Mint
Press News publiceerde gisteren een lang artikel van Darius
Shahtahmasebi over Oekraïne en wat de massamedia (zogenaamd onafhankelijk) u niet vertellen.
Dezelfde media die keer op keer volhouden dat Rusland de VS
presidentsverkiezingen, het Brexit-referendum, het
onafhankelijkheidsreferendum van Catalonië enz. hebben
gemanipuleerd, zonder daar ook maar één steekhoudend bewijs voor te
leveren.
Voor die
zogenaamde Russische bemoeienis wordt ook het beest Trump als
mededader genoemd, terwijl we telkens weer zien, dat Trump
allesbehalve een pro-Russische beleid voert, iets dat Shahtahmasebi
in het volgende artikel uit en te na bewijst.
In het
artikel o.a. De volgende feiten:
- De door de VS georganiseerde opstand in Oekraïne, die tot de succesvolle staatsgreep tegen de democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj moest leiden en leidde, waarna de VS een door haar gewilde junta installeerde (met bewijzen van gesprekken daarover tussen Nuland (staatssecretaris BuZa onder Obama) en Pyatt, destijds ambassadeur voor de VS in Oekraïne ..... Overigens was de VS al vanaf 2011 bezig met de voorbereidingen tot die opstand, onder eindverantwoording van Hillary Clinton (en Obama), de toenmalige minister van Buitenlandse Zaken. Deze coup en de voorbereidingen heeft de VS meer dan 4 miljard dollar gekost...... Intussen is duidelijk geworden dat Porosjenko ongelofelijk corrupt is en er intussen nog geen 15% van de bevolking achter deze juntaleider staat.........
- De VS levert zware wapens aan Oekraïne, waarmee de VS de 'burgeroorlog' in Oekraïne verder aanwakkert en Rusland voor het blok zet.... Immers de burgers in Oost-Oekraïne, die niet wensen te leven onder de neonazi-dictatuur van Porosjenko, worden al een paar jaar gebombardeerd door de neonazi-bataljons van Porosjenko. Rusland zou vechten in Oekraïne, een belachelijke weergave van de werkelijkheid >> wanneer dit een feit zou zijn, waren deze neonazi-bataljons al lang het gebied uit gewerkt. Met deze nieuwe VS wapens wordt het steeds moeilijker voor Rusland niet de burgers in Oost-Oekraïne te hulp te schieten met militaire hulp........
- Het door de VS ondersteunen van neonazi's in Oekraïne. Voordat Porosjenko door de VS werd geparachuteerd als 'president' van Oekraïne, werkte hij al voor BuZa in Washington, hij werd in de VS zelfs 'onze mol' in Oekraïne genoemd..... Dit alles terwijl de VS zogenaamd opkomt voor democratie, waar dit 'land' bij herhaling democratisch gekozen regeringen aan de kant laat zetten en het liefst laat vervangen door fascisten.... Naast Oekraïne: Chili in 1973 en Honduras in 2009, verder een reeks Midden- en Zuid-Amerikaanse landen voor en na 1973, waar de VS uiteraard dikke steun verleende aan deze fascistische mensenrechten schendende junta's....... Voorts nog de staatsgrepen tegen: Syrië (een mislukte poging), Brazilië (de staatsgreep tegen president Dilma Rousseff), Libië en Iran (waar de staatsgrepen tegen de Braziliaanse president Rousseff en president Assad van Syrië, alweer gericht waren tegen democratisch gekozen regeringen.......). Om te besluiten met Venezuela waartegen de VS al een aantal jaren een economische oorlog voert en gewelddadige groepen steunt, dit met de opzet president Maduro af te zetten.....
- De uitbreiding van de NAVO, tegen de afspraken in, die in 1991 met Gorbatsjov werden gemaakt..... Het niet uitbreiden van de NAVO was zelfs de eis van Gorbatsjov, voor het akkoord gaan met de hereniging van Oost- en West-Duitsland........
Mensen lezenm dit met feiten onderbouwde artikel van
Shahtahmasebi en geeft het door!
What Trump Is Doing in Ukraine Proves the Mainstream Media Doesn’t Know Sh*t
January
9, 2018 at 9:38 am
Written
by Darius
Shahtahmasebi
The
Russia-obsessed corporate media continues to peddle the narrative
that Donald Trump has turned the United States into a client-state of
Russia, even while he directly provokes the former Soviet Union by
providing Russia’s foe — Urkaine — with the largest lethal
assistance to a country on its border.
(MPN) — Despite
the mainstream media’s insistence that
U.S. President Donald Trump is some sort of compromised Russian
lackey, the fact is that at the end of last year, his administration
approved the
largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine
since 2014. This is a move that clearly infuriates
and angers Russia,
souring relations between the two countries even more so than
they already
had been under
the Obama administration (and in various
stages throughout
Trump’s first year in office).
According to The
Washington Post,
administration officials confirmed that in December the State
Department had approved a commercial license authorizing the export
of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and other associated
parts and accessories to Ukraine — a package valued at $41.5
million.
At
first, it was reported there had not yet been approval to export the
heavier weaponry the Ukrainian government had been asking for, such
as anti-tank missiles. However, by the end of
December, reports began
surfacing that the Trump administration was in fact going to
provide 35 FGM-148 Javelin launchers and 210 anti-tank missiles.
The Javelin is allegedly one of the most advanced anti-tank systems
on the market. The total package is now valued at $47 million, and it
wouldn’t be surprising if this figure continues to rise in the
weeks to come.
Even
under the 2014
Ukraine Freedom Support Act,
the Obama administration never authorized large commercial or
government arms sales, thereby making the recent announcement the
first time that the U.S. will provide “lethal” weapons to the
Ukraine military.
One
senior congressional official said that he predicted this would be
just the beginning, stating that the U.S. had “crossed
the Rubicon; this is lethal weapons and I predict more will be
coming,” according
to the Post. Foreign
Policy’s Michael
Carpenter suggested that
NATO countries should follow suit and also provide Ukraine with the
arms it needs to counter the so-called threat of Russia. Considering
that in September 2017 Russia proposed that UN peacekeepers
be deployed to
Ukraine, it should be clear that the U.S. is more bent on escalating
this conflict than on resolving it.
Russia
has already responded in
kind, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stating that the
U.S. has become an accomplice in the war and that these developments
make it impossible for Russia to remain “indifferent,” thereby
forcing Russia to consider retaliation measures in response.
The
U.S. is the world’s
largest arms dealer.
The U.S. arms so many countries so much of the time that most of us
barely blink. And yet, even taking at face value America’s stated
goals of spreading democracy and promoting human rights, the facts on
the ground appear to run contrary to those ideals and the U.S. is
well aware of these contradictions.
In
reality, the United States intervened covertly in Ukraine in 2014
because Russia and Europe were growing
far too close to each other for America’s comfort,
with Russia supplying at least 30 percent of Europe’s gas supply.
This was an issue particularly in relation to Germany’s
growing fondness for Russian gas,
as Germany is set to become
the EU’s major player.
This
is a deal-breaker for Washington, which would rather support known
neo-Nazis and
anti-Semites in order to install a right-wing government capable of
opposing Russia as close to the Russian border as one can get.
U.S. Installed a Puppet Government in Ukraine
John
McCain, center, speaks as Connecticut senator Chris Murphy, second
left, and Opposition leader Oleh Tyahnybok, right, stand around him
during a rally in Kiev, Ukraine, Dec. 15, 2013. (AP/Dmitry Lovetsky)
On
February 7, 2014, the BBC published a transcript of
a bugged phone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
In this phone call, the U.S. officials were openly discussing who
should form Ukraine’s government even before the president, Viktor
Yanukovych, had been successfully ousted
from power.
In other words, the U.S. was actively doing to Russia’s neighbour
what the corporate media and various elements of the intelligence
communities have accused Russia of doing to the U.S. during the 2016
elections. As The
Nation explained:
“In the intercepted phone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, the two were, as Russian expert Stephen Cohen put it to Democracy Now, ‘plotting a coup d’état against the elected president of Ukraine.’” [emphasis added]
“Good. I don’t think Klitsch [opposition leader Vitaly Klitschko] should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea,” Nuland said in the call, as transcribed by the BBC.
Pyatt
responded:
“Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, an opposition leader] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.”
Nuland
added:
“I think Yats [opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.”
Oleh
Tyahnybok, who had met with Senator John McCain one
year prior,
is the leader of the right-wing nationalist party Svoboda. When
Svoboda was founded in 1995, the party had a
swastika-like logo. As Business
Insider explains,
Tyahnybok is also a known anti-Semite:
“Tyahnybok himself was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction in 2004 after giving a speech demanding that Ukrainians fight against a ‘Muscovite-Jewish mafia’ (he later clarified this by saying that he actually had Jewish friends and was only against to ‘a group of Jewish oligarchs who control Ukraine and against Jewish-Bolsheviks [in the past]’). In 2005 he wrote open letters demanding Ukraine do more to halt ‘criminal activities’ of ‘organized Jewry,’ and, even now, Svoboda openly calls for Ukrainian citizens to have their ethnicity printed onto their passports.”
When
the protests broke out in Ukraine in 2014, the entire movement was
hijacked by these racist elements.
“You’d
never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and
fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on
government buildings,” reported Seumas Milne of The
Guardian. Just
days ago, thousands
marched in
Kiev to celebrate the anniversary of far-right nationalist Stepan
Bandera’s birthday.
It
is revealing that, when the U.S. decided to make a choice between a
president they viewed as a Russian ally and the various ultra-right
nationalist elements of Ukraine, Washington decided to help oust the
former for the benefit of the latter.
The State Department Promoting Neo-Nazism in Ukraine
A photo of the Azov Battalion – a regiment of the National Guard of Ukraine. (Photo: Twitter)
Eventually,
it was reported that a man named Petro Poroshenko would be taking up
the reins after Yanukovych’s abdication. According to a
cable obtained by
WikiLeaks, Poroshenko previously worked as a mole for the U.S. State
Department. The State Department even referred to Poroshenko as “our
Ukrainian insider.”
For
those who truly believe the U.S. protects and promotes democracy
while challenging tyranny and dictatorships across the globe, the
truth about Washington’s support for puppet regimes that fail to
garner the support of their own people is even worse than
any anti-imperialist
commentator could
ever have imagined. In March last year, Foreign
Affairs reported
that Poroshenko had
an approval rating as low as 17
percent.
In September last year, the Japan
Times reported that
his approval rating had dropped to a single
digit.
Some reportssay
it was as low as 2
percent.
October last year saw his approval rating grow to its highest in
recent times, reaching a
stratospheric 14
percent.
In
other words, the Trump administration is actively propping up a
failed administration in Europe, which does not have the support of
15 percent of its people. Even the far-right militias in Ukraine seem
to have more support than
the current government. Meanwhile, the U.S. has done nothing but its
utmost to tear apart the respective democratically elected
governments in Syria and Iran, both
of which have
far greater
approval ratings than
do Poroshenko and his administration.
Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Washington’s
recent decision to arm Ukraine will only make the conflict more
deadly and suggested that Russia could be forced to respond. “[The
U.S. is] not a mediator. It’s an accomplice in fueling the war,”
Ryabkov said in a statement. Clearly, Russia has a vested interest in
not seeing another NATO ally on its borders, capable of pointing
American missiles in its face on a daily basis.
As The
National Interest learned at
the end of last year from recently declassified
material, the
U.S. did indeed break a promise at the end of the Cold War that NATO
would expand “not one inch eastward.” George Washington
University National Security Archives researchers Svetlana
Savranskaya and Tom Blanton wrote
in the National
Security Archives:
“The
[recently declassified] documents show that multiple national leaders
were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European
membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991. That
discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations
in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German
territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about
being misled about NATO expansion, were founded in written
contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.”
The
documents appear to confirm Russia’s assertion that Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev accepted the proposal for German reunification
(which Gorbachev could have vetoed) only in reliance upon these
assurances from its American counterparts that NATO would not expand
into Eastern Europe. This history is reminiscent of how Russia was
further duped out of using its veto power on a U.N. Security Council
Resolution in Libya in 2011, after having received
assurances that
the coalition would not pursue regime change.
“I
believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current
situation are the result of misunderstanding,” then-British Prime
Minister John Major told Gorbachev,
according to British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite’s diary entry of
March 5, 1991:
“We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.”
The
documents also show that Russia had received these assurances from a
number of other high-level officials. These officials included
then-Secretary of State James Baker; President George H.W. Bush; West
German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher; West German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl; former CIA Director Robert Gates; French
leader Francois Mitterrand; Margaret Thatcher; British Foreign
Minister Douglas Hurd; and NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner.
U.S.
Army soldiers representing units participating in the the Anaconda-16
military exercise, attend the opening ceremony, in Warsaw, Poland,
Monday, June 6, 2016. Poland and some NATO members launched their
biggest ever exercise, involving some 31,000 troops in a show of
force to neighboring Russia.
Since
that time, NATO has clearly expanded into Europe to the detriment of
Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has grown to include the
Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, Albania and Croatia,
and Montenegro.
These
developments are crucial because, when one is honest about America’s
infamous history since World War II, it is clear that NATO exists
as an entity only
to counter and contain Russian influence. Its sole purpose is to
oppose Russia at every corner and this is no secret even in the
corporate media.
According
to the Telegraph,
NATO was formed in “Washington on 4th April, 1949 after the end of
the Second World War, largely to block Soviet expansion into Europe.”
This can be seen clearly in the complete rejection of the
Soviets’ attempt
to join NATO itself after
Joseph Stalin’s death.
In
a 2016 interview
with The
New Yorker,
Douglas Lute, a former three-star general and then-U.S.
Ambassador to NATO also patently admitted that:
“…NATO was founded on the premise of preventing an attack by the Soviet Union in Central Europe, where the U.S. would have to come to the aid of Europe … For the first forty years, NATO focussed on its greatest risk—the threat that the Soviet Union posed to Western European security.”
At
the time the unrest broke out in 2014, then-NATO Secretary General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment that
the proposed IMF-EU package presented to Ukraine would have been “a
major boost for Euro-Atlantic security” suggested that NATO had set
its sights on bringing Ukraine into the military alliance. In
July of this year,
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Poroshenko in Kiev
to further discuss this prospect, already pledging support to Ukraine
on some level.
Now
Ukraine’s bid to join NATO seems almost irrelevant, as the U.S. is
formally involving itself deeper in the Ukrainian conflict and
providing arms to a regime that has flirted with an approval rating
lower than 10 percent, all the while provoking Russia to take further
measures in response.
What
could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile,
the Russia-obsessed corporate media continues
to peddle the narrative that
Donald Trump has turned the United States into a client-state of
Russia, even while he directly provokes the former Soviet Union by
providing lethal assistance to a country on its border. Not only is
Trump maintaining an Obama-era policy, he is aggravating and
converting Obama’s Ukraine policy into a much more dangerous one —
ultimately aimed at provoking an aggressive response from Russia in
the weeks or months to come.
