Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Friday, March 07, 2014

Ukraine: Did a covert op ignite the crisis?

Did a covert op ignite the Ukraine crisis? We've touched on this question in a previous post. Remember this...?
What provided the rationale for the coup d'état was the killing of demonstrators by uniformed snipers, blamed on the previous government... But there are serious questions about this interpretation of events: the special forces were never issued rifles and were never ordered to open fire on the protesters; there were quite a few special forces members themselves among those killed; the killings were carried out in such a manner as to incite rather than quell protest, by targeting women, bystanders and those assisting the wounded.
I wasn't convinced by this assertion, but I found it intriguing. Now we have further evidence.
According to a leaked EU's Ashton phone tape, the Kiev snipers, who shot both protesters and police, were hired by Ukrainian opposition leaders, did not work for overthrown Yanukovych
The link goes to this YouTube video, which contains the (English language) call between Urmas Paet, a representative of the European Union, and Catherine Ashton, a British Labour politician and Vice-President of the European Commission. You have to get about eight minutes into the video if you want to hear the important stuff.

Paet (who has just returned from Ukraine) says:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition..."
Paet claims that he spoke with a doctor named Olga Bogomolets who treated the victims of the shooting. According to this doctor, the same people shot both the protestors and policemen.
“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides...”
He says that the same type of bullets were used on both sides, and the new government in Ukraine has been unwilling to investigate.

Question: Did the now-deposed Ukrainian leader Yanukovich have a motive to perpetrate an act of violence? He had just negotiated an agreement that would keep him in power for the near future. The shooting of the demonstrators undermined that deal.

The obvious parallel goes to Syria.

As readers know, I came to doubt Assad's responsibility for the chemical attacks in that Damascus neighborhood. The saintly Mother Agnes, a peace activist who is no Assad fan, felt that the true perpetrators were the pro-Al Qaeda rebels.

In both Syria and Ukraine, our first and best question is, as always, cui bono?

The CBW attack against civilians in Damascus gave Assad no military advantage. The only people who benefited were American neocons seeking to drag us into Syria's civil war. Fortunately, Obama wisely let Congress decide the question of American involvement. Congress had no choice but to listen to the voters -- who, still recovering from the Iraq disaster, insisted on non-intervention.

If Paet is correct, then a very similar ploy took place in Ukraine. A bloody tragedy shocked the world. That tragedy was blamed on a leader whom the neocons had targeted for removal. Now we have excellent reasons to question whether that leader bears actual responsibility.

We do not yet have hard proof that Yanukovich was framed. Frankly, though, that seems to be the way to bet.

Why would the neocons stoop to such odious trickery? Robert Parry has some answers.

Correction: I want to apologize for misspelling the name of Olga Bogolomets in the original version of this post. She seems to be one hell of a lady. Since she was a prominent anti-Yankuovich activist (demanding that he not only be "sacked" but subjected to a psychological evaluation!), it's hard to argue that an anti-Russian bias prompted her to make her claims about the shooting victims.
It was always obvious that the Kiev massacre was started by snipers deployed by secret operators.

The line that the police killed dozens of people on orders from the Yanukovych government can only possibly be bullshit. As you say, cui bono?

It wouldn't surprise me if the snipers shot dead some police officers first. That's what the AVO men did in Budapest in 1956, probably not off their own bat -if the Soviets hadn't invaded, they'd have been toast - but with KGB involvement.

There isn't much talk in the media about the Ukrainian secret police. Why not?

They're called the SBU and they work closely with the KGB (FSB/SVR). So do the secret police in Belarus and the former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

Are any journalists reading this who've got any guts at all? Try to get some interviews with guys in the ordinary Kiev police. When were their guys shot and who by?

What rumours were flying about? If there was paramilitary involvement inside the police force, who did what and at what level?

@Joe - don't rule out KGB (FSB/SVR) involvement in the Kiev shootings. The snipers weren't necessarily serving only a single Milton Friedmanite 'neocon' centrale. The KGB are past masters at manipulating 'opposition'.

Here's what I think happened: Putin and the oligarchs around him overplayed their hand with the Yanukovych deal. So what do you do, in such circumstances? They ain't stupid. You don't keep digging. You withdraw from your too-advanced position but you consolidate what you can hold - which may mean little more than the Crimea. And you do it FAST. It is imperative that you act fast.

The Russians were never going to allow the CIA to impose a destabilisation on the Crimea, leading to an eventual US/NATO takeover of the naval bases in that peninsula; the tearing up of the Treaty of Montreux; and, as the Pentagonal fairy waves her blood-soaked wand, the Black Sea becomes a US lake. No way, Jose.

If the US want those bases, they'll have to dust off their strategic nuclear warheads.

All the talk about 'economic sanctions' against Russia is bullshit for the western market. They'll grab a few fuckers' assets. Roman Abramovich won't be touched. Chelsea football club won't get mothballed.

So you realise you've overplayed your hand. You withdraw, consolidate, and act fast. And you try to get the opposition to overplay theirs. Bearing in mind, as the Russian government explicitly does, that the western economy is as fragile as a doll's house made from dollar notes. 'Economic sanctions'? Great! Bring 'em on! Oopsadaisy, the western economy shuts down.

I suspect this was the reasoning behind the British government's hilarious haversack ruse, 'accidentally' revealing a paper saying they weren't in favour of hitting the Russians too hard. Too fucking right!

The Ukraine was in danger of defaulting on its debt - the deal, whether Frankfurtian, Nulandian or Russian, would have been a bailout deal.

So who's going to come up with the money now?

Sure, we know that Wall Street in the guise of the IMF wants to do what the IMF always does - 'readjust' by slashing wages, social security, pensions, and living standards so that the banker scum can get their vig.

If Ukraine does default, which it might, banks will write down their assets and some banks may 'fail'.

So what was the Yanukovych deal? Did one fraction of the west, in effect, go to the RussiansBut next time, we'll show you.'

Meanwhile, watch Turkey and its banking system.
You're behind the times. Dr Olga has now said that she never even saw any of the dead soldiers. Although the Telegraph quotes her as saying she did help some who had been shot before they were dead.
Unrelated: You probably caught this, but I missed it and found it interesting. Matt Taibbi is leaving Rolling Stone to work for Pierre Omidyar's new venture.
I don't think Yanukovytch is any pussy cat. From what I've read he and his family looted Ukraine's Treasury. But as with Assad, I think it's reasonable to ask what benefit would Yanukovytch gain in deliberately whipping up a massacre?

As you note, we've seen these horrific staging props before: create a shocking event in an attempt to oust a problematic leader then cheer on the opposition [our guys], regardless of how unattractive and/or destructive they may be to the general population. As long as they're willing to play the game, bend to our 'national interests,' they're on the payroll. Until the day they're not. Then? Another rinse and spin.

I suspect Venezuela is next in line for a Western laundry day. It's all depressingly familiar.

I read an interesting column last night indicating that Obama is attempting a JFK strategy with Putin through backdoor diplomacy and these telephone conversations. This dustup is creating a wedge between the US and Russia, which according to a number of reports is the whole point. The neocons hate the war obstruction/US lack of involvement in Syria but mostly the diplomatic Iranian deal that's been slowly ticking along. That's been advanced with Putin and Obama working together.

Drives the neocons crazy. They'll do anything to stop it. Anything.

Excellent finds, Joseph. I've been saying all along the Tartarus/Sevatapol connection was apparent.

If there's ever a definitive Iranian deal, then how would they make that shitty little country Israel's problems the 'world's' problems?

There's a theory in France that groups such as the Red Brigades in Italy, and leftist armed struggle groups in western Europe more generally, were backed by Israel in order to drive a wedge between western Europe and the US with regard to Palestine. There is at least some evidence that approaches were made to groups in both Italy and Belgium.

This time round, the line is Ephraim Halevy's: this world is a world war.
The Crimean referendum has been brought forward from Monday 31 March to Sunday 16 March. That's from after triple witching on Friday 21 March to before it.

Triple witching is when three different kinds of financial derivatives expire. Happening 4 times a year, it brings big volatility on the derivatives exchanges.

This year, it also happens on the day of a full moon.

Out-of-the-money March puts, anyone?

I am old enough to remember that the London-based European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) uses astrological charting as one of its tools. No shit! (Click here.)

The EBRD ('BERD' in French) was set up to help privatise assets in Eastern Europe.

And guess what. Having moved into the countries which experienced the 'Arab Spring', the EBRD has been big in the Ukraine, running a credit facility called UKEEP. Here's what it's been doing this week: EBRD offers Ukraine 5 billion euro package, sticks with Russia.

EBRD President is Suma Chakrabarti, formerly a senior British mandarin.

Are there any mundane astrologers in the house?
great post! thanks! james
Robert Parry's, "A Shadow US Foreign Policy" is very enlightening.

Basically, under Reagan's National Endowment for Democracy, the neocons are still being funded to destabilize governments. For them, all foreign policy is a zero sum game. The Cold War never ended. The ultimate goal is the break up of Russia.
b quote - "Are there any mundane astrologers in the house?"

since i like your commentary so much - yes in fact there is, but i don't claim to know that much. you can read my posts on ukraine on skyscript here -

i don't know where this is going, but speaking generally the uranus/pluto square along with the next few years generally seem challenging on a world scale from the astro pov.. fire me a question if there is something specific.. i think you make a fascinating point on how the referendum has been moved to be in advance of triple witching friday march 21st.. there is one astrologer looking for a serious market decline somewhere in here.. april doesn't look especially nice astrologically, but picking market tops is a fools game. james -
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic