

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Russia has issued a credible threat to counter-escalate" in the event of the policy shift, noted one former Pentagon official. "Are we prepared for such escalation?"
Anti-war voices this week sounded the alarm over U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's newfound embrace of letting Ukraine use weapons supplied by the United States to attack targets inside Russia—a policy critics say risks a catastrophic escalation between the world's two top nuclear powers.
So far, the Biden administration has strictly forbidden Ukrainian forces—who are defending their country from the invasion ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2022—from attacking targets inside Russia with U.S.-supplied weapons. This is in keeping with President Joe Biden's stated objective of "trying to avoid World War III."
However, The New York Times' David Sanger reported Wednesday that "the consensus around that policy is fraying" amid "a vigorous debate inside the administration over relaxing the ban to allow the Ukrainians to hit missile and artillery launch sites just over the border in Russia."
Elbridge Colby, a former deputy assistant defense secretary during the Trump administration,
warned Wednesday on social media that "there is exceptional and ill-advised danger in this course," as "Russia has issued a credible threat to counter-escalate" in the event of the policy shift.
"Are we prepared for such escalation?" he asked.
Michael Young, a senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center,
said Wednesday that Blinken's "move toward persuading Biden to allow Ukraine to widen the war to Russian territory is just a crazy idea, and makes any eventual negotiation all but impossible."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says forces and weapons amassed just across the Russian border have enabled Russia's recent territorial gains, including near Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-largest city, which has come under
heavy Russian bombardment in recent days.
After what Sanger called a "sobering" visit by Blinken to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv last week, the secretary of state has been pushing for a change in the Biden administration's stance. According to Sanger, "the consensus around that policy" of restraint is unraveling. It is not quite clear yet how many senior Biden administration officials support the move to greenlight Ukrainian attacks on Russia with U.S. arms, but one highly controversial undersecretary of state who recently resigned is a vocal proponent of the policy.
That would be Victoria Nuland, a neoconservative who is reviled by anti-imperialists around the world for her hawkish history that includes playing a key role in the plot to overthrow the pro-Moscow government of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych during the Euromaidan uprising a decade ago.
"They need to be able to stop these Russian attacks that are coming from bases inside Russia," Nuland
told ABC News on Sunday. "Those bases ought to be fair game... I think it's time for that because Russia has obviously escalated this war."
NULAND CALLS FOR STRIKES ON RUSSIA pic.twitter.com/9WxCDZrM6b
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) May 19, 2024
The Biden administration is also weighing whether to train Ukrainian forces inside Ukraine, as opposed to in Germany under current policy—a move that could put U.S. and NATO troops in the line of fire.
Ukrainian officials welcomed Blinken's shift.
"Blinken's statement, which he repeated twice, that Ukraine is the one to choose its targets, created hope that the United States had changed its position: Ukraine should make its own decisions on the territories where it uses certain Western weapons, especially American ones," Nataliia Halibarenko, who heads Ukraine's mission to NATO, told Ukrinform on Thursday.
"The decision that we have the right to use American weapons beyond Ukraine must be made sooner or later," she added. "It is a pity that we are wasting time searching for a solution that should not cause doubts. But we will continue to promote it at all levels."
The U.S. would not be the first country to allow Ukraine to use weapons it supplies for attacks inside Russia. The United Kingdom has sent Ukraine Storm Shadow long-range air-launched cruise missiles, and British Foreign Secretary David Cameron says Ukraine "absolutely has the right to strike back at Russia."
The debate within the Biden administration over Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied arms comes amid Russian military drills involving tactical nuclear weapons, which Russia's Defense Ministry earlier this month claimed were ordered in response to "provocative statements and threats of certain Western officials."
In George Orwell's 1984, the leaders of Oceania presented "Two Minutes Hate" in which the image of an enemy was put on display and loyal Oceanianians expressed their rage, all the better to prepare them for the country's endless wars and their own surrender of freedom. And, now, in America, you have The New York Times.
Surely the Times is a bit more subtle than the powers-that-be in Orwell's Oceania, but the point is the same. The "paper of record" decides who our rotating foreign enemy is and depicts its leader as a demon corrupting whatever he touches. The rest of us aren't supposed to think for ourselves. We're just supposed to hate.
As the Times has degenerated from a relatively decent newspaper into a fount of neocon propaganda, its editors also have descended into the practice of simply inventing a narrative of events that serves an ideological purpose, its own version of "Two Minutes Hate." Like the leaders of Orwell's Oceania, the Times has become increasingly heavy-handed in its propaganda.
Excluding alternative explanations of events, even if supported by solid evidence, the Times arrogantly creates its own reality and tells us who to hate.
In assessing the Times's downward spiral into this unethical journalism, one could look back on its false reporting regarding Iraq, Iran, Syria or other Middle East hotspots. But now the Times is putting the lives of ourselves, our children and our grandchildren at risk with its reckless reporting on the Ukraine crisis - by setting up an unnecessary confrontation between nuclear-armed powers, the United States and Russia.
At the center of the Times' propaganda on Ukraine has been its uncritical - indeed its anti-journalistic - embrace of the Ukrainians coup-makers in late 2013 and early 2014 as they collaborated with neo-Nazi militias to violently overthrow elected President Viktor Yanukovych and hurl Ukraine into a bloody civil war.
Rather than display journalistic professionalism, the Times' propagandists ignored the evidence of a coup - including an intercepted phone call in which U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussed how to "mid-wife" the regime change and handpick the new leaders. "Yats is the guy," declared Nuland, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who emerged as prime minister.
The Times even ignored a national security expert, Statfor founder George Friedman, when he termed the ouster of Ukraine's elected president "the most blatant coup in history." The Times just waved a magic wand and pronounced that there was no coup - and anyone who thought so must reside inside "the Russian propaganda bubble." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Perhaps even more egregiously, the Times has pretended that there were no neo-Nazi militias spearheading the Feb. 22, 2014 coup and then leading the bloody "anti-terrorist operation" against ethnic Russians in the south and east who resisted the coup. The Times explained all this bloodshed as simply "Russian aggression."
It didn't even matter when the U.S. House of Representatives - of all groups - unanimously acknowledged the neo-Nazi problem when it prohibited U.S. collaboration in military training of Ukrainian Nazis. The Times simply expunged the vote from its "official history" of the crisis. [See Consortiumnews.com's "US House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine."]
Orwell's Putin
Yet, for an Orwellian "Two Minute Hate" to work properly, you need to have a villain whose face you can put on display. And, in the case of Ukraine - at least after Yanukovych was driven from the scene - that villain has been Russian President Vladimir Putin, who embodies all evil in the intense hatred sold to the American public.
So, when Putin presents a narrative of the Ukraine crisis, which notes the history of the U.S.-driven expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders and the evidence of the U.S.-directed Ukrainian coup, the Times editors must dismiss it all as "mythology," as they did in Monday's editorial regarding Putin's remarks to an international economic conference in St. Petersburg.
"President Vladimir Putin of Russia is not veering from the mythology he created to explain away the crisis over Ukraine," the Times' editors wrote. "It is one that wholly blames the West for provoking a new Cold War and insists that international sanctions have not grievously wounded his country's flagging economy."
Without acknowledging any Western guilt in the coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in 2014, the Times' editors simply reveled in the harm that the Obama administration and the European Union have inflicted on Russia's economy for its support of the Yanukovych government and its continued backers in eastern and southern Ukraine.
For nearly a year and a half, the New York Times and other major U.S. news organizations have simply refused to acknowledge the reality of what happened in Ukraine. In the Western fantasy, the elected Yanukovych government simply disappeared and was replaced by a U.S.-backed regime that then treated any resistance to its rule as "terrorism." The new regime even dispatched neo-Nazi militias to kill ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians who resisted and thus were deemed "terrorists."
The upside-down narrative of what happened in Ukraine has become the conventional wisdom in Official Washington and has been imposed on America's European allies as well. According to The New York Times' Orwellian storyline, anyone who notes the reality of a U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine is engaging in "fantasy" and must be some kind of Putin pawn.
To the Times' editors, all the justice is on their side, even as Ukraine's new regime has deployed neo-Nazi militias to kill eastern Ukrainians who resisted the anti-Yanukovych coup. To the Times' editors, the only possible reason to object to Ukraine's new order is that the Russians must be bribing European dissidents to resist the U.S. version of events. The Times wrote:
"The Europeans are indeed divided over the extent to which Russia, with its huge oil and gas resources, should be isolated, but Mr. Putin's aggression so far has ensured their unity when it counts. In addition to extending existing sanctions, the allies have prepared a new round of sanctions that could be imposed if Russian-backed separatists seized more territory in Ukraine. ...
"Although Mr. Putin insisted on Friday that Russia had found the 'inner strength' to weather sanctions and a drop in oil prices, investment has slowed, capital has fled the country and the economy has been sliding into recession. Even the business forum was not all that it seemed: The heads of many Western companies stayed away for a second year."
An Orwellian World
In the up-is-down world that has become the New York Times' editorial page, the Western coup-making on Russia's border with the implicit threat of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons within easy range of Moscow is transformed into a case of "Russian aggression." The Times' editors wrote: "One of the most alarming aspects of the crisis has been Mr. Putin's willingness to brandish nuclear weapons."
Though it would appear objectively that the United States was engaged in serious mischief-making on Russia's border, the Times editors flip it around to make Russian military maneuvers - inside Russia - a sign of aggression against the West.
"Given Mr. Putin's aggressive behavior, including pouring troops and weapons into Kaliningrad, a Russian city located between NATO members Lithuania and Poland, the allies have begun taking their own military steps. In recent months, NATO approved a rapid-reaction force in case an ally needs to be defended. It also pre-positioned some weapons in front-line countries, is rotating troops there and is conducting many more exercises. There are also plans to store battle tanks and other heavy weapons in several Baltic and Eastern European countries.
"If he is not careful, Mr. Putin may end up facing exactly what he has railed against -- a NATO more firmly parked on Russia's borders -- not because the alliance wanted to go in that direction, but because Russian behavior left it little choice. That is neither in Russia's interest, nor the West's."
There is something truly 1984-ish about reading that kind of propagandistic writing in The New York Times and other Western publications. But it has become the pattern, not the exception.
The Words of the 'Demon'
Though the Times and the rest of the Western media insist on demonizing Putin, we still should hear the Russian president's version of events, as simply a matter of journalistic fairness. Here is how Putin explained the situation to American TV talk show host Charlie Rose on June 19:
"Why did we arrive at the crisis in Ukraine? I am convinced that after the so-called bipolar system ceased to exist, after the Soviet Union was gone from the political map of the world, some of our partners in the West, including and primarily the United States, of course, were in a state of euphoria of sorts. Instead of developing good neighborly relations and partnerships, they began to develop the new geopolitical space that they thought was unoccupied. This, for instance, is what caused the North Atlantic bloc, NATO, to go east, along with many other developments.
"I have been thinking a lot about why this is happening and eventually came to the conclusion that some of our partners [Putin's way of describing Americans] seem to have gotten the illusion that the world order that was created after World War II, with such a global center as the Soviet Union, does not exist anymore, that a vacuum of sorts has developed that needs to be filled quickly.
"I think such an approach is a mistake. This is how we got Iraq, and we know that even today there are people in the United States who think that mistakes were made in Iraq. Many admit that there were mistakes in Iraq, and nevertheless they repeat it all in Libya. Now they got to Ukraine. We did not bring about the crisis in Ukraine. There was no need to support, as I have said many times, the anti-state, anti-constitutional takeover that eventually led to a sharp resistance on the territory of Ukraine, to a civil war in fact.
"Where do we go from here?" Putin asked. "Today we primarily need to comply with all the agreements reached in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. ... At the same time, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of all our partners to the fact that we cannot do it unilaterally. We keep hearing the same thing, repeated like a mantra - that Russia should influence the southeast of Ukraine. We are. However, it is impossible to resolve the problem through our influence on the southeast alone.
"There has to be influence on the current official authorities in Kiev, which is something we cannot do. This is a road our Western partners have to take - those in Europe and America. Let us work together. ... We believe that to resolve the situation we need to implement the Minsk agreements, as I said. The elements of a political settlement are key here. There are several."
Putin continued: "The first one is constitutional reform, and the Minsk agreements say clearly: to provide autonomy or, as they say decentralization of power, let it be decentralization. This is quite clear, our European partners, France and Germany have spelled it out and we are quite satisfied with it, just as the representatives of Donbass [eastern Ukraine where ethnic Russians who had supported Yanukovych have declared independence] are. This is one component.
"The second thing that has to be done - the law passed earlier on the special status of these territories - Luhansk and Donetsk, the unrecognized republics, should be enacted. It was passed, but still not acted upon. This requires a resolution of the Supreme Rada - the Ukrainian Parliament - which is also covered in the Minsk agreements. Our friends in Kiev have formally complied with this decision, but simultaneously with the passing by the Rada of the resolution to enact the law they amended the law itself ... which practically renders the action null and void. This is a mere manipulation, and they have to move from manipulations to real action.
"The third thing is a law on amnesty. It is impossible to have a political dialogue with people who are threatened with criminal persecution. And finally, they need to pass a law on municipal elections on these territories and to have the elections themselves. All this is spelled out in the Minsk agreements, this is something I would like to draw your attention to, and all this should be done with the agreement of Donetsk and Luhansk.
"Unfortunately, we still see no direct dialogue, only some signs of it, but too much time has passed after the Minsk agreements were signed. I repeat, it is important now to have a direct dialogue between Luhansk, Donetsk and Kiev - this is missing."
Also missing is any objective and professional explanation of this crisis in the mainstream American press. Instead, The New York Times and other major U.S. news organizations have continued with their pattern of 1984-ish propaganda.
President Barack Obama arrives in Germany Sunday to meet with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Japan, and Canada at a resort in Bavaria for the "G-7 summit."
This particular genre of summit was formerly known as the "G-8." But that was before the U.S. succeeded in blaming Russia for the violent aftermath of the U.S./EU sponsored coup d'etat in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, and managed to get Russia disinvited last year.
Stakes Higher Than Usual
We shall have to wait until the two-day gathering in Bavaria is over to gauge the results. But the stakes are high and - for once - it is conceivable that the U.S. will suffer a significant setback in its continuing, if increasingly quixotic, effort to exploit recent violence in Ukraine to isolate Russia.
What the summit outcome is likely to show - figuratively speaking - is whether "G-7" should be more realistically labeled "G-1-plus-six." Number 1 being, what Obama continues to call the "only indispensable country in the world"; the "six" being those countries Russian President Vladimir Putin has labeled Washington's "junior partners."
The main question is whether Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, who have witnessed, up-front-and-personal, the behavior of Washington's neocon policymakers and their Ukrainian tools, will summon the courage to act like adults.
Will the leaders of Germany and France continue to bend to the U.S. diktat? Or are they more likely, this time, to stand up on their own four feet and resist pressure from the U.S. and its UK lackey for continued punitive economic sanctions against Russia? Never mind the economic harm they do to Germany and France and other European countries.
Ukraine's Poroshenko No Stranger
Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande have had the chance personally to take the measure of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his client relationship with the U.S. At a very different kind of summit on Feb. 11-12 in Belorussia, with only puppet Poroshenko reflecting U.S. objectives, they worked out with him and Putin the so-called "Minsk II" package agreement that included a ceasefire that has pretty much held - until just recently.
Merkel and Hollande are no political novices. And, if they know their history, they know what a Petain or a Quisling looks like. In any case, they cannot have failed to recognize what Poroshenko looks like, and how he continues to do the bidding of the neocons running U.S. policy on Ukraine, who remain hell-bent on demonizing Putin and ostracizing Russia - all with little heed to the economic and the longer-term security interests of "junior partners" like Germany and France.
The German and French leaders - and of course Putin - are acutely aware of which side would see advantage in the current, pre-summit uptick in violations of the ceasefire in southeastern Ukraine. It is a safe bet they see the increased fighting as a transparently convenient cudgel in Washington's toolkit for use in its transparent effort to isolate Russia by blaming it for the violations and convincing U.S. "junior partners" of the need for continued economic sanctions.
The Roots of the Trouble in Ukraine
Europeans have a giant economic stake in what happens at the "G1-plus-six" summit in Bavaria. The trouble is that European press coverage of Ukraine is almost as poor as the thin gruel served up in U.S. media.
Odd as it strikes me, having analyzed Soviet propaganda for decades, the fawning corporate media in the U.S. have recently proven to be at least as adept at spreading half-truth and lies. Would you believe President Putin's account of what went down in Kiev since early 2014 is far more factually based? Well, you ought to believe that, because it is.
Here are excerpts from an interview Putin gave on June 6 to the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera:
"What sparked the [Ukraine] crisis? Former President Viktor Yanukovych said that he needed to think about signing Ukraine's Association Agreement with the EU, possibly make some changes and hold consultations with Russia, Ukraine's major trade and economic partner. In this connection and under this pretext riots broke out in Kiev. They were actively supported by both our European and American partners.
"Then a coup d'etat followed - a totally anti-constitutional act. ... The question is: what was the coup d'etat for? Why did they need to escalate the situation to a civil war? ... The result that we have - a coup d'etat, a civil war, hundreds of lives lost, a devastated economy and social sphere, a four-year $17.5 billion loan promised to Ukraine by the IMF and complete disintegration of economic ties with Russia...
"I would like to tell you and your readers one thing. Last year, on February 21, President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition signed an agreement on how to proceed, how to organize political life in the country, and on the need to hold early elections.
"They should have worked to implement this agreement, especially since three European foreign ministers signed this agreement as guarantors of its implementation. If they were used merely for the sake of appearances ... they should have said [after the coup the next day], "You know, we did not agree to a coup d'etat, so we will not support you; you should go and hold elections instead."
Let Merkel and Hollande be reminded that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, in addition to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski mediated the Feb. 21, 2014 agreement and signed it as official witnesses. An envoy from Russian President Putin, Vladimir Lukin, was also involved but did not sign as witness.
There may be no such thing as a guilty conscience in high-stakes diplomacy. Still, what happened just one day before the coup in Kiev is a matter of record. Would it be too much to expect of Steinmeier and Fabius to remind their bosses of this shameless piece of failed diplomacy, before Merkel and Holland cave in once again to Washington's diktat before the beer begins flowing in Bavaria?
Did Russia's annexation of Crimea on March violate the 1994 Budapest agreement among Ukraine, Russia, Great Britain and the U.S.? Specifically, in Paragraph One, Ukraine agreed to remove all nuclear weapons from its territory in return for a commitment by Russia, Britain and the U.S. "to respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine?"
I'm no lawyer, but I can read the words. And, taken literally, the answer seems to be Yes - despite a host of extenuating circumstances that can be adduced to explain why Crimea rejoined Russia, including the alarm among Crimean leaders over the unconstitutional ouster of Ukraine's elected president and the Russian government's fear about the possible berthing of NATO's nuclear-missile warships at the naval base at Sebastopol.
But there's also the item in Paragraph Three in which Russia, the UK, and the U.S. also commit "to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty."
Might the EU's take-it-or-leave-it proposal last fall offering Ukraine "associate" status in return for draconian economic austerity imposed on the Ukrainian people come under the rubric of the "economic coercion" prohibited at Budapest? An arguable Yes, it seems to me.
Some will try to dismiss President Viktor Yanukovych's ill-fated rejection of these International Monetary Fund demands to make the hard lives of average Ukrainians even harder as "history," now that the EU and Ukraine's replacement President Petro Poroshenko signed on June 27 that "associate" status agreement - the same agreement that Yanukovich rejected in favor of what appeared to be a better deal from Russia.
Was Yanukovich also under pressure from Moscow to maintain Ukraine's historic, cultural and economic ties to Russia? Of course. Putin reportedly weighed in heavily with Yanukovich last October and early November when U.S. and EU diplomats were pressuring the Ukrainian president as well.
But did Yanukovich expect to be overthrown if he opted for Moscow's offer? If he did not, he sorely underestimated what $5 billion in U.S. "democracy promotion" can buy. After Yanukovych's decision, American neoconservatives - the likes of National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland - pulled out all the stops to enable Ukraine to fulfill what Nuland called its "European aspirations."
The central problem confronting Ukraine, however, was not whether it leaned toward Europe or toward Russia. It was that after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, some ruthless businessmen used their insider connections to snap up (or "privatize") the natural and industrial resources of the country. These handful of "oligarchs" then corrupted the political process, buying off politicians from both pro-EU and pro-Moscow perspectives.
Last fall, Yanukovych, who was elected from a political base in the more industrial Russian-ethnic east, was looking for how to bail Ukraine out of the financial and economic crisis that it was facing amid widespread unemployment and the hangover from the Great Recession.
In a layman's way of understanding what happened in Ukraine, Yanukovych issued what in the consulting world is called a Request for Proposal (RFP), i.e., a feeler to see who could offer the most promising plan for helping Ukraine escape insolvency. After initially tilting toward the EU proposal (before he learned of its draconian IMF small print), he later shifted to the less onerous offer from Russia.
In the world of contractors and RFPs, there are orderly procedures for firms whose bids are turned down to contest the selection of the eventual winner. But I know of no case where one of the losing firms turned around and violently removed the leadership of the RFP-issuing institution, installed new leadership and got the contract.
Abortive Feb. 21 Agreement
And, in assessing which side - the U.S./EU or Russia - is in the wrong on Ukraine, there was also the agreement, facilitated on Feb. 21 by the foreign ministers of Poland, Germany and France, in which then-President Yanukovich acceded to demands from the opposition by accepting limits on his powers and agreeing to early elections to vote him out of office.
Yanukovych also fatefully agreed to pull back the police, opening the way for right-wing militias, including neo-Nazis, to seize government buildings and force Yanukovych and his government officials to flee for their lives. With these paramilitary forces patrolling government offices, what was left of the Parliament voted to replace Yanukovych and install a new regime, giving four ministries to the far right and the neo-Nazis in recognition of their crucial role.
As the U.S. and the EU hailed the "legitimacy" of this new regime -- with Nuland's hand-picked leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk appointed as the new prime minister - the Western "mainstream media" quickly forgot the Feb. 21 agreement (surprise, surprise!). But Russian President Vladimir Putin had a personal representative there, Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin.
Yet, because the MSM was already parading Putin (and Yanukovych) around the op-ed pages and talks shows as the black-hatted villains of the Ukraine saga, few Americans got to hear Putin's perception of what happened, as he explained at a Moscow press conference ten days after Yanukovich was overthrown:
"First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. ... This was an unconstitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody does. ... The question is why this was done? ...
"President Yanukovich, through the mediation of the foreign ministers of three European countries - Poland, Germany and France - and in the presence of my representative signed an agreement with the opposition on Feb. 21. I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact) Mr. Yanukovich actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition's demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition.
"He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. ... he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied. He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they [the opposition] immediately occupied the President's residence and the Government building - all that instead of acting on the agreement.
"I ask myself, what was the purpose of all this? ... He had in fact given up his power already; and as I believe, as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected. ... What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions, why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. ...
"If you want, I can tell you even more. He [Yanukovich] called me on the phone and I told him not to do it. I said, 'You will have anarchy, you will have chaos in the capital. Think about the people.' But he did it anyway. And as soon as he did it, his office was seized, and that of the government, and the chaos I had warned him about and which continues to this day, erupted."
If Putin's account of how the Feb. 21 agreement was violated the very next day is accurate, and by almost all indications it is, then we have the anatomy of an undisguised putsch - an unconstitutional overthrow of a duly elected president of a sovereign state. The apparent aim, to install a government friendlier to the EU, is relevant but not essential here. The fact of the coup is essential.
Guaranteeing Ukraine's Sovereignty
Friday's lead editorial in the neocon flagship Washington Post, "Potemkin drawdown: The West must hold Russia to a real withdrawal from Ukraine," charged that "the rebellion in the east is manufactured by Russia to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. The United States and Britain guaranteed support for that sovereignty in 1994 when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons."
That claim brought my thoughts back to a conference of distinguished scholars at the U.S.-Russia Forum in the Hart Senate office building on June 16. With Professors Stephen Cohen and Robert Legvold presenting, it was the most sensible discussion of the Ukraine imbroglio that I have witnessed to date.
The point was made that Russia had violated the Budapest agreement in annexing Ukraine. But were the Russians the only culprits? What about the rest of the story? Russia, the UK and the U.S. all pledged "to respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine?" Okay. Gotcha on Putin considering the "existing borders."
But what about the political destabilization supported by the U.S. government, including the $5 billion that Assistant Secretary of State Nuland publicly announced had been invested in Ukraine's "European aspirations" - or the scores of projects financed by the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, training activists, supporting "journalists" and organizing business and political groups.
During the crisis, U.S. officials even showed up in Kiev's Maidan square to urge on the protesters seeking to overthrow Yanukovych. Sen. John McCain gave a speech on a platform of the right-wing Svoboda party under a banner hailing the late Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. Nuland went so far as to pass out cookies to the demonstrators and discuss with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who should be take over after Yanukovych was ousted.
How does this overt and covert interference square with the Budapest pledge "to respect the independence and sovereignty ... of Ukraine?" And how do the strong-arm tactics of the EU square with the commitment "to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty?"
Luckily, at the U.S.-Russia Forum, I was able to go first during the Q and A.
I said: "I have a brief question having to do with the Budapest agreement and also in the perspective of Vladimir Putin being more in a reactive mode than anything else. He's been accused, of course, of violating that agreement because of the Crimea [annexation].
"I'm wondering, if you look at the putsch, if you look at the coup d'etat of Feb. 22nd, supported to the tune of $5 billion by outside forces over the course of several years, of course, could that not also be regarded as a violation of the Budapest memorandum?"
Columbia University Professor Legvold's answer was, I think, instructive - instinctive, perhaps. His first thought was to associate my point with an argument the Russians have made. For many listeners, that might put me in the category of some kind of apologist for Putin. I know Legvold well enough to doubt this was his intent. But still: Is Putin's account of the Feb. 21-22 events to be dismissed out of hand simply because it is from Putin?
The main takeaway for me from the forum was the Cohen-Legvold common assertion that we have already entered a New Cold War. Cohen was very direct in exposing the extraordinary abuse regularly accorded to scholars and specialists who try to discern and explain honestly Moscow's point of view.
Legvold suggested it would be "naive" not to recognize that the new Cold War is already upon us, that it will be "immensely expensive and immensely dangerous," and that all of us need to do whatever we can to make it "short and shallow."
That endeavor of averting the costs and the risks of Cold War II might well start with a truthful narrative of what happened, not the one-sided account that the American people have been seeing and hearing in the U.S. media.
us russia forum 061614www.youtube.com
Tensions are again soaring in Ukraine on Tuesday as leaders of the interim government in the western capitol city of Kiev trade accusations and threats with leaders in Moscow (and themselves) over events in eastern cities of the country closer to its Russian border.
As security forces sent from Kiev cleared protesters from government buildings in the city of Kharkiv, arresting 70 pro-Russian activists in the process, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned that further violence against those demanding their right to a referendum on independence from Ukraine could lead to civil war.

"We are calling for the immediate cessation of any military preparations, which could lead to civil war," the Russians said in a statement.
As the interim Ukraine government announced preparations for a larger security operation for Kharkiv and the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, the Russians accused Kiev of including hired mercenaries from the private U.S. military firm Greystone as part of its "special operations" units in addition to members of far-right and nationalist militias.
According to CNN:
The ministry alleged that what it called "American experts from the private military organization Greystone," disguised as soldiers, as well as militants from the Ukrainian far-right group Right Sector, had joined Ukrainian forces preparing for the crackdown in the country's east.
Late Monday, Ukrainian special forces cleared armed protesters from the headquarters of Ukrainian security services in Donetsk, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov's office announced.
But Ukraine's interim Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Yarema was quoted by Russian state-run news agency ITAR-Tass as saying Tuesday that the authorities are not going to storm the city's regional administration building. Yarema said the decision was made after talks with representatives of the protesters in the building.
A CNN team on the ground said that pro-Russian protesters appear still to be in control of the building and that there is no sign of special forces nearby.
In the city of Luhansk, pro-Russian separatists continued to occupy the Security Services Buildings and are reportedly better armed after accessing a weapons depot inside.
In Donetsk, where those who took over the central administrative buildings declared independence on Monday and demanded a referendum by week's end, a standoff between security forces continued. There, according to Reuters, "steel-and-energy tycoon Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest man, is mediating with the protesters, but he may have complicated the plans of the authorities by publicly urging authorities not to use force as a solution."
Brawl in Parliament
Meanwhile, in Kiev, a "brawl" broke out in the parliament building as left-leaning PMs clashed with their right-wing counterparts over the manner in which the crisis in Crimea and now these other eastern cities has been handled.
Watch:
Punch Up In Ukrainian Parliament Over Events In Kharkiv, Lugansk and DonetskA session of the Ukrainian parliament has descended into a brawl as rival factions argued over who was to blame for events in the ...
According to the Guardian:
A brawl erupted in the Ukrainian parliament chamber after the country's communist leader accused nationalists of playing into the hands of Russia by adopting extreme tactics early in the Ukrainian crisis.
Two deputies from the Svoboda far-right nationalist party took exception to the charges by communist Petro Symonenko and seized him while he was talking from the rostrum. His supporters rallied to his defence and a brawl broke out with deputies from other parties joining in and trading punches. [...]
Against the backdrop of the deepening crisis in the south-east, Symonenko stirred nationalist anger in parliament when, referring to the pro-Russian protesters who had seized buildings in eastern Ukraine, he suggested that nationalists had set a precedent earlier this year by seizing public buildings in protest at the rule of the ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych.
Now, he said, armed groups were attacking people who wanted to defend their rights by peaceful means. "You are today doing everything to intimidate people. You arrest people, start fighting people who have a different point of view," he said, before being pulled away from the rostrum by the Svoboda deputies.
__________________________________

Holy (bleep)! What the hell is going on over in the Ukraine:
KIEV, Ukraine -- Mayhem gripped the center of the Ukrainian capital on Tuesday evening as riot police officers moved on protesters massed behind barriers raised throughout Independence Square, the focal point of more than two months of protests against President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
As the attack began just before 8 p.m. local time, the police tried to drive two armored personnel carriers through stone-reinforced barriers outside the Khreschatyk Hotel in the square. But they became bogged down and, set upon by protesters wielding rocks and fireworks, burst into flames, apparently trapping the security officers inside and prompting desperate rescue efforts from their colleagues.
In a wild day of parries and thrusts by the protesters and the police, the authorities in Kiev reported 13 people killed, including two police officers, while protesters accused the police of using live ammunition. It was the bloodiest day of violence since President Yanukovych spurned a trade deal with Europe in November and set of protests that began peacefully but have since involved occasional outbursts of deadly violence.
I've been trying to get other things done tonight and not watch the live webcam of the riots, (at the bottom of this post) but it's hard to stop watching it...it's like someone took a GoPro camera and lowered it through the gates of Hell. In other words, that dystopian future that you saw in "Mad Max" when you were young....it's heeeeere, or over there, in Kiev, anyway.
So who are the "good guys"/ There may not be any. Read this perspective, which you rarely see in the U.S. media:
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. One of the three main opposition parties heading the campaign is the hard-right antisemitic Svoboda, whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok claims that a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" controls Ukraine. But US senator John McCain was happy to share a platform with him in Kiev last month. The party, now running the city of Lviv, led a 15,000-strong torchlit march earlier this month in memory of the Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, whose forces fought with the Nazis in the second world war and took part in massacres of Jews.
So in the week that the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army was commemorated as Holocaust Memorial Day, supporters of those who helped carry out the genocide are hailed by western politicians on the streets of Ukraine. But Svoboda has now been outflanked in the protests by even more extreme groups, such as "Right Sector", who demand a "national revolution" and threaten "prolonged guerrilla warfare".
We all know that John "Today we are all Georgians" McCain never met a near-Russia uprising he didn't like; God only knows what buttons he'd be pushing if he were in the Oval Office instead of President Obama. The broader point is that Americans like to "anthropomorphize" our foreign revolutions like some kind of Disney movie. All I can say for sure about what's happening in the streets of Kiev is that when there's this much bloodshed, no one is the winner.

Clashes between anti-government protesters and state security forces exploded in Kiev on Tuesday with at least nine people reported killed as night fell in the Ukrainian capital amid fresh fears that a political stalemate has now escalated into chaotic mayhem with an unknown trajectory.
USA Today reports:
Government troops fired stun grenades and gunshots at thousands of marchers, killing at least nine people, said opposition lawmaker Lesya Orobets. The pop of grenades could be heard and clouds of tear gas and smoke from burning cars and trucks filled the streets.
"This is crazy, it's like a real war - they are going to kill each other," said protester Liudmila Mazur, 50, as she watched about 100 protesters attack a police barricade that blocked the way to parliament.
"I don't know if there is another way now as the government understands only force. When we were protesting peacefully, they didn't hear us. I just hope people won't get hurt," Mazur said.
The Associated Press posted this video from the afternoon clashes:
Raw: Deadly Clashes in Ukraine, Deadline Sethttps://smarturl.it/AssociatedPress Thousands of angry anti-government demonstrators clashed with police outside Ukraine's ...
According to the New York Times:
In the course of wild day of parries and thrusts by the protesters and the police, the authorities in Kiev reported nine people killed, including two police officers. It was the bloodiest day of violence since President Yanukovych spurned a trade deal with Europe in November and set of protests that began peacefully but have since involved occasional spasms of deadly violence.
The push into Independence Square by anti-riot forces spread chaos and fire across the protest zone, with tents ablaze as police advanced through clouds of smoke and tear-gas. Protesters sang the national anthem against the din of percussion grenades, fireworks and what, on occasion, sounded like gunfire.
And the Guardian, which was offering live coverage throughout the day, reported that in addition to those killed, more than 100 people have been seriously injured in the violence.
Photos:




In the call, the U.S. diplomat, assistant secretary of state for European affairs Victoria Nuland, can be heard saying "Fuck the EU" to U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.
The "undiplomatic" language of the high-level official made headlines on Thursday after the recording of the conversation between the two diplomats was posted online. But the controversy deepened on Friday as new questions were being asked about the origin of the recording, the role of U.S. "meddling" in the ongoing political strife in Ukraine, and the fact that the U.S. may have become victim of the same kind of surveillance techniques that the NSA--as exposed in leaks by whisteblower Edward Snowden--have been hard at work perfecting.
That last irony was not lost on many who took to Twitter over the last twenty-four hours:
As the U.S., including Nuland herself, tried to account for the comments made in the call growing speculation surfaced that it was Russian intelligence who both made the recording and helped disseminate it to the public.
As this ITN News segment explores:
F*** the EU: Alleged audio of US diplomat Victoria Nuland swearingSubscribe to ITN News: https://bit.ly/1bmWO8h An embarassing phone conversation about Ukraine politics between two high ...
And the New York Times adds:
A link to the secret recording was sent out in a Twitter message on Thursday by Dmitry Losukov, an aide to Russia's deputy prime minister, just as Ms. Nuland was in Kiev meeting with Mr. Yanukovych and opposition leaders. The White House pointed to that as an indication of Russian involvement, although it said it was not accusing Moscow of taping the call. "I think it says something about Russia's role," said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary.
Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, said she had no information about who posted the recording but criticized Moscow for promoting it. "Certainly, we think this is a new low in Russian tradecraft," she said.
Mr. Losukov, responding to messages from a reporter on Twitter, rejected the American assertion that he was the first to disseminate the recording. "Disseminating started earlier," he wrote, adding that his post was being "used to hang the blame" on Russia. Asked if Russia had any role, he said: "How would I know? I was just monitoring 'the Internets' while my boss was off to a meeting with the Chinese leader."
The secret tape, reported Thursday by The Kyiv Post, came to light as a Kremlin adviser, Sergei Glazyev, accused the United States of funding and arming protesters in Kiev and seemed to threaten Russian intervention.
_______________________________
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian protesters demanding the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovich took to the central square of Kiev on Sunday in the largest demonstration yet against the ruling government.
The demonstrators, who have occupied Independent Square and many government buildings in the capital city for over a week expected as many as one million people to attend the rally.
Footage showed huge crowds gathering throughout the day despite the cold weather and growing political tension in a country that is now torn between its historic alliance with Russia and the push for closer ties with Europe.
As Reuters reports:
Sunday's rally marks a further escalation in a weeks-long confrontation between authorities and protesters that has raised fears for political and economic stability in the former Soviet republic of 46 million people.
"This is a decisive moment when all Ukrainians have gathered here because they do not want to live in a country where corruption rules and where there is no justice," said world heavyweight boxing champion-turned-politician Vitaly Klitschko.
The opposition accuses Yanukovich, who met Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, of preparing to take Ukraine into a Moscow-led customs union, which they see as an attempt to recreate the Soviet Union.
"We are on a razor's edge between a final plunge into cruel dictatorship and a return home to the European community," jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko said in an emotional message to the crowd read out by her daughter Yevgenia.
"There is a significantly greater chance of ending up in a medieval dictatorship; the choice is in your hands," said Tymoshenko, Yanukovich's main rival, who is serving a seven-year jail sentence for abuse of office in a case condemned by the West as politically motivated.
And this footage from Sunday afternoon shows the heart of the opposition movement as the crowds gathered in Independent Square:
Майдан в Україні (відео з ялинки) #ЄвромайданВідео: Протести в Україні, Український Майдан 2014 року «Марш мільйонів» – друге Народне віче у Києві Meeting ...

The hundreds of thousands of street demonstrators who took to the streets across Ukraine on Sunday showed no signs of letting up as their calls for 'revolution' against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych were matched with strategic seizures of ground in the nation's capital of Kiev on Monday.
Kiev's Independent Square, according to reports, is now under the full control of the protesters who have set up barricades protecting the central gathering area. Meanwhile, key government offices came under occupation overnight with protesters setting up a makeshift headquarters inside city hall and government workers have been barred from entering their workplaces.
As the Guardian reports:
On Monday morning, as Kiev began its working week, tension was high as both ordinary people and opposition leaders were left guessing how events might unfold. Hundreds of protesters took up positions blocking entrances to government buildings to stop officials from getting to work, while others blocked off whole streets. Many of the people who spent the night in the two government buildings that were seized by protesters insisted they would not leave until the government falls.
In the western city of Lviv, stronghold of pro-European forces, the regional authorities announced a general strike on Monday.
The key political opposition to Yanukovych, such as the jailed former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko and the heavyweight boxer Vitali Klitschko, have called on their supporters to refrain from violence but not to go home.
"This government is clearly over," said Vladimir Luchishin, 60, from Donetsk, who was sleeping at city hall, having arrived on Sunday. "If they try to fight back with force, it will only make things worse for them."
Police have retreated from most of the centre of Kiev but cordons of riot police remained in position, guarding the Presidential Administration - the scene of violent clashes on Sunday in which more than 100 police were injured. On Monday morning, the interior ministry said a total of 150 riot police and other officials had been injured, while 165 protesters had been injured, 109 of which required some kind of hospital treatment.

The calls for 'revolution' have mostly remained peaceful, with the majority of the large crowd speaking out against the violence that has occurred at the margins of their protests as ultra-rightwing nationalists have used the occasion of the protests to attack police, using petrol bombs, rocks, and other weapons in an effort to incite a violent response. Some peaceful anti-government protesters on Sunday put themselves between the violent, masked provocateurs and a line of riot police who had taken up a defensive position.
"We should not be provoked. There are a lot of provocateurs. We can change the power in a civilized way. Our rally in Kiev today is a peaceful protest only," said heavyweight boxer Vitali Klitchko--a member of parliament, one of the most famous people in Ukraine and a supporter of the revolution--told people during a speech in the square on Sunday.
Klitchko is only one of many of Ukrainian lawmakers siding with the protesters and as negotiations continue behind closed doors on the government response, the life of the protest movement is making progress of its own.
As the New York Times reports:
Inna Bohoslovska, a member of Parliament who has quit Mr. Yanukovich's Party of Regions in support of the demonstrators, called on Monday for the government to resign. Demonstrators also continued to occupy City Hall in Kiev, where windows had been smashed and walls covered with graffiti. Under a sign for the Kiev City Council, someone had painted in black: "Revolution Headquarters."
After a huge rally on Sunday -- a crowd estimated at a million or more that observers said exceeded even the largest gatherings of the Orange Revolution nine years ago -- the demonstrators overnight blocked city streets, using Christmas decorations and police barricades intended to stop the protest.
The result was an oddly festive, fir-trimmed encampment at the heart of the Ukrainian capital. Protest leaders, sensing that momentum had turned to their advantage, continued to add infrastructure to their operation, bringing in television monitors and erecting a small tent city that included first-aid stations and canteens.
Having occupied the nearby Trade Unions building on Sunday, they seized control of a giant screen mounted on its facade, and replaced the advertising it had carried -- first with images of the yellow-starred European Union flag, and by Monday morning with a live video feed of speakers on the protest stage outside.