In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.
As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17.
If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.
The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.”
Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.
“That statement about a possible “defector” might explain why some analysts thought they saw soldiers in Ukrainian army uniforms tending to the missile battery in eastern Ukraine. But there is another obvious explanation that the U.S. intelligence community seems unwilling to accept: that the missile may have been launched by someone working for the Ukrainian military,” writes Parry, adding that, “We may be seeing another case of the U.S. government “fixing the intelligence” around a desired policy outcome, as occurred in the run-up to war with Iraq.”
Over the last 48 hours, the State Department’s narrative has been widely discredited because of Washington’s inability to provide hard evidence based on anything other than dubious social media posts and YouTube videos uploaded by the Ukrainian government.
During a remarkable exchange yesterday between AP reporter Matt Lee and U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf, Lee backed Harf into a corner and forced her to tacitly acknowledge that the United States’ case is entirely built on little more than alleged social media posts.
The U.S. later admitted that it had uncovered no evidence whatsoever that linked Russia directly to the attack.
Over the past several weeks, your humble webmaster has received numerous E-mails from readers concerned over puppet Kiev’s heavy hand in pro Russian Eastern Ukraine and, more specifically, the seeming inaction and timidity of Vladimir Putin in response to it. One E-mail tweak in particular was particularly amusing:
“Hey. It looks your macho man idol is “Pussy Putin” after all!”
Well, first of all, though I greatly admire the man, he is not my “idol”. It is unbecoming of a mature man to have a groupie-like “man-crush” for any man; well, except maybe for Adolf the Great, but I digress.
I must admit to having daytime “wet dreams” of Russian tanks, armored vehicles and truck convoys fanning out over the highways of Kiev, Warsaw, and Prague, liberating the bewildered sheep of the Eastern EU plantation. In my most ambitious private moments, visions of Spetsnaz paratroopers raining down on the front lawns of manly Ms. Merkel and Commie Pinko Francois Hollande bring a mischievous smile to my face, and send a therapeutic Chris Mathewish “thrill up my leg.”
But let’s return to reality here. The self evident truth that Chess Master Putin must deal with is this:
The Globalists WANT Russia to invade Ukraine !
To put it in terms of a Chess analogy, imagine Rothschild (and friends) on one side of the Chess Board, and Putin on the other. Place your self in Putin’s shoes, or in Putin’s mind I should say. Your cunning adversary (who has never been defeated) has just placed one of his pieces in apparent danger. The novice would jump at the opportunity to capture it, but a Master would first ask himself; “Why is he sacrificing that piece? Is there some trick, some “next move” he is planning that I should be aware of?”
A brief history lesson is in order here. Back in 1979, when the Communist Soviet Union still existed, Chess Master Zbigniew Brzezinski also sacrificed a piece; the nation of Afghanistan. Through intrigue and murder, a CIA backed faction replaced a Soviet friendly Communist government with an America-friendly “Communist-light” government. After having previously refused Afghan requests for military intervention against the CIA backed “rebels”, Chess novice Leonid Brezhnev sent the Red Army into Afghanistan, in December of 1979.
Within a matter of days, Afghanistan was easily subdued. All of the major centers were Soviet occupied and the CIA’s disposable Afghan puppets fled the country like rats. But the Afghan War wasn’t over. It was only just beginning.
Unbeknown to Brezhnev, a secret guerrilla army, armed to the teeth with machine guns, rifles, communications systems, light artillery and, later on, shoulder fired missiles – was waiting for the Red Army. The USSR was drawn into a long (9 years!), costly, bloody, and internally destabilizing war against an international army of Islamic fanatics. The handlers and suppliers of this terrible forces were the Intelligence agencies of the US, the UK, and Saudi Arabia. In later years, Brzezinski himself, in an interview with a French newspaper, will confirm that it was his hand that orchestrated the Afghan War:
“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.”
As a former intelligence operative himself, Putin undoubtedly knows this bit of history, just as he undoubtedly knows that an invisible guerrilla army of ‘Right Sector’ thugs, CIA-Mossad snipers, and other assorted mercenaries are waiting for the Russians to come into their parlor. As with Afghanistan, the Russian Army would have little difficulty is securing the pro Russian regions of Eastern Ukraine. But that’s when the war would start, not end.
Deadly Ukraine Fighter Jet Bombing Caught On Tape
Earlier today we reported that even as the western media blackout of events in Ukraine gets more black, the ongoing civil war is getting ever more uncivil, following a Ukraine fighter jet attack on the east Ukraine town of Lugansk, in which it struck not only the local administration building, but a neighboring area, resulting in numerous civilian casualties and injuries. Kiev was quick to deny that it was using its airforce on its own people, claiming instead that the explosion quite clearly caught on tape was merely locals trying to unsuccessfully shoot at the fighter jet.
So for your viewing displeasure, because the reality of yet another fratricidal war is hardly enjoyable, and so readers can make up their own minds, here is the moment of the fighter jet bombing caught on tape, as well as the tragic consequences.
The first clip shows CCTV footage as the rocket explosion is spread out across a park neighboring the administration building.
The next clip captures moment the Kiev fighter fired at fellow Ukrainians – something the west vocally condemned when it was allegedly conducted under former president Yanukovich, and is all too quiet this time.
From a different angle:
And the aftermath.
Exclusive: For the second time in a week, Ukrainian anti-regime protesters holed up in a building were killed by fires set by pro-regime attackers with ties to newly formed neo-Nazi security forces, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
In Ukraine, a grisly new strategy – bringing in neo-Nazi paramilitary forces to set fire to occupied buildings in the country’s rebellious southeast – appears to be emerging as a favored tactic as the coup-installed regime in Kiev seeks to put down resistance from ethnic Russians and other opponents.
The technique first emerged on May 2 in the port city of Odessa when pro-regime militants chased dissidents into the Trade Unions Building and then set it on fire. As some 40 or more ethnic Russians were burned alive or died of smoke inhalation, the crowd outside mocked them as red-and-black Colorado potato beetles, with the chant of “Burn, Colorado, burn.” Afterwards, reporters spotted graffiti on the building’s walls containing Swastika-like symbols and honoring the “Galician SS,” the Ukrainian adjunct to the German SS in World War II.
This tactic of torching an occupied building occurred again on May 9 in Mariupol, another port city, as neo-Nazi paramilitaries – organized now as the regime’s “National Guard” – were dispatched to a police station that had been seized by dissidents, possibly including police officers who rejected a new Kiev-appointed chief. Again, the deployment of the “National Guard” was followed by burning the building and killing a significant but still-undetermined number of people inside. (Early estimates of the dead range from seven to 20.)
In the U.S. press, Ukraine’s “National Guard” is usually described as a new force derived from the Maidan’s “self-defense” units that spearheaded the Feb. 22 revolt in Kiev overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych. But the Maidan’s “self-defense” units were drawn primarily from well-organized bands of neo-Nazi extremists from western Ukraine who hurled firebombs at police and fired weapons as the anti-Yanukovych protests turned increasingly violent.
But the mainstream U.S. press – in line with State Department guidance – has sought to minimize or dismiss the key role played by neo-Nazis in these “self-defense” forces as well as in the new government. At most, you’ll see references to these neo-Nazis as “Ukrainian nationalists.”
Turning to the Neo-Nazis
However, as resistance to Kiev’s right-wing regime expanded in the ethnic Russian east and south, the coup regime found itself unable to count on regular Ukrainian troops to fire on civilians. Thus, its national security chief Andriy Parubiy, himself a neo-Nazi, turned to the intensely motivated neo-Nazi shock troops who had been battle-tested during the coup.
These extremists were reorganized as special units of the National Guard and dispatched to the east and south to do the dirty work that the regular Ukrainian military was unwilling to do. Many of these extreme Ukrainian nationalists lionize World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and – like Bandera – dream of a racially pure Ukraine, free of Jews, ethnic Russians and other “inferior” beings. The slur of calling the Odessa protesters Colorado beetles — as they were being burned alive — was a reference to the black-and-red colors used by the ethnic Russian resistance in the east.
Though the mainstream U.S. press either describes Parubiy simply as the interim government’s chief of national security (with no further context) or possibly as a “nationalist,” his fuller background includes his founding of the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991, blending radical Ukrainian nationalism with neo-Nazi symbols. Last year, he became commandant of the Maidan’s “self-defense forces.”
Then, on April 15, after becoming the Kiev regime’s chief of national security and finding Ukrainian troops unwilling to fire on fellow Ukrainians in the east, Parubiy went on Twitter to announce, “Reserve unit of National Guard formed #Maidan Self-defense volunteers was sent to the front line this morning.”
Those National Guard forces also were reported on the ground in Odessa when the trade unions building was torched on May 2 and they showed up again in Mariupol as the police station was burned on May 9, according to a report in the New York Times on Saturday.
The Times mentioned the appearance – and then disappearance – of the National Guard without providing any useful background about this newly organized force. In the language used by the mainstream U.S. press and the Kiev regime, the neo-Nazi brigades are “volunteers” and “self-defense” units while the rebels resisting the post-coup regime are “pro-Russian militants” or “terrorists.” The Times reported the May 9 attack in Mariupol this way:
“Ukraine’s interior minister, Arsen Avakov, wrote on Facebook that about 60 pro-Russian militants had tried to seize the city’s police headquarters. The police called for support from the Ukrainian national guard, a newly formed force of quickly trained volunteers drawn from participants in last winter’s street protests in the capital. Mr. Avakov wrote that 20 ‘terrorists’ had died in the fighting, while those who survived dispersed and hid in a residential neighborhood.”
The Times added: “The national guard, though, pulled out of the city soon afterward …. Residents who had gathered around the police station offered an account that differed from the interior minister’s. The city police, they said, were sympathetic to the pro-Russian side and had mutinied against an out-of-town chief newly installed by the interim government in Kiev.
“Armored vehicles had driven into the city to confront the rebellious police, not the militants, residents said. Holes in the brick wall suggested heavy weaponry. Gunfire echoed downtown.”
After the deaths inside Mariupol’s police station, the Kiev regime rejoiced at the extermination of a large number of “terrorists.” As the UK’s Independent reported, “The military action is accompanied by stridently aggressive rhetoric from politicians in Kiev who are crowing about the numbers of ‘terrorists’ killed and threatening further lethal punishment.”
The Kiev’s regime’s concern that some local police forces have at best mixed loyalties has led it again to turn to the Maidan “self-defense” forces to serve as a special “Kiev-1” police force, which was dispatched to Odessa amid that city’s recent violence.
Though many Americans don’t want to believe that their government would collaborate with neo-Nazis or other extremist elements, there actually has been a long history of just that. In conflicts as diverse as the revolutions in Central America and the anti-Soviet Afghan war in the 1980s to the current civil conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, it has not been uncommon for the side favored by the United States to rely on extremist paramilitary forces to engage in the most brutal fighting.
In Central American conflicts that I covered for the Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s, some of the “death squads” associated with pro-U.S. regimes were drawn from neo-fascist movements allied with the far-right World Anti-Communist League. In Afghanistan, the CIA relied on Islamist extremists, including Saudi jihadist Osama bin Laden, to kill Russians and their Afghan government allies.
Today, in Syria, many of the most aggressive fighters against Bashar al-Assad’s government are Arab jihadists recruited from across the region and armed by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms. So, it fits with a pattern for the U.S. government to hold its nose and rely on neo-Nazis from western Ukraine to take the fight to rebellious ethnic Russians in the east and south.
The key to all these unsavory alliances is for the American people not to know about the real nature of these U.S. clients. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration advanced the concept of “public diplomacy” to intimidate journalists and human rights activists who dared report on the brutality of U.S.-backed forces in El Salvador and Guatemala and the CIA-trained Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
Thus, most Americans weren’t sure what to make of recurring reports about right-wing “death squads” killing priests and nuns and committing other massacres across Central America. Regarding Afghanistan, it took the American people until Sept. 11, 2001, to fully comprehend whom the Reagan administration had been working with in the 1980s.
Similarly, the Obama administration has tried to maintain the fiction that the Syrian opposition is dominated by well-meaning “moderates.” However, as the brutal civil war has ground on, it gradually has become apparent that the most effective anti-Assad fighters are the Sunni extremists allied with al-Qaeda and determined to kill Shiites, Alawites and Christians.
So, it should come as no surprise that the Kiev regime would turn to its Maidan “self-defense” forces – formed around neo-Nazi militias – to go into southern and eastern Ukraine with the purpose of burning to death ethnic Russian “insects” occupying buildings. The key is not to let the American people in on the secret.
[For more, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine, Through the U.S. ‘Looking Glass.’”]
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.
Source: Consortium News
It was predicted that the regime in Kiev would not last long, and that almost immediately there would be a backlash. First, opposition would come from eastern Ukraine where Ukrainians stand by their nation’s long historical, linguistic, cultural, economic, and strategic ties to Russia. Then opposition would come from western Ukraine, where people, despite their perceived anti-Russian sentiments and initial support for the “Euromaidan” protests, would find the corrupt client regime in Kiev intolerable as it integrated the nation into the EU while imposing IMF-engineered austerity measures already spreading socioeconomic chaos across the rest of Europe.
It was also predicted that the regime in Kiev, backed by the US and EU, would use the pretext of “war with Russia” to arm itself against the inevitable uprising to come.
It now appears that the “anti-Maidan” has begun, and that the military backing by NATO will be mobilized against fellow Ukrainians much sooner than expected.
With Crimea now beginning its integration with Russia, others in eastern Ukraine see a window of opportunity to escape out from beneath the regime in Kiev before it is able to consolidate its power and stamp out resistance to its inevitably disastrous policies. Protesters have been gathering in key cities across eastern Ukraine, while armed militias begin digging in against Kiev’s overt threats and now demonstrably preparations to carry out violence. CNN would report in their article, “Ukraine unrest will be resolved by force or talks in 48 hours, minister says,” that:
Ukrainian acting Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said Wednesday that the separatist protests in Ukraine’s eastern region would be resolved within 48 hours — either through negotiations or the use of force.
The Guardian in its article, “Armed pro-Russian protesters seize city in eastern Ukraine,” describes multiple cities being taken over by Ukrainians opposed to the regime in Kiev. While the Guardian continues to spin the narrative that Russia is “annexing” eastern Ukraine like it did Crimea – this sidesteps the reality that Crimea voted overwhelmingly (93% according to the BBC) to voluntarily declare independence from Kiev, and integrate with Russia. Claims that Russian troops have “invaded” Ukraine, intentionally omit that Russian troops, per long standing treaties, have been stationed in Ukrainian territory for decades.
Despite the referendum, the Western media still refers to the newly integrated peninsula as “Russian-occupied Crimea.”
Who are Ukrainians Fleeing via Pro-Russian Movement?
Another crucial aspect omitted or blatantly covered up by the Western media is the very nature of the regime that recently seized power in Kiev at the height of the so-called “Euromaidan” protests. As growing public awareness has highlighted the ultra-right, literal Nazis that led “Euromaidan,” the Western media has succeeded in sowing enough doubt to keep many on the fence regarding the ongoing Ukrainian crisis.
Reports out of Ukraine come either from pro-Western or pro-Russian sources, leaving objective observers with little to work with. However, by examining the political leaders of the current regime in Kiev, through the very Western sources now defending them, one can easily identify the racism, bigotry, Nazism, fascism, and violence that millions of Ukrainians are all too familiar with – familiar with enough to seize the opportunity to seek protection within and forge closer ties to Russia.
When people across the West wring their hands regarding “Russian aggression” against the “Euromaidan” protesters and the resulting, unelected government, this is who they are defending:
1. Svoboda: So prominent was Svoboda during the “Euromaidan” protests, that the United States sent US Senator John McCain to take the stage with Svoboda leaders in Kiev at the height of the unrest. Surely then, one might expect Svoboda to represent values similar to those in America. However, Svoboda has a long history of carrying on the toxic ideology of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, with party leaders citing Nazi propaganda, espousing hatred toward Jews and homosexuals, and either being involved in violence, or tied to armed militant groups that have been.
In a January 2014 Spiegel Online article titled, “‘Prepared to Die’: The Right Wing’s Role in Ukrainian Protests,” it described Svoboda in no uncertain terms (emphasis added):
The Svoboda party also has excellent ties to Europe, but they are different from the ones that Klischko might prefer. It is allied with France’s right-wing Front National and with the Italian neo-fascist group Fiamma Tricolore. But when it comes to the oppression of homosexuality, representative [Igor] Myroshnychenko is very close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, even if he does all he can to counter Moscow’s influence in his country.
It goes on to state (emphasis added):
Myroshnychenko was press spokesman for the Ukrainian national football team in the lead up to the 2008 European Championships, but he isn’t exactly cosmopolitan. He would even like to see foreign professional football players deported because they “change Ukraine’s ethnic map.”
There have been other, similar incidents. In a 2012 debate over the Ukrainian-born American actress Mila Kunis, he said that she wasn’t Ukrainian, rather she was a “Jewess.”Indeed, anti-Semitism is part of the extremist party’s platform; until 2004, they called themselves the Social-National Party of Ukraine in an intentional reference to Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party. Just last summer, a prominent leader of party youth was distributing texts from Nazi propaganda head Joseph Goebbels translated into Ukrainian.
While many in the Western media try to portray Svoboda’s ultra-right, Neo-Nazi ideology as a part of its past, just during the “Euromaidan” protests this same Igor Myroshnychenko was an acting Svoboda MP, and very much involved in some of the most notorious incidents of the conflict.
In Channel 4′s (UK), “Ukraine: far-right extremists at core of ‘democracy’ protest,” it mentions both Svoboda MP Myroshnychenko as well as current Svoboda party leader Oleh Tyahnybok (emphasis added):
In December US senator John McCain travelled to Ukraine to offer his support to the opposition, appearing on stage with leaders of the three opposition parties leading the protests – including the far-right Svoboda party.
Svoboda is currently Ukraine’s fourth biggest party and holds 36 seats in parliament. It is also part of the Alliance of European National Movements, along with the BNP and Hungary’s Jobbik.
Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok is one of the faces of the protests, appearing regularly along with opposition leader and former boxer Vitali Klitschko (see picture right) voicing opposition to Putin’s influence over the region.
However, Tyahnybok has provoked controversy in the past with his anti-Semitic claims that a “Moscow-Jewish mafia” controls Ukraine.