stop listening to him.”

Stepan enlisted in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) at age twenty of which he quickly steered an already violent faction into more extreme directions. In 1933, he organized an attack on the Soviet consul in Lviv, killing an office secretary. A year later, he directed the assassination of the Polish Interior Minister. He ordered the execution of two alleged informers and was responsible for other deaths as well when the OUN took to robbing banks, post offices, police stations, and private households in search of funds.

A study by the German writer Rossoliński-Liebe of what drove Bandera’s violence takes us through the times and the politics that captured Bandera’s imagination. Galicia—Western Ukraine today—had been part of Austro-Hungary prior to WWI. The Polish-controlled western half of Galicia was incorporated into the newly established Republic of Poland in 1918, the Ukrainian-dominated eastern portion (of West Ukraine) where Bandera was born in 1909, was absorbed also by Poland in 1921 following the Polish–Soviet War and enjoyed a brief period of independence. Bitter at being deprived of a state of their own, Ukrainian nationalists there refused to recognize the takeover and, in 1922, responded with arson attacks on thousands of Polish-owned farms.

Warsaw resorted to mass arrest. By late 1938, some 30,000 Ukrainian-Poles languished in Polish jails. Polish politicians spoke of the “extermination” of the Ukrainians while a German journalist who traveled through eastern Galicia in early 1939 reported that local Ukrainians were calling for the German Führer to intervene and impose a solution of his own on the Poles.

The conflict in the Polish-Ukrainian borderlands of mixed peoples, languages and cultures exemplified the ethnic wars that erupted throughout Eastern Europe as WWII approached. Bandera meanwhile moved ever farther to the right. He read the works of militant nationalists who dreamed of a united Ukraine stretching “from the Carpathian Mountains to the Caucasus, a Ukraine free of Russians, Poles, Magyars, Romanians, and Jews. He studied the works of Dmytro Dontsov, the ultra-rightist spiritual father who translated Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Mussolini’s La Dottrina Del Fascismo and taught that ethics should be subordinate to the national struggle.

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was marked by extreme anti-Semitism. Anti-Jewish hatred had branded Ukrainian nationhood since the seventeenth century when Ukrainian peasants, maddened by the exactions of the Polish landlords and their Jewish estate managers, engaged in vicious pogroms.

Gruesome pogroms during the Russian Civil War resulted in waves of Jewish emigration to Israel and accelerated the acquisition of Palestinian lands by legal Jewish emigrants, the subject of a Spanish novel, Dispara, yo ya estoy Muerto, by Julia Navarro. A curiosity in the novelist’s presentation was that many of the early Jewish settlers who bought their lands near Jerusalem legally were Socialists/Communists and their small farms and orchards were organized as communist collectives.

In the Ukraine anti-Semitic passions intensified in 1926 when a Jewish anarchist named Sholom Schwartzbard assassinated the exiled right-wing extremist Ukrainian political leader, Symon Petliura, in Paris. Such events accelerated the Jewish flight from East Europe to Palestine in the years following the Balfour Declaration in 1917 pertaining to the British commitment to the creation of a state of Israel in Palestine.

Polish-Ukrainian-Russian Relations

Polish-Russian relations remain one of the most contentious political issues in Eastern Europe today. Some understanding of currents in the huge area between Germany and Russia—Poland, Ukraine, Russia in a West-East sequence—shed light on the significance of the US coup in Kiev and the emergence of a fake country under US/NATO dominance. Ukraine with its 233,000 square miles is almost size of France with 248,000 square miles. Stretching back centuries, the memory of the confusing past of East Europe influences the policies of the present.

The era beginning from World War II provides a useful starting point in understanding the current state of political affairs between Ukraine and Poland and, because Ukraine was once part of Soviet Russia, also between Russia and Poland which once shared a common border. Reflecting also the complexity of Polish-Ukrainian-Russian relations in general and thus US/NATO encirclement of Russia.

Western Ukraine, particularly the city of Lviv-Lvov, occupies a special part of the Polish psyche—something like Kosovo for Serbs which NATO stole and the USA built there a huge military base, Camp Bondsteel. Therefore the separation of the former western portion of Ukraine, former Galicia, from the Polish state after WWII was hard for Poles to accept despite the new socialist ideology in East Europe. Nationalism was not supposed to take on emotional significance. Socialist solidarity between peoples counted more than nationalism; emphasis was on economics, not nationality. Nonetheless, the border changes proved to be a strategic miscalculation caused by blindness to the ever-present nationalism. At the time there was little that Poland could do about what it felt was the unfair dislocation of its eastern provinces (with it many Ukrainians and peoples of complex and uncertain feelings of nationality).

Contemporary Poland has believed that the influence of the EU can re-establish its cultural and historical hegemony in its eastern regions. Poland believes it can rival Russia in terms of influence in the now western regions of Ukraine: whereas Russia influence is dominant in East Ukraine. Thus the European Union, via Poland, has a strong influence in the West Ukraine. On the other hand, the EU is also concerned about the quasi Fascist government of Poland: it worries that an unpredictable super-nationalistic Poland could consider a Polexit; the European Union could not stand up to another defection from its ranks. Moreover, such fears and hopes create confusion over both Polish and Ukrainian state identity.

Polish nationalists dream of their former great state. A kind of Polish Exceptionalism emerged out of the influence of Polish Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) and Solidarity’s historical victory over the communist government in 1989. Aided by God via the Polish Pope, Poles successfully defied Soviet power. Today Poles feel they have a future historical role because of their Exceptionalism.

Poles believe their historical legacy entitles them to a major presence in Eastern Europe. And it wants its eastern lands back. Therefore Poland’s opposition to Russia and its historical legacy. In order to pursue this destiny, after the end of the Cold War Poland decided on its pro-Western course of political and military development. Poland exploits concepts of putative Exceptionalism also within the institutions of the EU and NATO in order to advance its national interests at Russia’s expense. Poland uses what it subjectively considers Russian Guilt to justify Polish Exceptionalism, thereby damaging Russia’s soft power potential. (See: Russian Guilt and Polish Exceptionalism by Andrew Korybko, August 1, 2017 for more on the above)

Stepan Bandera in the Post-War Era

In such confusion, nationalism and Nazism flourished. Men like Stepan Bandera and Adolf Hitler played major roles. During the post-war of the late 1940s and early 50s, Stepan Bandera was an immigrant in West Germany. He worked for the BND, the German Intelligence Service, and its forerunner, the Gehlen Org, a top secret organization established in a Munich suburb run by Hitler’s former intelligence chief in East Europe, General Reinhard Gehlen. Financed by the USA, the Gehlen Org was specialized in espionage and training of spies to be infiltrated into the Soviet Union. Bandera and his wife, Yaroslava, and their three children had also settled in Munich. While the Germans and Americans used Bandera only sparingly and for many he seemed forgotten, the Soviet Union had not forgotten him. Repeated attempts were reportedly made on his life. Yet Bandera remained in Munich, living under the name of Stepan Popel, still a thorn in the side of his many enemies.

On October 15th, 1959, Bandera was killed at his apartment on Kreittmayrstrasse 7 in downtown Munich, allegedly by the KGB assassin Bogdan Stashinsky. According to the police report Bandera had let his bodyguards off that day. When Stashinsky produced his cyanide gun inside a rolled-up newspaper, Bandera didn’t even draw his own gun. Shot in the face, the fifty year-old Bandera died on a third-floor landing before the ambulance arrived. A medical examination established that the cause of his death was poison by cyanide gas. On 20 October 1959, Stepan Bandera was buried in the Waldfriedhof Cemetery in Munich.

Bandera’s murder was one of the most publicized assassinations of the Cold War. In the sensational show trial in 1962 in the Federal Constitutional Court in the city of Karlsruhe, the 30-year old assassin Bogdan Stashinsky, a self-declared Soviet citizen, was both defendant as well as star witness about the “nefarious” KGB. He allegedly defected to Germany together with his wife in 1961 and after spilling the beans to the CIA was handed over to German authorities. The young man was presented as a KGB killer and spy; he confessed to having assassinated another Ukrainian émigré in the 1950s. After weeks of testimony, Stashinsky was condemned to only eight years prison. For at least two assassinations! The whole affair stank. It seemed like a false flag operation.

Some reports claimed that the Bandera faction of the OUN had been backed by British MI6 since the 1930s. In any case Banderites were associated with the CIA in the post-war for espionage in the Soviet Union. Yet American intelligence organizations too described Bandera as “extremely dangerous”, traveling around in disguise, killer, counterfeiter and political abductor. When the Bavarian government cracked down, Bandera promptly offered his services to the German BND intelligence despite CIA’s growing mistrust of him.

I fictionalized the Bandera-Stashinsky story in the political novel, The Trojan Spy, from which the following excerpts:

Truth is elusive, many-sided. In any case, a young Ukrainian KGB agent by the name of Stashinsky was later tried in Karlsruhe and convicted for the murder of Bandera with a poison spray concocted in Moscow. They said he was an agent of “Smersh”.… A Russian acronym for Death To Spies. Once a top secret NKVD organization for its wet work. For the assassination of enemies. Killers all. Maybe they wanted to enlist him. But I doubt it. One said that during the Nazi occupation of the Ukraine, Stashinsky learned enough German to pass for a German and that he was hired by the KGB already at the age of nineteen after he was caught on a train without a ticket. All unlikely. Not KGB style. He admitted he worked in Germany…. He traveled around Germany…. He had a supervisor in Berlin…. But it’s a long jump from that to Smersh. I’ve always suspected Ukrainian émigré political opponents of Bandera’s murder. Western Ukrainian émigrés were always killing Eastern Ukrainians. With German and American help. That is, if Bandera was even murdered. He might have had a heart attack. As in a fairytale the cold-blooded assassin Stashinsky allegedly repented after he saw a newsreel in an East Berlin theater of poor Bandera lying in his coffin and his wife and children weeping. Can you imagine that touching scene? Oh, the soft heart of a KGB killer! ….Unimaginable…..It’s a ridiculous story from beginning to end. Not even the stuff of mythology. Who knows what really happened? Once he got back to East Berlin the handsome young Ukrainian fell head over heels in love with a German woman … who hated the Soviet Union….When she learned Stashinsky was a KGB agent, she convinced him of the perfidy of Communism and they escaped to West Germany the day before the Wall was built. Soap opera stuff. An American story, the whole Stashinsky affair. A Reader’s Digest story. The naiveté is disgusting….

Two feature films have been made about Stepan Bandera – Assassination: An October Murder in Munich (1995) and The Undefeated (2000), both directed by Oles Yanchuk—plus a number of documentary films.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on The Most Hated Man Who Ever Lived

How and Why Iran Shot Down Ukrainian Boeing

By South Front

On January 10, SouthFront released a video entitled “What’s Behind Boeing Crash In Iran” on the January 8 airliner crash near Tehran. This video was produced because the Iranian side released new facts and details regarding the incident.

The Iran Air Defense Forces brought down the Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737-800 (Flight PS752) near Tehran due to “a human error”, the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces said in an official statement on January 11. The statement denounced the previous Iranian main version that the tragedy was a result of technical malfunction.

The data provided in the statement of the General Staff, and the press conference of the Head of the Aerospace Division of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) provide the following chain of events:

  1. At approximate 23:00 UTC, on January 7, the IRGC carried out a missile strike on US military targets in Iraq;
  2. The country’s air defense network was on highest alert amid reports on a possible cruise missile strike by the United States and increased flights of US warplanes near Iranian airspace;
  3. At 2:38 UTC, January 8, the PS752 took off from Imam Khomeini International Airport and moved close to a “sensitive” facility of the IRGC “when completing a loop”. The aircraft reportedly deviated from the general PS752 course for around 2km;
  4. The altitude and the direction of the flight’s movement “were like an enemy target”. The surface-to-air missile system operator mistakenly identified as the plane as an incoming “cruise missile” 19km away;
  5. The missile system operator acted independently because of a failure in the communication system;
  6. The operator then “took the wrong decision” of firing on the perceived threat in a “ten-second” time span to shoot or ignore the flying object. During the night, the operator repeatedly called for a halt in flights in the area. This was not done.
  7. A “short-range missile” exploded next to the plane. After this, the plane continued flying for a while, and “exploded when it hit the ground.” The Iranian side did not mention the missile system used. Supposedly, it was the Tor low to medium altitude, short-range surface-to-air missile system.

Thus, Iran described the situation with the Boeing as a result of the combination of aforementioned factors in the “atmosphere of threats and intimidation by the aggressive American regime against the Iranian nation”. Nonetheless, the real picture of events may have been different.What’s Behind Boeing Crash in Iran?Video Player00:0004:59

It remains unclear how the Boeing 737-800 may have been mistaken for an incoming cruise missile, especially taking into account that this situation developed near the capital’s working airport. If one takes this explanation with a grain of salt, the scenario could have been the following.

The plane experienced some technical difficulties during or immediately after the take-off and deviated from the course moving closer to the IRGC military site. Information appeared that the preflight inspection checklist was not signed by Iranian airport engineers, but the Ukrainian side insisted to fly at its own risk and responsibility.

Therefore, the system operator, that experienced a communication failure, considered the plane as a ‘military threat’ because it may have been hijacked for a 9/11-style attack, got under control via a cyber-attack and/or used as a cover for a pinpoint missile strike on the IRGC site.

This version does not explain how the communication failure could appear at the air defense post that must have two shielded communication channels: primary tactical circuit and the alternative. The possible explanation with an electronic warfare attack does not hold up against criticism civilian communication channels remained operational with routine flights continuing from the Tehran airport. Another factor is the video of the missile hit that appeared online. How this person, could have known when and what exactly to film without advance knowledge of the developments?

Then, there is one more explanation: The plane was shot down deliberately to exert additional pressure on Iran from the United States during the alleged acute phase of the crisis between Iran and the United States, which had a chance to develop into an open regional war. In the framework of this version, it could be suspected that the operator may have been recruited by US intelligence or blackmailed, or the system was captured in an act of sabotage by the US or its affiliated forces.

Regardless the existing gaps in the current official version of the events and the real course of the developments, Iran will and further be forced to claim that the airliner shoot down was a “human error”. Iran can ill-afford to admit the lack of control over key objects of military infrastructure in the heart of the country.

Posted in Iran, Middle East, UkraineComments Off on How and Why Iran Shot Down Ukrainian Boeing

Ukraine Airliner Tragedy: Memories of Iran Air Flight 655 Shootdown, Cubana Flight 455 Attack

By Brett Wilkins

Global Research,

On July 3, 1988 the US guided missile destroyer USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300 flying in Iranian airspace and carrying 290 civilians from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas, killing all aboard.

***

“I’ll never apologize for the United States of America, ever; I don’t care what the facts are,” said Vice President George H. W. Bush after the US Navy shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, killing 290 innocent people, including 66 children.

It’s too early to tell whether or not Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 shortly after the Boeing 737-8KV took off in Tehran on Wednesday, killing all 176 people on board. One thing seems almost certain—if Iran did shoot down the plane, it was by accident. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Boris Johnson, his British counterpart, both claim to have intelligence and other evidence that Flight 752 was hit by one or more surface-to-air missiles, while US President Donald Trump opined that “somebody could have made a mistake on the other side.” It’s practically impossible to imagine a scenario in which Iran would intentionally target a Ukrainian commercial flight; fortunately, cool heads seem to be prevailing ahead of investigations of the incident.

‘I’ll Never Apologize for the United States of America’

For many Iranians, the Tehran tragedy brought back painful memories of a similar incident from more than 30 years ago during a period of similarly heightened tensions between the United States and Iran. On July 3, 1988 the US guided missile destroyer USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300 flying in Iranian airspace and carrying 290 civilians from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas, killing all aboard. The victims included people from six countries, including 66 children. The US maintains this was an accident, while Iran accused the US of an intentional act of state terrorism.

According to the official US account, the Vincennes’ crew misidentified the civilian airliner, claiming its flight profile was similar to that of the US-made F-14 Tomcat fighters sold to the Imperial Iranian Air Force during the last years of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s dictatorship. The latter years of the Iraq-Iran war—which began in 1980 after the US encouraged Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to invade his much larger neighbor — saw periodic skirmishes between US and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. On the morning of July 3 a US helicopter came under small arms fire from Iranian patrol boats; the Vincennes gave chase into Iranian waters, where it fired two surface-to-air missiles at the doomed airliner.

Serious questions were raised by the US account of the incident. First, the Vincennes’ Aegis Combat System, a state-of-the-art computer and radar tracking and guidance system, indicated the plane was climbing and not descending as an attacking F-14 would. Second, Flight 655 was transmitting the correct transponder “squawk” code for a commercial airliner, while maintaining radio communication in English with nearby air traffic controllers. Third, Iran argued that even if the plane had been a fighter jet, the US had no right to shoot it down, as it was in Iranian airspace and its flight path couldn’t possibly indicate an attack profile as it was climbing when attacked.US Downing of Iranian Airliner Gone From History

The Reagan administration told lie after lie about the incident. It claimed the Vincennes was in international waters at the time of the attack It was not. It said the ship acted in self defense against the “descending” plane; Flight 455 was climbing when it was shot down. It also claimed the flight had strayed from its usual route. It did not. It told the United Nations that the Vincennes was rushing to defend merchant shipping from Iranian attack, a complete fabrication.

President Ronald Reagan swiftly apologized to Iran for the incident, while Vice President George H.W. Bush—who was running for president that year—shocked the world with his response to his country’s mass killing of 290 innocent civilians. “I’ll never apologize for the United States of America, ever,” he said on August 5. “I don’t care what the facts are.”

A subsequent Pentagon investigation concluded that Flight 655 “was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III (civilian), on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down.” In 1996, the United States agreed to pay over $60 million, or just over $213,000 per passenger, to families of Iran Air Flight 655 victims, without admitting any legal liability.

For the sailors of the USS Vincennes, praise, not punishment, was the order of the day. All received combat action ribbons, while the ship’s air warfare coordinator was awarded a commendation medal for the “heroic achievement” of “quickly and precisely completing the firing procedure” that shot down Flight 655. Captain Will Rogers III was honored with the Legion of Merit for his “outstanding service.”

‘A Bus with 73 Dogs’

While Iran Air Flight 655 was almost certainly a tragic accident, an earlier attack on a commercial airliner closer to home bears much more sinister US fingerprints.

On the balmy afternoon of October 6, 1976, Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, a DC-8 carrying 73 passengers, many of them teenage members of Cuba’s junior Olympic fencing team, took off from Barbados bound for Jamaica. The plane made a brief stop in Trinidad and Tobago, where two anti-Fidel Castro terrorists planted a pair of bombs, cleverly hidden inside a camera and a tube of toothpaste, aboard the plane. They exploded shortly after takeoff, blasting a hole in the plane and sparking a fire as it plunged into the sea. There were no survivors of what was, until September 11, 2001, the worst-ever act of airborne terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.

Shortly after the attack, one of the terrorists, Hernán Ricardo, phoned Orlando Bosch, a CIA-backed, Miami-based Cuban exile militant who, along with fellow anti-Castro terrorist and longtime CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles, planned the bombing. “A bus with 73 dogs went off a cliff,” Ricardo told Bosch. “All got killed.”

The CIA, under its new director at the time—none other than George H. W. Bush—knew as early as June 1976 that Cuban exiles were plotting to blow up a Cubana airliner, but did not warn Havana. Ricardo and his accomplice Freddy Lugo were arrested in Trinidad and Tobago. They confessed to the bombing and fingered Bosch and Posada Carriles as the masterminds of the attack. The four men were jailed in Venezuela but Bosch and Posada Carriles escaped. They eventually made their way back to Florida, where they were welcomed as heroes—the city of Miami even declared an official Orlando Bosch Day—and protected by Bush, who was now president. This, despite the Justice Department calling Posada Carriles, the hemisphere’s most wanted terrorist, “an unrepentant criminal and admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks.”

Bosch and Posada Carriles lived out the rest of their lives in sunny South Florida while relatives of Flight 455 victims waited for justice that was never delivered. Posada Carriles pursued a successful art career while Bosch made frequent media appearances, always insisting that “there were no innocents on that plane.” Roseanne Nenninger Persaud of Guyana, whose 19-year-old brother Raymond died on Flight 455, told the New York Times in 2006 that the perpetrators of the bombing should be “treated like [Osama] bin Laden.”

“If this were a plane full of Americans, it would have been a different story,” she said.

Posted in Iran, UkraineComments Off on Ukraine Airliner Tragedy: Memories of Iran Air Flight 655 Shootdown, Cubana Flight 455 Attack

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk