How much of the current Russophobia campaign is to detract from the outrageous far-right regime Barry Obama installed in Ukraine?
Certainly, if this wave of anti-Semitism - excuse me, Russophobia - was not clouding everything involving that region of the world, Ukraine’s chaos would necessarily receive more attention.
So even though protecting the US Democratic Party’s domestic standing is probably the primary goal, another key goal is obfuscating the heinous effort to get NATO (finally) installed in Ukraine and to destabilise Russia via Afghanistan Part II.
There has now been 3.5 years of war in the Ukraine, and very little genuine coverage of it in the Mainstream Media.
That’s why it is not surprising that the West has not cared to relay the appalling - but unsurprising - Italian news interview with 3 men who claim they were snipers at Maidan Square in Kiev in February 2014. The Italian newspaper Il Giornale and Italian Mediaset Matrix TV (Channel 5, most popular in Italy, English subtitled report here) first carried the story.
“Everyone started shooting two or three shots at a time. It went on for fifteen, twenty minutes. We had no choice. We were ordered to shoot both on the police and the demonstrators, without any difference,” says one of the snipers in the report.
The Mainstream Media/Western governments have long alleged that democratically-elected ex-president Viktor Yankovich masterminded the massacre of more than 80 people. But does that sound like the orders a sitting president would make, assuming he was trying to stay in office?
The Italian report offers a far more plausible explanation: the 3 snipers - all Georgian - were recruited by “color revolution” beneficiary Mikheil Saakashvili, the former president of Georgia. This fanatical Russophobe fled corruption charges there, but was fantastically propped up in post-coup Ukraine in 2015 as a provincial governor (given citizenship as well). It seems unsurprising that he would be linked to being a major part of yet another colour revolution aimed at weakening Moscow.
Saakashvili has since been hounded out of Ukraine by the coup regime. His benefactor is obviously Washington, but woe betide the nation he adopts next! The latest report is that he has illegally returned to Ukraine - the man does not have a passport, after all.
In the Italian report the 3 snipers claim to have been hired in the Georgian capital by Saakashvili’s military advisor, Mamuka Mamulashvili. Guns, passports and a $5,000 fee secured the allegiance of these mercenaries.
One of the mercenaries is quoted as saying: "I also told him (Mamulashvili): ‘Things are getting complicated, we have to start shooting….But who should we shoot?’. He replied that who and where did not matter - we only had to shoot somewhere in order to sow chaos.”
But, in one sense, this is is not really news….
This was all already clear at the very beginning
The Italian report confirms what was famously leaked in a 2014 phone call between European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet.
Paet to Ashton: “…all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, (thus contradicting Ashton, who just said that ex-president Yanukovych was behind the killings) that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides….
Paet to Ashton: “…she said that as medical doctor (Olga Bogomolets, chief coordinator of medical aid at the main protest camp in Independence Square), she can, you know, say that it’s the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition that they don’t want to investigate, what exactly happened; so that now there is stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.
Ah the new coalition…feted as democracy lovers through and through…not wanting to find out who killed more than 80 of their fellow protesters. This phone call obviously threw the Nobel Committee for a loop - obviously, they had to cancel their Peace Prize plans for the Maidan protesters and even had to wait until 2015 to award an anti-Soviet Belorussian novelist who was willing to denounce Russia over Ukraine.
So everybody knew back in February 2014 that the Maidan Protests were not a true expression of the People’s will because they had been co-opted by sinister forces. Compounded with the vast presence of neo-Nazis and their Russophobic statements and policy plans, and most people (except Americans and many clueless souls in the "West") saw through the Mainstream Media’s coverage.
That Ashton-Paet leak made international news. It also forced a counter-narrative from the Western nations trying to install a chocolate billionaire - or a former heavyweight champion, that would have worked too - into Ukraine’s highest office.
The lede sentence from CNN’s report on the leak story gives all the instructions an American audience needs in order to turn off their brain before reading: “Don’t read too much into the conversation.”
The problem is that Mainstream Media like The Guardian denigrate such a leak as a “conspiracy theory” when it was actually a serious policy conversation between two top government officials. Either they can’t tell the difference, or they are controlled, because the only possible “conspiracy” here would have to necessarily have to be between Ashton and Paet?
It must be quite frustrating for Moscow: I have no proof, but I assume they were the ones who orchestrated the Ashton whistle-blowing (or leak, if you prefer) and yet the Western Mainstream Media was able to completely ignore it. This is what happens when you have professional Russian politicians, diplomats and journalists going up against self-serving rank amateurs: they don’t play by the rules, even by the rules of common sense, and therefore they have recourse to the unpredictable tactics provided by fantasy and delusion.
There was also some fine whistle-blowing behind the leak that same month of Victoria Nuland’s infamous “F—- the EU” statement.
The actual translation of Nuland’s meaning is: “Forget about Ukraine’s European and IMF creditors who are worried that near-bankrupt Ukraine is going to default: Obama wants extreme right-wingers to take control of the government in order to provide total Western subservience, a NATO base on Russia’s borders and capitalist gutting on behalf of US-dominated corporatocracy/fascism.”
Nuland’s rant came just two months after she boasted that the US had spent $5 billion in Ukraine to achieve “democracy” in already-democratic Ukraine. The US made a significant investment, and in capitalism government is a business: it wants a return on its investment. This is not socialism, where the USSR/China supports Cuba, or Iran supports Palestine while getting little in return - capitalist countries have no ideology other than mercenary nihilism.
Back in March 2014 I posited that Ukraine was not a neo-Nazi movement, but a “NaLi movement” - National Liberals (“liberal” meaning “free-market capitalist” in Europe).
“Because, of course, that’s what the West wants: Nalism everywhere, and for the benefit of the international already-moneyed elite. European social safety nets: dismantled. Communism: already destroyed in Russia and permanently embargoed anywhere else. Nalism for all, for the benefit of a few.”
The 3 snipers say they never received payment and were abandoned by their paymasters, but the ideologically-nihilistic mercenaries contended that coming forward now is an act of conscience:
"At that time I did not realize, I was not ready, then I understood. We've been used. Used and stuck,” said Alexander.
Long-term analysis thanks to Eric Zuesse
I corresponded on this Italian report with Eric Zuesse, who was the first to break the Italian story into English. Mr. Zuesse, a historian and investigative journalist, has provided superb coverage and analysis of Ukraine since the situation began.
We must remember that even a fragmentation of Ukraine represents a major victory for the US. As long as they have a hostile “Little Ukraine” government on Russia’s borders - that’s cause for celebration in the Pentagon. The US does not care if a new “Little Ukraine” has lost Crimea and Donbass - they do not care about the interests of Ukrainians, after all.
Russia, even if we cynically assume it to be as self-interested as Washington, does indeed care more for the Ukrainian People because their two fates are intertwined and have been for centuries.
This desire to keep Ukraine intact and peaceful via democratic means is why Putin refuses to accept Donbass' offer to secede from Ukraine, as he did with Crimea. (Of course, Crimea has a totally different history than the Donbass region, and anyone who doesn’t realise that knows very little about the entire situation, so just politely bear with them, LOL.)
“It’s in Russia’s national interest to improve the situation there, because if Donbass again participates in Ukraine’s national elections, Russia (Putin) will want enough Donbassers still to be living in Donbass so as to enable a neutralist such as Yanukovych to win power in Ukraine again, which is the only possible way to defeat the U.S. plan,” Zuesse told me.
So Donbass will remain the target of the Barry Obama-led ethnic cleansing - i.e., those who don’t support Washington’s man.
“If too many Donbassers relocate into Russia, then Putin’s plan (to use Donbassers to de-elect the nazis from power in Ukraine) won’t be able to succeed,” said Zuesse.
This is very similar to situation in Palestine, where Zionists wonder why neighbouring countries don’t just accept all the Palestinians? Well, not only would that legitimise and make permanent Israel’s illegal colonization, but the only way Palestinians get any land back is by playing by Israel’s [soi-disant] democratic rules; without revolution or a Third Intifada, all that is left is to play by the rules of bourgeois (West European) democratic reforms….(which will simply be changed by Tel Aviv once the demographics favour the Palestinians, of course)
The future of Donbass also reminds me of the West’s “country-which-shall-not-be-named” - Republika Srpska of the former Yugoslavia. That area has been screwed up by the West nearly as badly as Afghanistan, and I cannot expand more on that here, but what does this screwing up mean for those living in Republika Srpska? It means being consigned to poverty and being a pawn (perhaps for decades), much like Donbass may be.
Srpska is basically a card which Belgrade can use to lord over the West: “Stop trying to ruin us, or we’ll annex Srpska”. Being a tool will not serve Donbassians any more than it has served those in Srpska, where poverty is rampant and reconstruction has been the least able to get off the ground in the former Yugoslavia region.
If Putin was a socialist - if he cared more about Ukrainians and was willing to risk Russia’s standing more - I believe he would have made more of a stink about the leaks. Unlike the leaders of the USSR, Putin does not really stand on moral-political grounds - he mainly gets vocal about sovereignty. Zuesse echoed this idea when I asked him how Russia can “win” in Ukraine, much as they have helped “win” in Syria:
“In my personal opinion, Putin has done everything exactly correct, but with only one possible exception, which — because everything else has been SO correct that he’s probably right about that one too: my preference would have been for Putin publicly to challenge the lies from Obama and the rest of the West,” Zuesse told me. “That recording is a smoking gun on a coup in process, if ever there was one….”
So what are we up against, in terms of trying to get the snipers’ confessions out to the general public?
Quite a lot, according to Zuesse, who was the first to be on top of this Italian report. He said his email list for his articles is a Who’s Who of all the top English-language Mainstream Media, as well as all the top leftist media sites…and they all passed. (All except a handful of sites including The Greanville Post, of course, which has always published Zuesse and given him a place of distinction and a logobanner.—Ed)
“My email list includes some of the individuals who own or control major mainstream and many minor ‘alt-news’ US news media, plus top editors and producers, plus many prominent writers and reporters about international affairs. A few leading foreign news media also are included. So, at the highest levels at each of the network and cable news operations and each of the top national newspapers, and each of the top serious magazines, and each of the top online news-sites, there are plenty of individuals who receive each of my reports, and each report links to only the highest quality, most reliable, source for each contentious allegation, and this makes as easy as possible for each of these people to check and verify any contentious allegation that is made.
Those people all choose to keep this information to themselves. A few have privately indicated to me that their career would be at risk if they were to do anything to indicate to others in their organization that something from me should be published. Even at the top executive levels, these people fear losing their jobs,” said Zuesse.
As a journalist, all I can say is: “Yes, unfortunately….”
One thing to keep in mind is this: Who cares about Ukraine, besides those in the region?
When was the last time an attempted coup ever caused an election to be lost in the West?
The West sponsors coups all the time, and the voters in the Western imperialist nations behind them could not care less, so why would they start with Ukraine? The only exception to this was Vietnam.
This is not necessarily cruelty or even arrogance, I believe, but apathy and self-centredness - they have their own problems to consider. It also definitely shows what happens to a culture which accepts Nali-ism and capitalism, instead of the all-embracing tenets of socialism.
Above all, what Zuesse stressed there to me was that ethnic cleansing is going on, being ignored and is being supported by Western media and governments.
Secondly, he stressed that there is no clear Western policy on Ukraine…except for destabilization. Creating chaos is, in fact, a definite policy - it preserves the status quo and makes “stable” countries stronger by comparison.
Thirdly, only Russia has enough skin in the game to care about Ukraine, and they are the only country with the means to do much about it.
But does Russia want to get involved in open war against the Ukrainian coup regime? Would that be successful and would the collateral damage make it even worth it?
Sowing chaos is extremely effective, but not for the 99% Ukrainians.
Kudos to the Italian reporters who broke this story. Other than Mr. Zuesse and his reports for The Greanville Post, all I have been able to find in English has been some articles from the Center for Research on Globalization. When the Mainstream Media refuses to discuss it, all you can do to help is repost what you find….
NOTE: The Greanville Post has covered this important story extensively, please see the following sample of articles https://www.greanvillepost.com/?s=maidan+massacre+snipers
and specifically this one:
The “Snipers’ Massacre” in Kiev—Another False Flag?
Click here to read it