Actually, the evidence presented here is not really new; it's nearly a month old. So much has been going on that this blog has neglected to take note of some important developments. A tip of the trilby to Dojo Rat (check out his site!
) for the following...
Not that long ago, Ukraine was at an uneasy peace, with a government headed by a pro-Russian elected leader named Yanukovych. He was corrupt, although his corruption now looks quite modest when compared with the lunacy that has taken hold of his country.
Yanukovych was beset by a protest movement called Maidan (which had some legitimate grievances) and a growing neo-Nazi movement. But his real
enemies were the neocons in Washington, led by Victoria Nuland. They planned his political demise.
The crisis began on February 20, 2014, when black-clad mystery snipers opened fire on anti-Yanukovych demonstrators. The world was told that the snipers did their work under orders from Yanukovych, even though there was always excellent reason to believe that the event was a false-flag attack.
We have discussed that possibility in previous posts: See here
. Urmas Paet, a representative of the European Union, conducted an investigation and reported that
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition..."
One well-informed writer
summed up the evidence:
...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. The killings were followed by a professionally orchestrated public relations campaign, complete with a catchy name—“Heaven's Hundred” (“Небесная сотня”)—complete with candlelight vigils, rapid clean-up and laying of wreaths at the scene of the crime and so on.
Sure smells like a covert op, doesn't it?
Last month, the BBC
claimed to have talked to one of the mystery snipers.
The protest leaders, some of whom now hold positions of power in the new Ukraine, insist full responsibility for the shootings lies with the security forces, acting on behalf of the previous government.
But one year on, some witnesses are beginning to paint a different picture.
Actually, "some witnesses" have been doing that from the start. Better late than never, BBC.
The British journalists interviewed a fellow they call "Sergei" who was himself one of the Maidan protesters.
There had been shooting two days earlier, on 18 February. The 19th, a Wednesday, had been quieter, but in the evening, Sergei says, he was put in contact with a man who offered him two guns: one a 12-gauge shotgun, the other a hunting rifle, a Saiga that fired high-velocity rounds.
He chose the latter, he says, and stashed it in the Post Office building, a few yards from the Conservatory. Both buildings were under the control of the protesters.
He says he was recruited as a potential shooter in late-January, by a man he describes only as a retired military officer. Sergei himself was a former soldier.
"We got chatting, and he took me under his wing. He saw something in me that he liked. Officers are like psychologists, they can see who is capable. He kept me close."
The former officer dissuaded him from joining any of the more militant groups active on the Maidan.
"'Your time will come,' he said."
Was he being prepared, psychologically, to take up arms?
"Not that we sat down and worked out a plan. But we talked about it privately and he prepared me for it."
It is not clear who the man who apparently recruited Sergei was, or whether he belonged to any of the recognised groups active on the Maidan.
And there is much else that we still do not know, such as who fired the first shots on 20 February.
We won't learn the full truth as long as Ukraine remains in the hands of the fascist maniacs who currently control the government. And we sure as hell won't get any truth from the American neocons who dominate the foreign policy of both major parties -- or from our mainstream pundits and pseudojournalists, who are content to type whatever the neocons tell them to type.