Fascists/neo-nazis Will Never Allow Real Elections In Ukraine
C'mon baby, light my (Crimean) fire
By Pepe Escobar
March 08, 2014
"<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/>Information
Clearing House -
"<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-070314.html>Asia
Times" - March 16 is C Day. The Crimean
parliament - by 78 votes with 8 abstentions -
decided this is the day when Crimean voters will
choose between joining the Russian Federation or
to remain part of Ukraine as an autonomous region
with very strong powers, according to the 1992 constitution.
Whatever "diplomatic" tantrums Washington and
Brussels will keep pulling, and they will be
incandescent, facts on the ground speak for
themselves. The city council of Sevastopol - the
headquarters of Russia's Black Sea fleet - has
already voted to join Russia. And next week the
Duma in Moscow will study a bill to simplify the mechanism of adhesion.
Quick recap: this is a direct result of
Washington spending US$5 billion - a Victoria
"F**k the EU" Nuland official figure - to promote
regime change in Ukraine. On the horizon, Crimea
may be incorporated into Russia for free, while
the "West" absorbs that bankrupt back-of-beyond
(Western Ukraine) that an Asia Times Online
reader indelibly described as the "Khaganate of
Nulands" (an amalgam of khanate, Victoria's
notorious neo-con husband Robert Kagan, and no man's land).
What Moscow regards as an illegal, neo-nazi
infiltrated government in Kiev, led by Prime
Minister Arseniy "Yats" Yatsenyuk - an Ukrainian
Jewish banker playing the role of Western puppet
- insists Crimea must remain part of Ukraine. And
it's not only Moscow; half of Ukraine itself does
not recognize the Yats gang as a legitimate
government, now boasting a number of oligarchs
imposed as provincial governors.
Yet this "government" - supported by the US and
the European Union - has already declared the
referendum illegal. Proving its impeccable
"democratic" credentials, it has already moved to
ban the official use of the Russian language in
Ukraine; get rid of the communist party, which
amassed 13% of the votes in the last election,
more, incidentally, than the neo-nazi-infested
Svoboda ("Freedom") party, now ensconced in key
government security posts; and ban a Russian TV
station, which happens to be the most popular on Ukrainian cable.
Amid all the hysteria from Washington and certain
European capitals, what's not explained to
puzzled public opinion is that these
fascists/neo-nazis who got to power through a
coup will never allow real elections to take
place in Ukraine; after all they would most certainly be sent packing.
This implies that "Yats" and his gang - on top of
it reveling at their red carpet welcome at a
pompous yet innocuous EU summit in Brussels -
won't budge. For instance, they used heavy muscle
to send pro-Russian protesters in front of the
Donetsk government building running. Heavily
industrialized Donetsk is very much linked commercially to Russia.
Then there's an even more sinister possible
scenario looming in the horizon; an
instrumentalization of the lunatic jihadi fringe
of the 10% of Tatars in Crimea, from false flags
to suicide bombings. The House of Saud, according
to a solid Saudi source, is immensely interested
in Ukraine, and may be tempted to do a few favors
for Western intelligence.............
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37885.htm
How the Ukraine crisis ends
By Henry A. Kissinger, Published: March 5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html
Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.
Public discussion on Ukraine is all about
confrontation. But do we know where we are going?
In my life, I have seen four wars begun with
great enthusiasm and public support, all of which
we did not know how to end and from three of
which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of
policy is how it ends, not how it begins.
Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a
showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the
West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it
must not be either side's outpost against the
other - it should function as a bridge between them.
Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine
into a satellite status, and thereby move
Russia's borders again, would doom Moscow to
repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of
reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.
The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine
can never be just a foreign country. Russian
history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The
Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has
been part of Russia for centuries, and their
histories were intertwined before then. Some of
the most important battles for Russian freedom,
starting with the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/468225/Battle-of-Poltava>Battle
of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian
soil. The Black Sea Fleet - Russia's means of
projecting power in the Mediterranean - is based
by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even
such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an
integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.
The European Union must recognize that its
bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of
the strategic element to domestic politics in
negotiating Ukraine's relationship to Europe
contributed to turning a negotiation into a
crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.
The Ukrainians are the decisive element.They live
in a country with a complex history and a
polyglot composition. The Western part was
incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when
Stalin andHitler divided up the spoils. Crimea,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/01/russian-upper-house-approves-use-of-troops-on-ukrainian-soil-/>60
percent of whose population is Russian , became
part of Ukraine
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/27/to-understand-crimea-take-a-look-back-at-its-complicated-history/>only
in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by
birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year
celebration of a Russian agreement with the
Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east
largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks
Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any
attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the
other - as has been the pattern - would lead
eventually to civil war or break up. To treat
Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation
would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring
Russia and the West - especially Russia and
Europe - into a cooperative international system.
Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years;
it had previously been under some kind of foreign
rule
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/612921/Ukraine/30063/Lithuanian-and-Polish-rule>since
the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders
have not learned the art of compromise, even less
of historical perspective. The politics of
post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates
that the root of the problem lies in efforts by
Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on
recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one
faction, then by the other. That is the essence
of the conflict between Viktor Yanu-kovych and
his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo-shenko.
They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have
not been willing to share power. A wise U.S.
policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the
two parts of the country to cooperate with each
other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.
Russia and the West, and least of all the various
factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this
principle. Each has made the situation worse.
Russia would not be able to impose a military
solution without isolating itself at a time when
many of its borders are already precarious. For
the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is
not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his
grievances, a policy of military impositions
would produce another Cold War. For its part, the
United States needs to avoid treating Russia as
an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of
conduct established by Washington. Putin is a
serious strategist - on the premises of Russian
history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology
are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding
Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining
outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my
notion of an outcome compatible with the values
and security interests of all sides:
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely
its economic and political associations, including with Europe.
2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I
took seven years ago, when it last came up.
3. Ukraine should be free to create any
government compatible with the expressed will of
its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt
for a policy of reconciliation between the
various parts of their country. Internationally,
they should pursue a posture comparable to that
of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its
fierce independence and cooperates with the West
in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.
4. It is incompatible with the rules of the
existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea.
But it should be possible to put Crimea's
relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis.
To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine's
sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce
Crimea's autonomy in elections held in the
presence of international observers. The process
would include removing any ambiguities about the
status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.
These are principles, not prescriptions. People
familiar with the region will know that not all
of them will be palatable to all parties. The
test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced
dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these
or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift
toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.
--
--
Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political power they wield?
There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested
particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual leaders/dudes.
To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PEPIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to pepis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
