RUIN IS OUR FUTURE

Paul Craig Roberts


Americans need to understand that the only thing exceptional about the US is the ignorance of the population and the stupidity [or wanton criminality] of the government.

The Neocon plague. But it goes deeper: they are but a symptom of the advanced capitalism disease.

The Neocon plague. But it goes deeper: they are but a symptom of the advanced capitalism disease.

[dropcap]Neoconservatives[/dropcap] arrayed in their Washington offices are congratulating themselves on their success in using the Charlie Hebdo affair to reunite Europe with Washington’s foreign policy. No more French votes with the Palestinians against the Washington-Israeli position. No more growing European sympathy with the Palestinians. No more growing European opposition to launching new wars in the Middle East. No more calls from the French president to end the sanctions against Russia. 

Do the neoconservatives also understand that they have united Europeans with the right-wing anti-immigration political parties? The wave of support for the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists is the wave of Marine Le Pen’s National Front, Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, and Germany’s PEGIDA sweeping over Europe. These parties are empowered by the anti-immigration fervor that was orchestrated in order to reunite Europeans with Washington and Israel.

Once again the arrogant and insolent neoconservatives have blundered. Charlie Hebdo’s empowerment of the anti-immigration parties has the potential to revolutionize European politics and destroy Washington’s empire.  (See my weekend interview with King World News for my thoughts on this potential game-changer.  http://kingworldnews.com/paul-craig-roberts-new-crisis-worse-russia-unleashing-black-swans-west/)

The reports from the UK Daily Mail and from Zero Hedge that Russia has cut off natural gas deliveries to six European countries must be incorrect. These sources are credible and well-informed, but such a cut-off would have instantly produced political and financial turmoil of which there is no sign. Therefore, unless there is a news blackout, Russia’s action has been misunderstood.

We know something real has happened. Otherwise, EU energy official Maros Sefcovic would not be expressing such consternation. Although I am without any definite information, I believe I know what the real story is. Russia, tired of Ukraine’s theft of the natural gas that passes through the country on its way to delivery to Europe, has made a decision to route the gas to Turkey, thus bypassing Ukraine.

The Russian energy minister has confirmed this decision and added that if European countries wish to avail themselves of this gas supply, they must put in place the infrastructure or pipeline to bring the gas into their countries.

In other words, there is a potential for a cutoff in the future, but no cutoff at the present.

These two events–Charlie Hebdo and the Russian decision to cease delivering gas to Europe via Ukraine–should remind us that the potential for black swans, and unintended consequences of official decisions that can produce black swans, always exist. Not even the American “superpower” is immune from black swans.

There is as much circumstantial evidence that the CIA and French Intelligence are responsible for the Charlie Hebdo shootings as there is that the shootings were carried out by the two brothers whose ID was conveniently found in the alleged get-away car. As the French made certain that the brothers were killed before they could talk, we will never know what they had to say about the plot.

The only evidence we have that the brothers are guilty is the claim by the security forces. Every time I hear government claims without real evidence, I remember Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” Assad’s “use of chemical weapons,” and Iran’s “nuclear weapons program.” If a US National Security Advisor can conjure up out of thin air “mushroom clouds over an American city,” Cherif and Said Kouachi can be turned into killers. After all, they are dead and cannot protest.

If this was, and we will never know for certain, a false flag attack, it achieved Washington’s goal of reuniting Europe under Washington and Israeli auspices. But this success has an unintended consequence. The unintended consequence is to unify Europe under the anti-immigration policy of the right-wing parties, thus empowering the leaders of those parties.

If this surmise is correct, Marie Le Pen and Nigel Farage will find their lives and/or reputations in danger as Washington will resist the rise of European governments that do not adhere to Washington’s line.

The consternation caused by Russia’s decision to relocate its gas delivery to Europe is proof that Russia holds many cards that it could play that would bring down the political and financial structures of the Western World.

China holds similar cards.

The two countries are not playing their cards, because they do not think that they need them. Instead, the two powers are withdrawing from the Western financial system that serves Western hegemony over the world. They are creating all of the economic institutions that they need in order to be completely independent of the West.

Therefore, the Russian and Chinese governments reason, “Why be provocative and slap down the Western fools. They might resort to their nuclear weapons, and the entire world would be lost. Let’s just walk away while they encourage us to depart with their provocations.”

We can be thankful that Vladimir Putin and the leaders of the Chinese government are both intelligent and humane, unlike Western leaders.

Imagine, for example, the dire consequences for the West if Putin were to become personally involved as a result of the numerous affronts to both Russia and Putin himself. Putin can destroy NATO and the entire Western financial system whenever he wants. All he has to do is to announce that as NATO has declared economic war against Russia, Russia no longer sells energy to NATO members.

The NATO alliance would dissolve as Europe cannot survive without Russian energy supplies. Washington’s empire would end.

Putin realizes that the insolent neoconservatives would have to push the nuclear button in order to save face. Unlike Putin, their egos are on the line. Thus, Putin saves the world from nuclear war by not being provocative.

Now, imagine if the Chinese government were to lose its patience with Washington. To confront the “exceptional, indispensable, unipower” with the reality of its impotence, all China needs to do is to dump its massive dollar-denominated financial assets on the market, all at once, just as the Federal Reserve’s bullion bank agents dump massive uncovered gold contracts on the futures market.

In order to avoid US financial collapse, the Federal Reserve would have to print massive amounts of new dollars with which to purchase the dumped Chinese holdings. As the Federal Reserve would protect US financial markets by purchasing the dumped Chinese holdings, the Chinese would lose nothing from the sale. It is the next step that is decisive. The Chinese government then dumps the massive holdings of dollars it has received from its selloff of dollar-dominated financial instruments.

Now what happens? The Fed can print dollars with which to purchase the dumped Chinese holdings, but the Fed cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dumped dollars.

The massive supply of dollars dumped in the exchange market by China would have no takers. The dollar’s value would collapse. Washington could no longer pay its bills by printing money. Americans living in an import-dependent country, thanks to jobs offshoring, would be faced with high prices that would seriously erode their living standard. The United States would experience economic, social, and political instability.

Putting aside their brainwashing, their defensiveness and patriotic support of the regime in Washington, Americans need to ask themselves: How is it possible that the government of the United States, an alleged Superpower, is so unaware of its true vulnerabilities that Washington is capable of pushing two real powers until they have had enough and play the cards that they hold?

Americans need to understand that the only thing exceptional about the US is the ignorance of the population and the stupidity of the government.

What other country would let a handful of Wall Street crooks control its economic and foreign policy, run its central bank and Treasury, and subordinate citizens’ interests to the interests of the one percent’s pocketbook?

A population this insouciant is at the total mercy of Russia and China.

Yesterday there was a black swan event, an event that could yet unleash other black swan events. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-16/largest-retail-fx-broker-stock-crashes-90-swiss-contagion-spreads The Swiss central bank announced an end to its pegging of the Swiss franc to the euro and US dollar. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-15/its-tsunami-swiss-franc-soars-most-ever-after-snb-abandons-eurchf-floor-macro-hedge-

Three years ago flight from euros and dollars into Swiss francs pushed the exchange value of the franc so high that it threatened the existence of the Swiss export industries. Switzerland announced that any further inflows of foreign currencies into francs would be met by creating new francs to absorb the inflows so as not to drive up the exchange rate further. In other words, the Swiss pegged the franc.

Yesterday the Swiss central bank announced that the peg was off. The franc instantly rose in value. Stocks of Swiss export companies fell, and hedge funds wrongly positioned incurred major hits to their solvency.

Why did the Swiss remove the peg? It was not a costless action. It cost the central bank and Swiss export industries substantially.

The answer is that the EU attorney general ruled that it was permissible for the EU central bank to initiate Quantitative Easing–that is, the printing of new euros–in order to bail out the mistakes of the private bankers. This decision means that Switzerland expects to be confronted with massive flight from the euro and that the Swiss central bank is unwilling to print enough new Swiss francs to maintain the peg. The Swiss central bank believes that it would have to run the printing press so hard that the basis of the Swiss money supply would explode, far exceeding the GDP of Switzerland.

The money printing policy of the US, Japan, and apparently now the EU has forced other countries to inflate their own currencies in order to prevent the rise in the exchange value of their currencies that would curtail their ability to export and earn foreign currencies with which to pay for their imports. Thus Washington has forced the world into printing money.

The Swiss have backed out of this system. Will others follow, or will the rest of the world follow the Russians and Chinese governments into new monetary arrangements and simply turn their backs on the corrupt and irredeemable West?

The level of corruption and manipulation that characterizes US economic and foreign policy today was impossible in earlier times when Washington’s ambition was constrained by the Soviet Union. The greed for hegemonic power has made Washington the most corrupt government on earth.

The consequence of this corruption is ruin.

“Leadership passes into empire. Empire begets insolence. Insolence brings ruin.”

Ruin is America’s future.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?






 




THE UKRAINE MESS: A RECAPITULATION

SCGNEWS
OdessaMassacre4

Who was REALLY responsible for the downing of flight MH-17?


Let’s take a look at the facts.

NOTE: There is one error in this video which has been mentioned in the video annotations and at the bottom of the page.

On July 17th, 2014 two major events took place: Malaysian flight MH17 was downed over eastern Ukraine, presumably by a missile, and Israel began a ground invasion of Gaza. Israel’s invasion was granted an almost complete media blackout. The MH17 tragedy, however, got full coverage, and was immediately propagandized. (This in spite of the fact that far more civilians had been killed by Israel’s bombardment of Gaza.)

The U.S. government and the western media pinned the responsibility for the MH17 tragedy on Russia within minutes, long before investigators had time to even arrive at the scene, much less provide any actual conclusions. Then came an all out information war, with lies, omissions and disinformation coming from all sides, throughout the Western media sphere of influence.

The geopolitical implications of this event should not be underestimated. If this was ever in doubt, the fact that Obama sent military advisers to Ukraine to help Kiev in its assault against the east should make it very clear. Depending on how much mileage Washington can get out of it, the downing of flight MH17 could end up being extremely pivotal.

Anyone who knows their history, knows that media coverage of events like these often lay the psychological groundwork for war. Consider the sinking of the Lusitania for example on 5/7/1915 (or the murder archduke Ferdinand in 1914). These combined with the Zimmermann Telegram (which was dispatched on 1/16/1917) pushed US public opinion over the tipping point, and on 4/6/1917 the United States declared war on Germany.

It is worth noting that though the U.S. denied it at the time, later diving expeditions revealed that the Lusitania was indeed smuggling war munitions at the time it was sunk (as Germany had asserted from the beginning). Of course, by the time the truth was known it was far too late for the 116,000 Americans who were killed in that conflict.

So who was REALLY responsible for the downing of flight MH17?

First let’s start by asking some obvious questions.

Why was flight MH17 routed directly over a war zone? This was not a normal flight path. In fact it was 300 miles off course. Normally planes using this flight path keep significantly farther south, and the decision to allow MH17 to fly over Donetsk was ultimately the decision of the authorities in Kiev.

Now, Kiev initially claimed that they were acting under the assumption that this route was safe as long as the flight stayed above 32,000 feet, which is out of range for manned surface to air missiles. But that statement was later contradicted by Ukraine officials who said they knew three days before the downing of MH17 that the separatists had the Buk missile system, which is capable of hitting aircraft at much higher altitudes. So either the Ukrainian government was lying about the separatists having the missiles, or they routed flight MH17 300 miles off course, KNOWING that it could be easily shot down.

Now to fully understand the implications of this decision, we have to look at what’s really been going on in Ukraine lately. The mainstream media hasn’t been talking about this very much, but for the past month and a half the Ukrainian military has been using heavy artillery and airstrikes against entire towns in east Ukraine. This shelling has been indiscriminate with many of the munitions striking residential areas. The civilian death toll for this bombardment was estimated at over 257 people one month ago, and the attacks intensified shortly after. Even Human Rights Watch has finally come out to condemn the Ukrainian military’s bombardment of civilians.

For a glimpse of what this assault looked like on the ground watch the video below (Warning: extremely brutal footage):

Meanwhile, Washington was silent. European officials were silent. And the U.N. was also silent.

The separatists in turn retreated from Slavyansk, regrouped and over the next few weeks they shot down several Ukrainian military aircraft, effectively stalling the advance towards Donetsk. But the shelling hasn’t stopped.

In that context, Kiev’s decision to route a civilian airliner 300 miles north of its normal flight path, putting it directly over an active war zone, a war zone where they themselves were the primary aggressor, wasn’t just stupid, it was criminal.

And let’s remember how east Ukraine became a war zone in the first place. Did east Ukrainians invade west Ukraine or bomb them? No, the east Ukrainians held a referendum to declare their independence; they had a massive voter turn out (much higher in fact than the official elections that Washington has endorsed) but the self appointed government in Kiev responded by attempting to bomb them into submission. And again, the so called “international community” just stood by and watched.

And this wasn’t the first time.

Remember we had the Odessa massacre where Ukrainian police stood by and did nothing as Neo-Nazis burned over 40 anti-Kiev protesters alive. Among those killed was a pregnant woman who appeared to be strangled or beaten to death. The Ukrainian government totally covered up these crimes and blamed the tragedy on the anti-Kiev protesters. Apparently these people burned themselves alive. Watch “The Odessa Massacre What You’re Not Being Told” for more details on this (below).

But let’s not stop there, let’s take this all the way back to the beginning. We have the evidence that it wasn’t Yanukovich that used snipers on the protesters in February, the real killers came from within the Maidan coalition. (We have published at least two conclusive documents on this topic.)

The short version of the leaked phone call between EU foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton and Estonia’s foreign minister Urmas Paet:

Urmas Paet: “All the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among police men and people in the street, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides.”
Cathy Ashton: “Well that’s, yeah…”
Urmas Paet: “And she also showed me some photos and she said that has medical doctor, she can say that it is the same handwriting…”
Cathy Ashton: “Yeah…”
Urmas Paet: “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 there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”
(Note: Urmas Paet is not a native English speaker, so his wording is a bit odd at points. This transcript doesn’t correct his errors. )

The long version:

There actually was an investigation, but the mainstream media was very quiet about the results. Why? Because the Ukrainian M.P. that led the investigation, Grennady Moskal, a man with a long history of criticizing the Berkut police, announced that he found no evidence that the Berkut police were responsible. The investigation also found that the bullets used in the killings did not fit the weapons used by the Berkut police.

For the full evidence of U.S. involvement in the toppling of the Ukrainian government watch “The Ukraine Crisis – What You’re Not Being Told” (below). Watch it here because CBS, ABC, NBC and the cable networks will not show it.

Why is this background information important? Because it demonstrates just how far Washington’s puppets in Kiev are willing to go for the sake of power, and that allows us to start asking some harder questions.

Questions such as: was this just a case of gross incompetence on Kiev’s part, or was it something else?

It’s pretty obvious who benefits from this tragedy (it’s certainly clear who is attempting to make use of it), and we know Kiev has a history of killing civilians and blaming it on others, but would they really take it this far?

For a lot of people these kinds of questions are simply off limits. They just aren’t prepared to let their mind go down that path, especially considering the fact that the U.S. government is in bed with these guys. (In fact the US set them up in business, literally.)

So let’s tread carefully and just ask a few more questions that these so called journalists in the corporate media are neglecting to ask. For example: Why didn’t  the U.S. government release its satellite pictures of the area right after the event?

Right after Russia challenged the U.S. government to produce the satellite imagery to back up their accusations, this is what Washington released to CNN:

U.S. government evidence MH17

This isn’t a recent map at all, in fact the map itself has a date written right on it: 2010. This is just an outdated screen shot from Google maps with an amateurish drawing layered on top.

Why don’t they want to show us the real images?

Russia, on the other hand, has released satellite images. These first two images (see below) are dated July 14, and according to Russia they show Buk missile launch systems located about 8 kilometers northwest of the city of Lugansk (an area under the control of the Ukrainian military).

Russian satellite images

Russian satellite images

The next two images were taken on July 17th. The first one shows that the Ukrainian military’s Buk systems are no longer in their previous position, and the last image shows them in a new position 5 kilometers north of Donetsk.

Russian satellite images

Russian satellite images

Washington has not responded to this information, and interestingly has lowered its tone since.

On July 21 Russia also released a radar image showing what they claimed to be an SU-27 fighter jet in close proximity to flight MH17. Ukraine had previously denied that there were any military aircraft near MH17, but they then reversed their story and said that the SU-27 was “escorting” the flight.

Russia Radar images SU-27 Ukraine

UPDATE: The following video (which was later taken down by the BBC) shows that eye witnesses on the scene saw military aircraft approaching flight MH17 right before the crash (make sure you turn on the English subtitles and read very carefully):

Eastern Ukraine has been watched like a hawk for months now. We’ve seen the U.S. government hyping their satellite images every time there is a change of Russian troop concentrations anywhere near the border. You’re telling me that now, when it really counts, the world’s most sophisticated spy machine can’t provide us with satellite pictures of a massive missile battery as it was positioned right after the downing of an aircraft? You’re telling me they can’t provide snapshots of the area following the missile battery as it was moved to its current location? You’re telling me that they don’t know where this missile battery is right now? Or that they actually do have these images, but they’re just refraining from spreading this juicy tidbit all over the mainstream media like they usually do as soon as they have something that helps their case?

That stretches credulity.

Interestingly, investigative journalist Robert Parry, who is best known for his work exposing the Iran Contra scandal in the 1980s, for Newsweek and the Associated Press, has published an article stating that one of his trusted sources has informed him that “U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.”

Does this mean that we should just take Robert Parry and his source at their word? No, of course not. But by the same token, why is the western media taking the U.S. government’s word at face value without demanding evidence? Washington is a den of pathological liars. Their word is less than worthless, and it certainly doesn’t count as proof. Robert Parry’s account on the other hand is validated by the satellite images released by Russia, and like it or not, this is the strongest evidence that has been released so far.

If Washington actually had evidence to support their case, don’t you think they would have released it by now?

IMPORTANT UPDATE: On July 27th, the U.S. government made a very sneaky move, but this move actually damaged their case even more. They released grainy satellite images of what they claim is proof of Russia using HEAVY ARTILLERY against Ukraine. Why do I say that this is sneaky? Because the way it is timed many people will not read carefully and will instantly think that this is imagery of the missiles that they claim shot down flight MH17, and that’s simply not the case. Heavy artillery can’t hit an airplane. It can’t even come close. Now how does this damage their case? Well, it shows that they are specifically avoiding pulling the images related to the missile launchers.

No one is even talking about artillery attacks. This isn’t the scandal of the decade like the MH17 debacle may end up being if it turns out Washington’s puppets in Kiev brought down a civilian airliner on purpose. (Note: The latest evidence points to the liner having been brought down by machine gun bursts from an Ukrainian warplane shadowing MH17.) So this release is clearly a smoke screen. Even more interesting is the fact that this little stunt was run by the State Department’s Geoffrey Pyatt, the very same man who got caught in the leaked audio with Victoria Nuland discussing which puppets they were going to place in power right after Yanukovich was toppled.

But what about the audio evidence that the Ukrainian government uploaded in the form of a Youtube video which supposedly proves that the rebels admitted to shooting down the plane in a phone conversation?

Is that recording genuine? Or did someone just splice it together? Who is this Oleksiy character anyway? Can anyone actually connect this voice to a real person? So far no one has (and this is kind of important given the circumstances).

Oh right, we know it’s real because the Ukrainian government told us it was real.

Let’s put this into context. Remember this is the same Ukrainian government that arrested two Russian journalists in May after those journalists released footage of U.N. helicopters being used by the Ukrainian military in the assault against the east.

The Ukrainian government claimed that the journalists were transporting rocket launchers, and even videotaped the men bound and gagged next to a set of rocket launchers (see video below). The U.S. government went along with the story.

But then after there was a major uproar, and Human Rights Watch came out to condemn their arrest, the journalists were suddenly released without any comment or explanation.

Why is the relevant? Because the current government in Kiev has a history of fabricating and manipulating evidence when it’s politically expedient. The veracity of the audio should be determined by an independent investigation, by multiple audio experts, in multiple countries.

Now if the implications of what I’m presenting here sound crazy to you, then you might want to look up Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a series of proposals written by (US) Department of Defense back in the 60s, which directly advocated committing acts of terrorism within the United States, and even proposed shooting down a civilian airliner in order to blame it on Cuba, and this would be used to justify a war. These documents were declassified in 1997, and there are thousands of copies available for download on the internet (for example this one from George Washington University). Don’t take my word for it, go read it.

You might be thinking, if any of this is true, why on earth would the U.S. government go out of their way to target Russia like this? This is really extreme. Might it have something to do with the fact that just this month the BRICs nations met and put together an international development bank specifically designed to rival the World Bank and the IMF? Could it be because Russia is now openly pushing for the de-dollarization of international trade? Russia poses a threat to the dollar. That’s all the motive the U.S. government has ever needed.

But what if we are given incontrovertible proof that the rebels mistook flight MH17 for a military aircraft and shot it down? What should happen then?

Well, ask yourself this: what would be done if this mistake had been made by the U.S. military and the airliner had been Iranian? Oh wait, that actually happened. On July 3, 1988 the U.S.S. Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 people.

And then there was the TWA flight 800 tragedy which occurred exactly 18 years before the MH17 tragedy, on the very same day. On July 17, 1996 TWA flight 800 was downed over Long Island. The U.S. government claimed that the explosion was the result of an internal malfunction, but numerous eye witnesses reported that they saw a missile being fired from the ground, and even the New York Times referred to the evidence of a coverup as “formidable”. The U.S. government never admitted that they were responsible.
But that’s really a bad example isn’t it?

Here’s a better example: what if Ukraine had shot down a Russian airliner. Oh wait that actually did happen… in October of 2001. The Ukrainian government initially lied about it, but they finally came clean (which is more than we can say for the U.S. government).

We’ll conclude here with what may seem to be a non-sequitur: a speech given by IMF chief Christine Lagarde on January 15, 2014 1:00 PM This was one month before the U.S. government helped topple the Ukrainian government, leading to the crisis which then resulted in Russia’s expulsion from the G8. The IMF then swooped in and saddled Ukraine with a set of their signature predatory loans.

P.S. You’re going to have to review this information several times to fully understand it. Also note that we did not include some of the more bizarre evidence (conspiracy fodder) in this case. We plan to address those issues in a later article.

CORRECTION: The audio in the video states that the TWA Flight 800 was Iranian. This is incorrect. I was mixing this up with the U.S.S. Vincennes incident which I also intended to mention. The written transcript shows the correct text. Both incidents should actually be listed here as they both illustrate the same principle. The dates, likelihood that TWA 800 was shot down, and the evidence of a coverup stands.

We’re leaving the video up with an annotation on the error because this detail had no real importance for the MH17 case.




What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?




 

And now a word from the Editors of The Greanville Post


It’s a battle of communications we can’t afford to lose. 

So if you took the time to read this article, and found it worth SHARING, then why not sign up with our special bulletin to be included in our future distributions? And please tell others about The Greanville Post. 


YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN, SEE BELOW) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESSES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.

 




The Nazi war of annihilation against the Soviet Union

German sniper. (Via Za Rodinu, flickr)

German sniper. (Via Za Rodinu, flickr)

Nazi Policy on the Eastern Front, 1941: Total War, Genocide, and Radicalization

By Clara Weiss, WSWS.org

Below is the second part of a two-part review of Nazi Policy on the Eastern Front: Total War, Genocide, and Radicalization, ed. by Alex J. Kay, Jeff Rutherford, David Stahel, Rochester University Press, 2012, 359 p. The first part of the review was posted January 12.

All quotations refer, unless otherwise indicated, to this book.

Operation Barbarossa and the Holocaust

The beginning of Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941 signified a turning point in the Holocaust and was closely linked to the decision to implement the “final solution”—the almost total destruction of European Jewry. While widely acknowledged among scholars, this connection has thus far not penetrated popular consciousness or the general understanding of the Holocaust.

In the ideology of German Nazism, the image of the “Jewish Bolshevik” occupied a central place in its virulent anti-Semitism. Elaborating on this relation, Israeli historian Leonid Rein writes:

“The Germans intended from the very beginning not only to defeat the enemy’s armed forces, but also to suppress and annihilate the real or imaginary bearers of the hostile Bolshevik ideology. For the Nazis, the main bearers of the Communist ideology were Jews. The millions of Jews living in the invaded territory were seen as the very embodiment of the proverbial Jewish Bolshevism dominating the Soviet state, the image of which had been propagated by Hitler and other Nazi leaders long before ascendance to power in Germany. Thus, the extermination of Soviet Jewry was perceived not merely as the annihilation of a racial enemy, but also as a precondition to achieving Nazi geopolitical goals in the east.” [P. 220]

In fact, up until 1941, the Nazi leadership, while violently anti-Semitic, did not have concrete plans for the physical elimination of European Jews. They were removed from economic life and plundered to the bone first in Germany and then in the occupied territories; labor camps and ghettos were set up in Poland early on; and mass shootings of Jews as well as instigated pogroms occurred in numerous towns and cities.

However, the solution of the “Jewish problem” was still seen in forced mass emigration. Most famously, in 1940 the Nazi government was intrigued by the idea of deporting all Jews from Europe to Madagascar. However, this would have required first the military defeat of Great Britain, so the prolonging of the war on the Western front prompted the Nazis to abandon this idea by early 1941.

While no document pointing to an official order for the total extermination of Soviet Jewry prior to June 1941 exists, it has been referred to in postwar trials against Nazi leaders. (It must also be noted that almost no official documents from the decision-making process of the Nazi leadership about the “final solution” exist, since the Nazis were extremely cautious first not to produce many of them, and, second, to destroy what could be destroyed at the end of the war.)

What is clear, however, and powerfully illustrated in this volume, is that the almost complete annihilation of Jews in all the conquered territories began with the first days of Operation Barbarossa.

In Lithuania, 180,000 out of a total of 220,000 Jews were killed in no more than six months. This included the culturally and historically significant Jewish community of Vilna, the “Jerusalem of Lithuania.” In Latvia, almost 50 percent of the Jews were already dead by October 1941. Estonia was declared free of Jews (“judenfrei” in Nazi terminology) toward the end of 1941. As Leonid Rein notes, this swift murder of the Jewish population was possible above all because of the “large-scale collaboration of local nationalist forces.” [P. 231]


Russian soldiers fighting in the ruins of Stalingrad. (Za Rodinu, via flickr. Recolored using Photoshop.)

Russian soldiers fighting in the ruins of Stalingrad. (Za Rodinu, via flickr. Recolored using Photoshop.)

In the eastern part of Belarus, practically the entire Jewish population had ceased to exist by the end of the year. Most of the Jews in western Belarus, which had only recently become part of the Soviet Union, had also been murdered. Gas vans to murder Jews began to be used in early 1942, before the gas chambers of Auschwitz were working.

While not noted in this book, it should be mentioned that the destruction of Soviet Jews also signified the liquidation of a substantial part of the urban population; in Eastern Europe, Jews traditionally formed between 10 and 50 percent of the population of the most significant towns and cities.

Parallel to these developments in the Soviet Union, extensive preparations for the mass murder of Jews in Auschwitz and other Vernichtungslager (extermination camps) were undertaken. The Wannsee Conference followed on January 20, 1942, and signaled the beginning of the mass extermination of European Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and similar camps.

By that time, a total of 800,000 Jews had already been killed in the Soviet territories. Before the liberation of the territories by the Red Army, another 700,000 Jews would die at the hands of the SS Einsatzg ruppen and their local collaborators in the Soviet Union.

The role of local collaborators and the Axis powers in the Holocaust

One of the politically most significant topics addressed in the book is the role of local nationalists and the Axis powers—Romania, Hungary and Slovakia—which joined the Nazi-led campaign against the Soviet Union. Today, the historical heirs of these forces, whose influence has grown since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, are being mobilized by imperialism in the war drive against Russia.

Apart from the radical right collaborationists in the Baltic countries and Belarus, the Ukrainian militia, comprised largely of adherents of the Ukrainian fascist organization OUN, played a significant role in the Holocaust not only in Ukraine, but also in Belarus.

An essay by American historian Wendy Lower deals with the role of the Axis powers in the Holocaust in Ukraine. Axis forces provided every sixth soldier who marched into the Soviet Union under the Nazi flag. The ultra-right regimes of the Axis powers shared the Nazis’ violent anticommunism, which in Eastern Europe was closely related to radical anti-Semitism. (See: Anti-Semitism and the Russian Revolution).

ionAntonescu-bioIn the Holocaust, the most significant role after Nazi Germany was played by the Romanian fascist regime of Ion Antonescu. Romania joined Operation Barbarossa after Hitler promised Antonescu territorial gains in Transnistria, Bukovina and Bessarabia. All of these territories, and in particular Bukovina (now extinguished from the map), had a significant Jewish population with long historical traditions.

Ion Antonescu and Adolf Hitler at the Führerbau in Munich in June 1941 [© Bundesarchiv]

Antonescu early on decided to remove all Jews from these areas’ villages. In Transnistria, a broad network of concentration camps and ghettos was set up. Here, some 250,000 Jews and 12,000 Roma were murdered.

Romanian forces were heavily involved in some of the worst massacres of Jews in what is today Ukraine. In one of the most notorious massacres of the Holocaust, the Massacre of Odessa (October 22-24, 1941), which was directly ordered by Antonescu, some 35,000 Jews were murdered. Providing a glimpse of the barbarity of this orgy of violence, Lower writes:

“Romanian methods of murder included throwing grenades at and shooting Jews who had been crammed by the thousands into wooden buildings. In an act reminiscent of the burning of Strasbourg’s Jews in the fifteenth century, Romanians forced Jews into the harbor square and set them on fire. Except that in this twentieth-century version, the Romanians did not allow Jews to save themselves through conversion (baptism). Thus, the barbarism of the religious wars was outdone by these modern campaigns of colonization and national purification.” [Pp. 205-206]

A few weeks later, at least 48,000 Jews were shot dead in Bogdanivka at Christmas by Romanian soldiers, German SS and Ukrainian militia, as well as other collaborators.

A report from 2004 established that, overall, the Antonescu regime is responsible for the murder of some 280,000 to 380,000 Jews in Transnistria, Bukovina and Bessarabia.

The “Kingdom of Romania” in its borders of 1942

This historical record of the Romanian bourgeoisie is a serious warning to workers of Eastern Europe in light of the fact that the Romanian government is now intimately involved in the imperialist war preparations against Russia, stoking up civil war in Ukraine. (See: Romania joins imperialist war drive against Russia).

Hungarian troops, too, were involved in monstrous massacres. In particular, they participated in the shooting of some 23,600 Jews in the Kamianets-Podilsky massacre of August 27-28, 1941 in western Ukraine. This massacre mainly targeted Hungarian Jewish refugees who had resided in Carpatho-Ukraine.

Mass grave from the Kamianets-Podilsky massacre [© Yad Vashem Photo Archive]
.

Lower emphasizes that the “Jewish Question” was an important part of “Axis diplomacy,” with each power unwilling to accept Jews on its territories. According to the historian, “their views of the Jewish problem, while broadly anti-Semitic, were also at the center of specific clashes over national borders and territorial gains.” [P. 197]

Less is known about Slovak involvement in Operation Barbarossa.

The significance of this volume

It is timely that the present volume was published on the eve of the new Ukrainian campaign by US and German imperialism.

Whereas the atrocities of World War II have been deeply burnt into the historical memory of the working class of Eastern Europe and, for that matter, Germany, for most of the general population in Western Europe and the United States, Operation Barbarossa has largely remained “the unknown war.”

There are definite historical and political reasons for this lack of knowledge, which are explained, in part, by the editors of this volume. In the Anglo-Saxon historiography, works on the Nazi war against the Soviet Union focused largely on military history because of the conditions prevailing in the Cold War.

“Due to the circumstances of the Cold War and the desire to integrate West Germany into the NATO bloc, early research into the savage war in the east frequently reduced it to purely operational histories… First, American and British political and military leaders had no experience of fighting the Red Army and sought to learn as much as possible about their new enemy… Second, many of these works relied almost exclusively on the memoirs and studies of former high-ranking German officers themselves… The myth of an honorable German army took firm root in the collective mind of the Western world.” [Pp. 4-5]


After the war, the US took over most of the Nazi networks of ultranationalist and fascist collaborators in Eastern Europe, basing much of its strategy of covert warfare on precisely these forces.


 

For the bourgeoisie in America and Great Britain, the crimes of the Nazis paled in comparison to the “crime” of the Russian working class in overthrowing Tsarism and capitalism in 1917 and thus removing vast portions of the globe from the immediate orbit of world imperialism. In their anticommunism and their goal of dismembering the Soviet Union, they found common ground with the old Nazis.

Reinhard Gehlen

Gehlen

In postwar West Germany, at all levels, the old war criminals—from judges and doctors to journalists and military leaders—were largely allowed to maintain their positions or obtain new, no less prestigious, ones. Some of the leading war criminals, such as Reinhard Gehlen, who was directly involved in Operation Barbarossa and the “final solution,” were directly hired by the CIA and ordered to help build the new German secret service, the BND.

Many leading ideologists and academics involved in the preparation and execution of the “final solution” continued their writing careers as ideologists of anticommunism. One example is Peter-Heinz Seraphim, author of the book Jewry in Eastern Europe (Das Judentum im osteuropäischen Raum), which served as an inspiration and guideline for German military administrations’ policies in the persecution of the Jews of Poland and later other parts of Eastern Europe. [3] After the war, with the support of the American occupation forces, he worked for Gehlen and became a popular anticommunist author and renowned expert on Eastern Europe.

The US took over most of the Nazi networks of ultranationalist and fascist collaborators in Eastern Europe, basing much of its strategy of covert warfare on precisely these forces. (See: Nationalism and fascism in Ukraine: A historical overview).

Upon its publication, this book has been justly hailed in scholarly publications as a seminal work on Operation Barbarossa in the English language. While original research has gone into the essays, they above all represent a concise summary of some of the most important findings of historical research of the past two decades.

With the opening of the formerly closed Soviet archives in 1991, studies of the war of annihilation and the Holocaust have received a mighty impetus. Young German scholars, in particular, have done important work to uncover the crimes of the Nazi regime in Eastern Europe. However, very little of the flood of new publications has so far found its way to an English-language audience.

The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. The dismemberment of the Soviet Union, which the Nazis failed to achieve in World War II, was accomplished by the Stalinist bureaucracy with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 and the restoration of capitalism. However, the geopolitical and economic interests of world imperialism in this region of the world have remained very real. In this sense, the campaign of US and German imperialism stands in the tradition of the Nazis’ Operation Barbarossa.

From this standpoint, the historical material presented must be studied by workers as a warning of what imperialism is capable of. If anything, US and German imperialism, unless stopped by the international working class, will be even more brutal in pursuing their geopolitical and economic interests today.

**

[3] Dan Michman: The Emergence of Jewish Ghettos during the Holocaust, Cambridge 2011, pp. 45-101.




What is $1 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?




 

And now a word from the Editors of The Greanville Post


It’s a battle of communications we can’t afford to lose. 

So if you took the time to read this article, and found it worth SHARING, then why not sign up with our special bulletin to be included in our future distributions? And please tell others about The Greanville Post. 


YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN, SEE BELOW) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESSES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.

 




The “Snipers’ Massacre” in Kiev—Another False Flag?

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine
ANOTHER FALSE FLAG PERPETRATED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.

K1N 6N5, Canada
ikatchan@uottawa.ca


Paper presented at the Chair of Ukrainian Studies Seminar at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, October 1, 2014.  Please note that some video materials originally posted on YouTube have been suspiciously taken down. 

maidan-ringleader

The “Snipers’” Massacre Question

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he massacre of several dozen Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the escalating conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. The mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the highly corrupt and pro-Russian but democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a large-scale violent conflict that continues now in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments and the media, at least publicly, without concluding an investigation and without all evidence considered. For instance, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko in his speech to the US Congress on September 18, 2014 again claimed that the Yanukovych government overthrow resulted from mass peaceful protests against police violence, in particular, killings of more than 100 protesters by snipers on February 20, 2014.

The question is which side organized the “snipers’ massacre.” This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. Analysis of a large amount of evidence in this study suggests that certain elements of the Maidan opposition, including its extremist far right wing, were involved in this massacre in order to seize power and that the government investigation was falsified for this reason.

Evidence

Evidence used in this study includes publicly available but unreported, suppressed, or misrepresented videos and photos of suspected shooters, live statements by the Maidan announcers, radio intercepts of the Maidan “snipers,” and snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), ballistic trajectories, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special unit commanders, public statements by both former and current government officials, bullets and weapons used, types of wounds among both protesters and the police, and the track record of politically motivated misrepresentations by the Maidan politicians of other cases of violence during and after the Euromaidan and historical conflicts. In particular, this study examines about 30 gigabytes of intercepted radio exchanges of the Security Service of Ukraine Alfa unit, Berkut, the Internal Troops, Omega, and other government agencies during the entire Maidan protests. These files were posted by a pro-Maidan Ukrainian radio amateur on a radio scanners forum, but they never were reported by the media or acknowledged by the Ukrainian government.

The timeline of the massacre with precision to minutes and locations of both the shooters and the government snipers was established in this study with great certainty based on the synchronization of the sound on the main Maidan stage, images, and other sources of evidence that independently corroborate each other. The study uses content analysis of all publicly available videos of the massacre, in particular, an unreported, time-stamped version of a previously widely seen, long video of the massacre on Instytutska Street, videos of suspected snipers and reports of snipers in live TV broadcasts and Internet video streams from the Maidan (Independence Square), time-stamped and unedited radio intercepts of SBU Alfa snipers and commanders, and radio intercepts of Internal Troops on the Maidan. The analysis also uses live Internet broadcasts. Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by Espresso TV, Hromadske TV, Spilno TV, Radio Liberty, and Ukrstream TV, were either removed from their websites immediately following the massacre or not made publicly available.

These recordings were mostly made by Maidan supporters, but they got very scant attention or removed from public access.

Similarly, official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence collected during the investigations concerning this massacre have not been made public, while crucial evidence, including bullets and weapons disappeared under the post- Yanukovych government. This investigation relies on such evidence reported by the media and reliable information in the social media. An on-site research on the site of the massacre on the Maidan itself and on Instytutska Street was also conducted for this study by the author.

An Academic Investigation

A recently released time-stamped version of an over 40-minute-long video, which was filmed at a close distance on Instytutska Street starting at 9:06am, covers, with some unexplained omissions, the most intense parts of the killings.(1)


Carnage on Institutskaya Street on February 20, 2014 Maidan, Kiev, Ukraine


It confirms that the mass killing of Maidan protesters on February 20 began on the adjacent Instytutska Street around that time. The Berkut anti-riot police and Internal Troops units, which were besieging, storming, and blocking the Maidan for almost three months, hastily abandoned their positions and fled by 9:00am, while protesters then started to advance from their stronghold on the Maidan up Instytutska Street.

This and other videos (see below) show members of the special elite unit of the Berkut anti-riot police and “Omega” Internal Troops special unit, including two snipers, temporarily halting the advance of protesters near Zhovtnevyi Palace starting at 9:05 am, shooting with both live ammunition from the Kalashnikov assault rifles (AKMS) and rubber bullets, and pointing sniper rifles in the direction of the protesters and then retreating along with Berkut and Internal Troops units, who were resting in Zhovtnevyi Palace.


After retreating to these barricades under fire, respectively, at 9:20am and 9:28am, Berkut and Omega were doing the same from two barricades on Instytutska Street and nearby buildings of the National Bank and the Club of the Cabinet of Ministers.


The directions of many bullet holes and their impact marks in the electric poles, trees, and walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace and the Hotel Ukraina also indicate that the police fired at the direction of the protesters and the protester-held buildings. SBU snipers were located in the Cabinet of Ministers, the Presidential Administration, and neighboring buildings.

.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he new Ukrainian government and the head of the parliamentary commission publicly stated that “snipers,” who massacred the unarmed protesters, were from these units. Specifically, the Prosecutor General Office announced on September 12, 2014 that its investigation found a Berkut commander and two members of his unit responsible for killing 39 Euromaidan protesters, or the absolute majority of some 50 protesters killed or mortally wounded on February 20, 2014. But this Berkut commander was then put under house arrest, and he disappeared.


In contrast, the government deliberately denies or ignores evidence of shooters and spotters in at least 12 buildings occupied by the Maidan side or located within the general territory held by them during the massacre. This includes the Hotel Ukraina, Zhovtnevyi Palace, buildings on both sides that were not previously identified as locations of snipers, and several buildings on the Maidan (Independence Square), such as the Conservatory, the Trade Union headquarters, and the Main Post Office. (See Map 1).

The Hotel Ukraina was controlled by the Maidan side since about 9:00am. During a volley of fire by the government forces near Zhovtnevyi Palace at 9:10-9:11am, and within a few minutes of calling for ambulances and medics, an announcer on the Maidan stage publicly warned the protesters about two to three snipers on the pendulum (second from the top) floor of the Hotel Ukraina on the opposite side of the street. The first wave of casualties among the protesters included Bohdan Solchanyk, a history instructor at the Ukrainian Catholic University Map 1. Map of the massacre on February 20, 2014 in Lviv. He was killed by a 7.62mm bullet in the area between the hotel and Zhovtnevyi at 9:12am or within a couple minutes earlier. Videos indicate that one of the two protesters shot there at 9:14am appears to had been wounded in his backside from the direction of the hotel.

Map1.massacre

A Radio Liberty video shows at least one protester shot near the Maidan side of Zhovtnevyi Palace at 9:10am and two other protesters on the ground near the middle section of this building at 9:19am. The first location matches a reported place of killings of Vasyl Moisei from the Volhynian company of the Maidan Self-Defense and an elderly protester, likely, Iosyp Shilling. The government investigation, the media, and the Volhynian company commanders concluded that the Berkut shot dead these protesters during its counterattack. However, they omitted bullet impact traces in trees, poles, and Zhovtnevyi Palace facade within meters of these spots of the killings. Similarly, they omitted reports by the Maidan protesters witnesses concerning shooters in the Hotel Ukraina within minutes of these killings. In addition to the Maidan stage warning about “snipers” in the Hotel Ukraina at 9:11am, a video shows protesters taking cover under a pedestrian bridge on Instytutska Street between the hotel and Zhovtnevyi Palace and pointing out at 9:23am live ammunition fire at them and other protesters from a top floor of the hotel.

A BelSat video from the Hotel Ukraina depicts a bullet hitting a tree in front of a group of protesters from the direction of the hotel at 9:38am. A BBC video shows a sniper firing at the BBC television crew and the Maidan protesters from an open window on the pendulum floor of the hotel at 10:17am, and the BBC correspondent identifies the shooter as having a green helmet worn by the Maidan protesters.


Two protesters at 10:24am point out sniper fire from the pendulum floor of the Hotel Ukraina in another video filmed from amid a group of protesters under the deadly fire on Instytutska Street. A first-hand account by Ilya Varlamov, his photos, a testimony by another eyewitness, and two nearby shots in the live broadcast, which was recorded from this hotel starting at 8:49am, suggest that two other people were shot at 10:30-10:31am from the Hotel Ukraina on the Maidan side.

Warnings from the Maidan stage about “three snipers” or “snipers” “shooting to kill” the Maidan protesters from the same hotel, specifically on Instytutska Street, were made again as the killings continued there, for example, at 10:36, 10:59, 11:07, and 11:09am in the live broadcast. Eyewitnesses in another video of the shooting around 4:00pm and the direction of the entry wound indicate that a bystander was killed by a bullet from the Hotel Ukraina in front of Zhovtnevyi Palace. In the late afternoon, a speaker on the Maidan stage threatened to burn the Hotel Ukraina, as they did the Trade Union building a day earlier, because of constant reports of snipers in the hotel. But a previously unreported radio intercept of the Omega commander (“Pegas”) and servicemen from his unit informed at 10:37am on February 21about gunshots coming from the Hotel Ukraina.
.
Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them and at least one member of the Volhynian company of the Maidan Self-Defense on Instytutska Street. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel.
.
When the Hotel Ukraina was controlled by the Maidan, “snipers” there were also shooting at the police. A Berkut policeman was killed in front of Zhovtnevyi Palace by two shots at 9:16am, minutes after the announcement about “snipers” in the hotel. There were bullet impact traces in a trees and poles within meters of this spot from a Hotel Ukraina direction. A Berkut commander stated that snipers in the Hotel Ukraina were shooting at the policemen from 7.62mm caliber hunting guns. A video from the police side of the barricade depicts several Berkut policemen with 7.62 caliber AKMs and many armed members of the Omega special Internal Troops unit with different caliber AKS-74, including several snipers, taking cover from live ammunition fire during the height of the massacre of the protesters starting from a few minutes before 10:00am. It shows at the very end one Omega sniper targeting an open window of the Hotel Ukraina and another sniper pointing his rifle in an upward direction, likely toward Zhovtnevyi Palace. A Ukrainian TV journalist, who filmed this video, confirmed that they came under a fire and were looking for a sniper in the Hotel Ukraina. The video also shows two Berkut servicemen pointing their Kalashnikov rifles or shooting from the top side of Kamaz trucks, likely at the same direction or in the direction of Muzeinyi Lane buildings, where shooters could be seen in live broadcasts around the same time. All these buildings and the protesters on Instytutska Street were located downslope from this police barricade.

.

Mustafa Nayem, an initiator of the Euromaidan protests and a widely known journalist from Ukrainska Pravda, an openly pro-Maidan online newspaper, twitted at 11:58am a photo of snipers on the police side of this barricade located at the intersection of Instytutska and Bankova streets. This photo was presented by the Ukrainian media as evidence that these were snipers who massacred the protesters. However, these snipers and Berkut special company shooters generally did not hide, and they allowed the media and bystanders to film themselves during the massacre.


Various sources of evidence indicate that Berkut and Omega used, respectively, their AKMS, AKS, and sniper rifles and that they shot live ammunition at the general direction of both the protesters and suspected Maidan “snipers.” These live ammunition rounds came around the time of the killing and wounding of many protesters. Videos show that at least a large proportion of the victims were shot at that time while taking cover behind a wall, trees, and a barricade, and thus being outside of a hitting zone from the direction of the police barricade and the adjacent government buildings, as the Google street view illustrates. But a possibility that some of the protesters, specifically armed ones, including “snipers,” were wounded or killed by the police fire cannot be ruled out.

.

The Omega commander and an Internal Troops commander in charge of such special units stated that they received orders to target snipers at the Hotel Ukraina and other locations and had permission to shoot at armed protesters. A former Berkut officer said that a sniper that accompanied the Berkut special company had a task to look for a Right Sector sniper in the Hotel Ukraina. Videos show the sniper lying on the ground and then pointing his rifle into the direction of the Hotel Ukraina at 9:23am exactly when one of the unarmed protesters is seen shot dead in a close proximity near the barricade. This was used as evidence of a direct hit, but the direction of the sniper rifle, sound of the gunshot, and a reported entry wound in the right shoulder and an apparent exit wound on a left front side of a torso, and an absence of a bullet hole on the shield indicate that the gunshot came from a building located in the back or on the right side. A BBC report shows another unarmed protestor shot dead in the same spot apparently from a similar direction within a minute before. An armed protestor in a Berkut-style uniform was wounded in his arm while he was running away from the scene. Many of the commanders and members of Omega, Alfa, and the special company of disbanded Berkut were deployed by the post-Yanukovych government along with Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector commanders and members in the civil war with pro-Russian separatists in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine.
.

A Ruptly TV video shows three armed Maidan protesters who were shooting from a top floor of the Hotel Ukraina in the direction not of the Independence Square but of Instytutska Street, judging by buildings that can be discerned. Volodymyr Ariev, an investigative journalist and a member of the parliament from the Maidan coalition party, concluded that “snipers” came to the Hotel Ukraina from the Music Conservatory side and that they blocked the Ruptly TV floor of the hotel. A RT report, the abovementioned video, and other videos indicate that they were armed Maidan protesters. But Ariev claimed without providing any evidence that these “snipers” were working for the Russian government.
.

A previously unreported intercept of radio communications by the SBU Alfa commanders, contains specific information by the head of this Security Service unit (“Suddia”) and his deputy (“Indeiets”) that “shooters” or “snipers” were moving to the Hotel Ukraina and that they were from the Maidan side. This is consistent with an interview of the former SBU head, who said that one half of about 20 “snipers” with concealed AKMs in bags moved from the neighboring Music Conservatory, which was held by the Maidan, to the Hotel Ukraina, while another half moved in the direction of the Dnipro Hotel, located on the European Square near Muzeinyi Lane. The most complete time-stamped version of the Alfa commanders’ radio intercept synchronized with the local time indicates that their report of shooters moving to the Hotel Ukraina was made at 9:23am. It is contained among the intercepted radio exchanges of Alfa, Berkut, the Internal Troops, Omega, and other government agencies during the entire Maidan protests.
.
The Alfa commanders’ intercept demonstrates that snipers from this SBU unit were given an order to deploy to the Presidential Administration soon after a full combat readiness was reported by them at 7:24am. It also contains similar orders to get arms and deploy to these and crew on the 14 other government locations to other SBU units around the same time. In contrast to many fake claims and evidence publicized by the Ukrainian government, the radio intercept is not a fake. Their publicly available versions came from several different pro-Maidan sources. One version with omitted parts was posted by a news website run by an advisor to the current Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, but it was also not  acknowledged by the government.

.

An unedited and time-stamped intercept of a radio communication by this SBU sniper team, led by “Miron,” demonstrates that they were tasked with and were monitoring the Hotel Ukraina, specifically its top floors, and other neighboring buildings for snipers and their spotters, who helped to direct the fire, after the massacre was already underway. These snipers detected armed people, who shot from the tops of the buildings or were lying there, and then swiftly moved away after their location was communicated via radio among the SBU snipers. The Alfa snipers were based then the Cabinet of Ministers building (See Map 1). There are no sounds of gunshots by these SBU Alfa snipers or other indications that they fired in the audio clips, which span the most intense phase of the killings from 9:35am till 11:13am. Similarly, no evidence was produced that the protesters were killed with German sniper rifles used by this group of snipers. This is consistent with information provided by three SBU Alfa commanders during the parliamentary investigation and in their statements to Ukrainian TV networks.
.
However, an edited version of this SBU sniper team’s radio communications intercept was posted on YouTube on the day of the massacre with its content and added photos of the massacre misrepresented to claim that these were the killers. It was swiftly used by Ukrainian politicians, including the head of the parliamentary commission, and the media as key evidence that these SBU snipers killed the protesters. “Miron” stated that this highly publicized version was also cut and did not include their reports of civilians carrying weapons in bags in the European Square. The time-stamped version includes such cut-out parts in the beginning and the end, but some key time periods during the massacre are missing there also.

PHOTO1-MAIDAN-massacre

Photo 1. Suspected shooters on a roof of Zhovtnevyi Palace during the massacre. Source: Espresso TV broadcast

In their radio intercept, SBU snipers report hearing numerous gunshots and seeing suspected snipers or their fire coordinators at several other buildings then held by the Maidan side, such as on the roof of Kinopalats at 9:43am. The Maidan announcers reported three snipers shooting to kill from the top of Zhovtnevyi Palace, which is connected to Kinopalats, at 9:46– 9:47am, and they repeated such specific warnings until at least 10:53am. A bullet strikes a tree near a group of protesters from the direction of these buildings during one of the firs ways of mass killing at 9:45am, when within a couple of minutes at least eight protesters were killed or seriously wounded in a few meters radius from that tree. Bullet holes there indicate the same direction (See Photo 2).These three suspected “snipers” on the roof of Zhovtnevyi Palace were seen and identified as such during another wave of killing of protesters around 10:00am in a live broadcast (Photo 1). One of them is recorded in the same spot on the top of this yellow building in a BBC video at 10:04am, but this was not previously noted. Two “snipers” there were shown by ICTV on February 20, 2014. An apparent human contour is noticeable on the roof of Kinopalats in a photo taken by a French photographer from the midst of the massacre when at least several protesters were killed or seriously wounded near him around 10:20-10:25am. The Maidan Self-Defense reportedly later found more than 80 bullet casings on the roof of Zhovtnevyi Palace. Eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters confirm presence of at least three snipers on Zhovtnevyi Palace roof and its upper floor.

Photo2-maidan-massacre

Photo 2. Bullet impact marks from the direction of Zhovtnevyi Palace and Kinopalats on another tree at the site of the massacre. (Source: Photo by the author)

.

There is similar evidence of shooters on the top of buildings on both sides of Instytutska Street in the general area that was under Maidan control. A recording of live broadcast showed at 10:23am, 10:45am, and 12:15pm a person lying on a roof of a Muzeinyi Lane building (see Photo 3 and the linked videos). In the first two cases, a camera zoomed into these areas within minutes when gunshots were heard and protesters were shot on Instytutska Street. This recording appears to confirm previous media reports about a different video showing a “sniper” on a roof shooting at Berkut and then protesters from AK and wearing a Berkut-style uniform. The video was shown in the Ukrainian parliament to some of the Maidan leaders and other members of the parliament, but it is still not released publicly. There is also a brief extract from an unknown video showing a Maidan activist identifying a shooter, who was aiming his gun in the direction of Instytutska Street, on a roof of an adjacent building on Muzeinyi Lane. An apparent human figure might be noticed there at 10:23am. A bullet is seen striking a pole from the Muzeinyi Lane direction and ricocheting at 9:54am. At least several protesters are killed and seriously wounded at this spot or in a few meters radius within minutes of that time. Bullet holes in the trees on the site of the massacre indicate the same direction of fire. A bullet impact point suggests that ABC News occupied room in the Hotel Ukraina was fired from a direction of Muzeinyi Lane or Kinopalats buildings.
.
Suspected shooters on the green Arkada Bank building are pointed out by fleeing protesters after many shots fired at 9:44am. Reports by SBU snipers in their intercepted radio communication at 9:46am, by a female Maidan medic at 10:04am in the BBC video, and by another protester in the Radio Liberty video corroborate this. A TVP journalist based in the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre stated that he saw one of the “snipers” on the roof of Arkada and that their producer was shot from this building’s roof in his Hotel Ukraina room, judging by the direction of a bullet strike. Ruslana, in one of her announcements on the Maidan stage in the afternoon, relayed “reliable reports” from the Maidan Self-Defense members of “snipers” on the roof of Arkada.

.

Likely shooters or spotters can also be identified in windows on the roofs of two other buildings in the 45 minute-long video of the massacre and in the SBU snipers’ intercept at about the same time at 10:11–10:12am. One of the survivors of the massacre, who can be seen pointing a hand after being wounded there during one of the early waves of the killing around 9:44- 9:45am, stated that shots that killed and wounded most members of his group came from the sides and from the back. Videos show at least eight protesters killed and gravely wounded in this spot during this short period of time and more than dozen other protesters gunned down in the same area on the right side of Instytutska Street within the next 45 minutes. He also said that his group of Svoboda-led Khmelnytskyi company of the Maidan Self-Defense received an order to go there. A video confirms this. Likewise, bullet impact points in trees confirm the live ammunition fire from this sidewise direction.
.
It is noteworthy that some crucial parts of this and other waves of the killings are missing in this long video filmed by an activist of Zelenyi Front, a Kharkiv organization. This organization is associated with one of the former opposition leaders, who became the Minister of Internal Affairs in the post-Yanukovych government. Another pro-Maidan activist is seen in different videos filming and taking pictures during the massacre from within advancing protesters, many of whom were then killed and wounded. His publicly released videos and photos also do not include many crucial parts of the massacre. He later served in the special police battalion Azov, which was created under formal command of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and he gained notoriety for painting a star on the top of a Moscow high-rise building. In videos of both these pro-Maidan amateur photographs, there were no signs of attempts to identify Maidan sniper positions in surrounding buildings, in spite of their close proximity, or reaction to loud warnings from the Maidan stage about snipers in these locations. Similarly, “shooters” did not appear to target them to avoid possible identification, in contrast, to targeting many professional foreign journalists, including the BBC correspondent in the same area, the Associated Press, TVP, ABC News, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalists, and at least twice reporters from both ARD and RT.

Photo3massacre

Photo 3. A suspected shooter on a roof of a Muzeinyi Lane building during the massacre. Source: Espresso TV/Spilno TV broadcast.

Another indication that the shooters were from the Maidan side is that the gunshots on Instytutska Street significantly subsided or stopped by about 10:50–11:20am, but they continued on the Maidan itself. This square, along with main buildings and surrounding areas, was under control of the opposition. This corresponds in time to a report by a senior opposition leader, who became the head of the presidential administration after the violent overthrow of the previous government, of receiving SMS request at 10:45am from the commander of a sniper group, likely Alfa, Omega, or Sokil, to allow their snipers to search together with Maidan representatives for a shooter from the Hotel Ukraina. He also said that there was a subsequent meeting between him together with Andrii Parubii, the Maidan Self-Defense commander, with a group of government snipers. The reported fact and the location of this meeting in the government-controlled area near the same barricade with Berkut and Omega on Instytutska Street close to the Presidential administration also indicate that these snipers were regarded at the time by the opposition leaders as not the actual killers, in spite of public statements to the contrary. Similarly, there were two members of Svoboda leadership near the Hotel Ukraina at the time of the massacre. The government snipers accompanied by the Maidan Self-Defense reportedly remained in the hotel area till 1:00–1:30pm. Exact locations of the shooters could have been easily determined by open windows in the Hotel Ukraina and eyewitnesses identifying them. There were also media reports of a few captured “snipers” in this hotel.

.

But Maidan leaders denied that any shooters were there and claimed that several Maidan Self-Defense and Right Sector searches at the Hotel Ukraina, specifically conducted there around noon by Maidan protesters armed with AKMS or AKS and rifles, in Zhovtnevyi Palace, and in the Conservatory during the massacre and soon after it ended did not find any of the “shooters.” For, example, Mustafa Nayem, who streamed live for Hromadske TV, stated at 3:00pm that a Right Sector and Self-Defense search did not locate any snipers who were spotted on an upper

floor of the Hotel Ukraina. As noted the shootings from the hotel, specifically one of its top floors, continued afterwards.
.
Similarly, several leaders of the opposition parties (Svoboda, the Radical Party, and the Fatherland) were speaking on the Maidan stage and blaming the Yanukovych government and its snipers during the very time or shortly after numerous gunshots fired from nearby buildings on the Maidan. For example, a synchronization of a live broadcast recording and a brief intercepted radio communication of the actual shooters show that they fired several rounds of altogether 10 shots in quick succession at 11:33–11:34am. The loud sound of these gunshots in a recording of the live broadcast (1h 08-09 min) from the Kozatsky Hotel on the Maidan indicates that these shots likely came from this or other nearby locations, such as the Trade Union building. A minute afterwards, Oleksander Turchynov, a former head of the Security Service of Ukraine who would become the head of the Ukrainian parliament and the acting president after the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government, started his speech with the “Slava Ukraini” greeting, which was used by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and copied by the Maidan. Sounds of other shots and sirens of moving ambulances can be heard in the live broadcast during his speech. The manner of the communication of these shooters in the single publicly available recording is very different from those of SBU and Omega snipers and other government agencies in more than 30 gigabytes of their intercepted, recorded, and released radio exchanges during the entire Maidan protests. These intercepts, admissions by the Maidan leaders that they had such intercepts, and a statement by the Alfa commander all indicate that the shooters and their spotters had such radio intercepts and were able to avoid tracking by the SBU snipers or move to different positions.

.

Similarly, a female medic was wounded, and another protester standing in front of her was killed on the Maidan near the Kozatsky Hotel at 11:43am. This happened during a speech by Oleh Liashko, a leader of the Radical Party, which openly cooperated after the overthrow of Yanukovych with the neo-Nazi Social National Assembly, which was of the founders of the Right Sector. A more distant sound of a shot than the abovementioned rounds is heard at 1hour and 18 minutes in the live broadcast recording, which starts at 10:23am. Eyewitnesses and the direction of the entry wound indicate that this shot was made from the Main Post Office building, which was occupied by the Right Sector. This shooting case attracted big attention from the Ukrainian and Western media, but like all shootings of protesters, journalists, and the police on the Independence Square, government snipers were blamed and no real investigation was conducted.
.
Eyewitnesses among the protesters, the TVP correspondent, and bullet trajectories also point to shooters around the same time in the Trade Union building, the Kozatsky Hotel, the Music Conservatory buildings, and some other buildings on the Maidan itself. At 11:43am, an unidentified intruder broke into a radio communication of the Internal Troops units, which retreated from the Maidan, and informed them that there were people aiming a rocket propelled grenade launcher into the Hotel Ukraina from the 6 snipers noted people at the top of this building at 10:53 and 10:59am.

An RT correspondent reported at 10:58am that a 7.62mm AKM bullet narrowly missed him at a Hotel Ukraina window and that its trajectory pointed to the Conservatory building. An Associated Press correspondent also reported being fired at in his Hotel Ukraina room overlooking the Maidan in the morning of February 20, and he found that bullet on his balcony.
.
An Australian ABC reporter’s hotel room was also shot from the direction of the Maidan around that time. A BBC occupied room was also fired upon.

.
Various sources show that Maidan shooters used these buildings to fire live ammunition at journalists and at Berkut and Internal Troops at night or early morning on February 20. Two Ukraina hotel rooms of German journalists were shot from the direction of the Main Post Office, as a Ukrainian journalist working for the German TV reported on his Facebook page, or from the direction of Conservatory, located across the street from the new headquarters of the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector. The parliamentary commission stated based on medical emergency services reports that shooting at Berkut and Internal Troops from the Maidan and neighboring streets started on February 20 at 6:10am. A parliament member from the Maidan opposition stated that he received a phone call from a Berkut commander shorty after 7:00am that 11 members of his police unit were wounded by shooters from the Music Conservatory building. A Maidan Self-Defense search there found no shooters after this parliament member informed Parubiii and other opposition leaders. But this Berkut commander again reported that within a half an hour his unit casualties increased to 21 wounded and three killed.
.
Similarly, reports in the morning of February 20 by the Internal Affairs Ministry, statements by the former heads of SBU and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, radio intercepts of Internal Troops, videos, and eyewitness accounts by the protesters, including a Swedish neo- Nazi volunteer, independently confirm that the police units on the Maidan were shot with live ammunition from the Conservatory and Trade Union buildings before 9:00am and that they swiftly retreated as a result of this fire and the many casualties that they suffered. For instance, in their radio communications, the Internal Troops units, stationed on the Maidan near the Trade Union building, made urgent requests for an ambulance at 8:08am, a life support vehicle at

8:21am, an ambulance at 8:29am, two ambulances at 8:39am, five ambulances at 8:46am, and then issued retreat orders at 8:49 and 8:50am.
.
A senior Internal Troops officer stated that they had information that five “snipers” moved to the Conservatory from the Trade Union building after it was burned by the protesters during Alfa’s attempt to seize it after 11:00pm on February 18. He also confirmed the shooters killed and wounded many policemen from the Trade Union building and Maidan tents before its burning, when it was occupied and used as the headquarters of the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector. At least 17 of them were killed and 196 wounded from gunshots on February 18- 20, including three killed and more than 20 wounded on February 20.
.
The radio intercepts of Internal Troops units and Alfa commanders and snipers confirm that their attempts to seize the Maidan and the Trade Union building on February 18 were stopped by the burning of this building by its defenders and by use of live ammunition by the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector. These seizures of the Maidan and its headquarters were authorized by the Yanukovych government as a part of the “Boomerang” and “Khvylia” plans. These plans were put in force after an attempt by the opposition led by the Maidan Self- Defense and the Right Sector to storm the parliament and their burning of the Party of Regions headquarters resulting in a death of an employee working there in the morning of the same day. An Alfa officer, who led one of the SBU groups during storming of the Trade Union Building, stated that their task was to seize the 5th floor, which contained a lot of weapons. The Right Sector occupied the entire floor which served as both its headquarters and a base of the Right Sector company of the Maidan Self-Defense. A radio intercept of Alfa commanders contains their report about deploying SBU snipers after two “snipers” or spotters from the Maidan side

were noticed on a Maidan-controlled building, their preparation to storm this building, and an order from their superior to Alfa jointly with the Internal Troops to start this attack.
.
The current government and the parliamentary commission claimed without providing any evidence that Alfa burned the Trade Union building and that undercover SBU agents burned the Party of Regions headquarters. After these attacks, Berkut, the Internal Troops, and titushki assembled by the Yanukovych government launched a counterassault, and at least five Maidan protesters died as result of being beaten, driven over, or injured by stun grenades. At least six Maidan protesters were killed on February 18 and 19 by gunshots, primarily from hunting weapons and pellets, like was the case with three protesters killed in the end of January, 2014. The Maidan opposition and the current government asserted without providing any evidence that these protesters were gunned down by the Berkut and snipers, while similarities with the “snipers’” massacre on the Maidan are not considered and not investigated.

The Main Post Office at the time of the February 20th shootings was occupied by the Right Sector, an alliance of radical nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations and football ultras groups, which took active part in the violent attacks on the presidential administration on December 1, 2013 and the parliament in the end of January and on February 18, 2014. The Maidan company commander confirmed that at that time his special combat company, which included armed protesters with experience of fighting in armed conflicts, was based in the Conservatory building. He stated that this company was formed with an agreement of the Right Sector. In a new US documentary investigating the Maidan massacre, Berkut members said that they noticed protesters with the Right Sector insignia in the Music Conservatory building on February 19, that armed protesters took positions there, and that they were shot and wounded, while other Berkut officers killed by shooters from the second floor of the Conservatory in the morning of February 20. Maidan eyewitnesses among the protesters said that organized groups from Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions in Western Ukraine arrived on the Maidan and moved to the Music Conservatory at the night of the February 20 armed with rifles.

.

The seeming absence of the Right Sector and this combat company during the snipers’ massacre of the protesters is the “dog that did not bark” evidence pointing to their likely involvement. The leader of the Right Sector shortly after the midnight announced that his organization did not accept a truce agreement with Yanukovych and would undertake decisive actions against the government forces. A report by the head of the parliamentary commission concluded that “unknown civic organizations” could have been shooters of the police. But these cases of the killing and wounding of the police were not investigated by the government, specifically the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This ministry created, along with the Right Sector and the Social National Assembly, special police battalions, which fought in Donbas. Similarly, the National Guard was newly organized on the basis of the Internal Troops and the Maidan Self- Defense.

It was the same special combat company commander who called from the Maidan stage in the evening of February 21 to reject a signed agreement, which was mediated by foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland and a representative of the Russian president, and issued a public ultimatum for President Yanukovych to resign by 10:00am of the next day.



He justified his ultimatum by blaming Yanukovych for the massacre, stated that his combat company based in the Music Conservatory was responsible for the turning point of the Euromaidan, and threated an armed assault if Yanukovych would not resign. Yanukovych fled from Kyiv on the same day soon after this ultimatum was issued.
.
The types of guns and ammunition used and the direction and types of entry wounds among both protesters and policemen also confirm that the shooters came from the Maidan side. The parliamentary commission reported that 17 protesters were killed by buckshot (pellets), a part were shot dead from AKMS (7.62х39mm caliber), one from the Makarov handgun, while in most cases the bullets went through the bodies. The Prosecutor General Office stated on April 2 that a SKS semi-automatic “sniper” carbine, which has the same caliber as AKMS, was use to shoot protesters from the Hotel Ukraina, even though this outdated firearm was not used by professional snipers and was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon. But the Prosecutor General Office then began to claim that they still were checking if any snipers were in the hotel.
.

The head of the medical service of the Euromaidan and other medics reported that both protesters and the police were shot by similar ammunition, specifically 7.62mm caliber bullets and buckshot (pellets), and that they had similar types of wounds. This information was relayed by the Estonian minister of foreign affairs in his intercepted telephone call to the EU Foreign Affairs head. Various statements by medics, videos, photos, and media reports confirm that dozens of protesters were shot precisely in necks, heads, thighs, and hearts, the most lethal places, and that many entry wounds were from the top, side, or back.
.
This is consistent with locations of shooters on the roofs or top floors of all specified buildings. Precise and deadly gunshots and the 7.62mm KalashnikovAKMS type assault rifles and various hunting weapons and ammunition used also indicate that shooters were positioned within several dozen meters from the places where both the police and the protesters were killed or wounded.
.
Photos, videos, eyewitness testimonies and other sources demonstrate that some protesters were shooting with or openly carrying hunting and sporting rifles, Kalashnikov assault rifles and their hunting versions, Makarov, and other handguns during the mass shooting of the police and

the protesters. The parliamentary commission concluded that it was very likely that the policemen on the Maidan were shot from firearms and ammunition that were seized by protesters from the police, internal troops, and SBU offices and arsenals in Western Ukraine on February 18 and 19. These weapons specifically included 1,008 Makarov handguns, 59 AKMS (folding 7.62 caliber Kalashnikov assault rifles, two SVD sniper rifles, and various other rifles and shotguns. Their present whereabouts remain unknown.

The failure by the government to locate and identify the shooters of the protesters and investigate the shooting of the police and the similar failure of the Maidan Self-Defense to stop or detain them during the massacre in spite of their locations being known at that time and in spite of calls to do so from the protesters and the government officials also indicate that the shooters were from the Maidan side. Media reports, eyewitness accounts, the audio of the shooters, and statements by the former SBU head and internal affairs minister suggest that they included armed protesters and hired people with appropriate experience from Ukraine and foreign countries.
.
But the specific identities of the shooters and the politicians who directed them remain unknown. There were various public allegations concerning purported involvement in the massacre of specific politicians and political parties, but such allegations did not lead to any investigations since these politicians or their parties occupied various positions in the new government. The massacre master-minders and perpetrators are unlikely to be uncovered by the current government, even though it has much more evidence available that has still not been made public. This evidence includes reported videos of shooters from Muzeinyi Lane and the Trade Union buildings, intercepted radio communications of Berkut, and ballistic and medical expert reports.

.

Videos and photos of armed Berkut members shooting during their counterattack and then from barricades were cited by the top Ukrainian government officials and by the head of the special parliamentary commission and reported by the media as the undisputable proof that the special police units massacred the protesters. The Reuters reported that the prosecution case against three Berkut members relies on such videos and photos, and that some of key pieces of such evidence were misrepresented or ignored. However, the analysis of the publicly available evidence is inconclusive whether Berkut and Omega killed any of the protesters, specifically unarmed ones, because there were other shooters killing the protesters at the same very time. The head of the special parliamentary commission reported that ammunition expertise, contrary to an earlier claim by the minister of interior, failed to link any of their weapons to the killed protesters and that many of their Kalashnikov assault rifles, records of their use, and the bullet database disappeared when the new government was in power.
.
Similarly, while the new government and the head of the parliamentary commission publicly alleged that an order to kill unarmed protesters was issued personally by Yanukovych and that his entire government and law enforcement agencies and commanders of Berkut, Internal Troops, and SBU’s Alfa, were involved in this “criminal organization” by implementing this order and issuing similar orders, no evidence of such order was produced. Commanders of Alfa and its sniper team, Internal Troops, and Omega all denied receiving such an order, and their radio intercepts confirm this.
.
The “sniper massacre” fits a pattern of the politically motivated misrepresentations of the mass killing and other cases of violence by the same Ukrainian political forces and the media involved. Such cases include the Odesa massacre on May 2, 2014, killings of civilians in Donbas, and the beating of Tetiana Chornovol last December and the abduction of Dmytro Bulatov, two Maidan activists who became government ministers as a result of these highly publicized cases. The new investigations named the same suspects arrested in December in the Chornovol case and pursued as the possibility a version in which Bulatov’s abduction was staged. Contrary to the available evidence, the government claimed that more than 40 Odesa protesters died as result of a fire caused by them and claimed that separatists killed more than 1,000 civilians in Donbas by shelling them in their own cities and town. Similar cases include misrepresentations of the involvement of the OUN and the UPA in the mass killings of Poles and the Nazi-led mass murder of Jews and misrepresentations of more than 2,000 recently uncovered, primarily Jewish victims of Nazi-led executions in the town of Volodymyr- Volynskyi as Poles killed by the Soviet NKVD. While the various available evidence indicates that the Malaysian airliner in Donbas was likely shot down by separatists, such a track record also raises questions in this case.


Conclusion

The analysis and the evidence presented in this academic investigation put the Euromaidan and the conflict in Ukraine into a new perspective. The seemingly irrational mass shooting and killing of the protesters and the police on February 20 appear to be rational from self-interest based perspectives of rational choice and Weberian theories of instrumentally- rational action. This includes the following: the Maidan leaders gaining power as a result of the massacre, President Yanukovych and his other top government officials fleeing on February 21, 2014 from Kyiv and then from Ukraine, and the retreat by the police. The same concerns Maidan protesters being sent under deadly fire into positions of no important value and then being killed wave by wave from unexpected directions. Similarly, snipers killing unarmed protesters and targeting foreign journalists but not Maidan leaders, the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector headquarters, the Maidan stage, and pro-Maidan photographs become rational. While such actions are rational from a rational choice or instrumentally-rational theoretical perspective, the massacre not only ended many human lives but also undermined democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Ukraine.
.

The massacre of the protesters and the police represented a violent overthrow of the government in Ukraine and a major human rights crime. This violent overthrow constituted an undemocratic change of government. It gave start to a large-scale violent conflict that turned into a civil war in Eastern Ukraine, to a Russian military intervention in support of separatists in Crimea and Donbas, and to a de-facto break-up of Ukraine. It also escalated an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. The evidence indicates that an alliance of elements of the Maidan opposition and the far right was involved in the mass killing of both protesters and the police, while the involvement of the special police units in killings of some of the protesters cannot be entirely ruled out based on publicly available evidence. The new government that came to power largely as a result of the massacre falsified its investigation, while the Ukrainian media helped to misrepresent the mass killing of the protesters and the police. The evidence indicates that the far right played a key role in the violent overthrow of the government in Ukraine. This academic investigation also brings new important questions that need to be addressed.


NOTES
(1) Russian language explanation of the attack in the video presented above. 

Published on Jul 8, 2014

Повна версія відео подій у м. Київ, вул. Інститутська 20 лютого 2014 року. Прив’язка до часу, субтитри RU-UA-ENG. Обговорення у темі: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSvj8…

Начиная с 9:58:08 за кадром слышен голос комментатора российского телеканала “Life News” – 
From 9:58:08 listen voice of commentator Russian TV channel “Life News” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5Rq…
Народное расследование расстрела на ул. Институтской 20.02.14 ( систематизация инфо из сети ) – 
Civil investigate of the shooting on the str. Instytutska 20.02.14 (ordering information from the network)
https://drive.google.com/folderview?i…
Небесна сотня: місце злочину – Heaven`s hundred: crime scene.
https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0…
Google+ https://plus.google.com/b/11180713832…

9:07:18 – пули бьют в брусчатку и грунт перед наступающими, толпа отходит – bullets hit the pavement and the ground in front of 
attackers, the crowd is retreating
9:10:04 – желтые повязки возле дворца “Октябрь” – yellow armbands next to the “October” palace
9:10:52 – стрелляют боевыми патронами – live ammunition shots
9:11:46 – в руках четко виден автомат Калашникова – Kalashnikov assault rifle can be clearly seen in hands
9:12:35 – вдоль дворца “Октябрь” проезжает, предположительно, автомобиль Асавелюка Сергея Ивановича – a vehicle, presumably of Asaveluk Sergey Ivanovich is passing by ‘October’ palace
9:12:58 – желтые повязки возле дворца “Октябрь” стрелляют боевыми патронами – people with yellow armbands next to “October” palace shoot with live ammunition
9:13:00 – слева, внизу на холме, в красной каске, падает – at the left side of the hill foot a person wearing red helmet falls
9:13:02 – падает второй, стоящий рядом – a second one standing next to him falls too
9:21:30 – пули бьют в асфальт – bullets strike asphalt
9:22:40 – человек с ружьем возле дерева – a person with the rifle next to a tree
9:23:10 – тот же человек с ружьем – the same person with the rifle
9:28:54 – силовики, в желтых повязках, убегают вглубь улицы Институтской от барикады возле м.Хрещатик. Остальные, минимум один, продолжают отстреливаться, то ли по ним стреляют – law-enforcement officers in yellow armbands are running away up Institutskaya street from a barricade next to
9:42:55 – вспышка выстрела, предполагаемое место снайпера – второе окно от угла ул. Институтская 7 – discharge flash, presumed sniper position – second window from the corner of Institutskaya 7
9:45:35 – убивают парня через щит двумя пулями со стороны проезда между барикадами возле м.Хрещатик – a young guy is killed through his shield with two bullets which came from direction of the passage between barricades and Khreshchatik metro station
9:49:09 – убивают двоих за рекламным щитом – two persons are killed behind the billboard
9:54:04 – две пули попадают в столб (вторая похоже рикошет, перегрев ствола) – two bullets strike the pillar (a second one seems to be ricochet, overheating of the trunk)
9:55:34 – убивают парня в белой каске, который сидел за щитом и тумбой – a guy in white helmet sitting behind the shield and the wall is killed
9:55:43 – ранили убегающего парня в зеленом плаще – a guy in green coat running away is wounded
10:01:20 – ранили парня в ногу в белой каске – a guy in white helmet is wounded in his leg
10:06:23 – попадают в бронежилет парню в зелёной каске – bullets strike into bulletproof vest of the guy in green helmet
10:25:27 – попадают в человека, который убегает с передовой – a person running away from the front-rank is shot
12:05:26 – “Мирон” – “Miron”
З 9:11, двічі збивається таймер по хвилині, але о 9:15 знову показує правильно.







The Nazi war of annihilation against the Soviet Union: Part one

Nazi Policy on the Eastern Front, 1941: Total War, Genocide, and Radicalization


By Clara Weiss, wsws.org

Below is the first part of a two-part review of
 Nazi Policy on the Eastern Front: Total War, Genocide, and Radicalization, ed. by Alex J. Kay, Jeff Rutherford, David Stahel, Rochester University Press, 2012, 359 p.All quotations refer, unless otherwise indicated, to this book.

wsws-wiki-Europe_before_Operation_Barbarossa,_1941_(in_German)

The situation in Europe by May–June 1941, at the end of the Balkans Campaign and immediately before Operation Barbarossa. The dark grey indicates areas under German control.  Click image to enlarge. (Wikipedia)

 

[dropcap]In 2012[/dropcap] Rochester University Press published an important volume on the policies of the Nazis in the occupied territories of the former Soviet Union. The book is comprised of eleven essays on different aspects of Germany’s war of annihilation against the Soviet Union—the most brutal war history has ever seen. The material presented sheds light on the historical background to the criminal policies currently being pursued by US and German imperialism in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

Part 1: “Russia is to be reduced to the level of a nation of peasants, from which there is no return”

The Nazi war drive against the Soviet Union had two basic, interrelated aspects. First, “Operation Barbarossa” was a counterrevolutionary war aimed at dismembering the Soviet Union, reducing its republics to the status of colonies of the Third Reich, and reversing all the social and economic gains of the October Revolution. Despite the degeneration of the Soviet Union under the rule of the Stalinist bureaucracy, many achievements had, at least in part, been maintained and continued to serve as an inspiration to workers worldwide.

As one SS-Oberführer put it in the spring of 1941: “In Russia, all cities and cultural sites including the Kremlin, are to be razed to the ground; Russia is to be reduced to the level of a nation of peasants, from which there is no return.” [P. 108]

Second, control over the enormous resources of the Soviet Union—not only agricultural produce, but also oil (particularly in what is now Azerbaijan)—was considered necessary for fighting a war against the United States, Germany’s most important imperialist rival, for world hegemony. While not explained in Marxist terms, these driving motives are noted in the book. The essays focusing on food policy, in particular, show how these two objectives were interrelated.

German historian Adrian Wettstein writes: “The hunger strategy was part of the war of annihilation and aimed at the starvation of up to thirty million Soviets in the wooded regions of Belarus and northern Russia, as well as in the cities. Its success would supply continental Europe’s inhabitants with the foodstuffs they would otherwise have to import from overseas, making continental Europe—in other words, German-occupied Europe—immune from naval blockade, and thereby preparing the German sphere of control for the looming confrontation with the Anglo-Saxon powers.” [P. 62]

The Generalplan Ost [Master Plan East—the military strategy that served as the basis for “Operation Barbarossa”] envisaged the targeted starvation of some 30 million people in western and northwestern Russia. This policy would not only ensure food supplies for Germany’s war effort, but also create “Lebensraum” [living space] for an expansion of the Nazi empire.

German Advancement on the Eastern Front in 1941German Advancement on the Eastern Front in 1941

An essay by Alex J. Kay, author of an extensive study of Generalplan Ost, provides important material demonstrating that Nazi policy was primarily directed against the Soviet working class. He notes: “Coincidence or not, thirty million was the amount by which the Soviet population—exclusively the urban population—had grown between the beginning of World War I in 1914 and the beginning of World War II in 1939. According to the economic policy guidelines of May 23, it was ‘in particular the population of the cities’ that would ‘have to face the most terrible famine.’” [P. 112]

In this strategy, Ukraine occupied a key place. Herbert Backe, Reichsminister für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (RMEL), one of the key planners of Operation Barbarossa, designated Ukraine as a “surplus” territory because it exported grain to other republics of the USSR—above all, the RSFSR (largely consistent with what is now the Russian Federation).

Herbert Bracke [© Bundesarchiv]

Herbert Backe [© Bundesarchiv]

Occupied Ukraine, overrun by the Wehrmacht in the summer of 1941, was henceforth to produce solely for the requirements of the Third Reich and be cut off from the rest of the Soviet Union, leaving millions of people without necessary grain supplies. Ukraine was also considered a strategic asset as a major source of coal (in the Donets Basin), as a highly industrialized region, and as a bridge toward the Black Sea region.

A contribution in the volume by Jeff Rutherford focuses on the starvation policy in Pavlovsk, one of the suburbs of Leningrad that was besieged by the Germans for 900 days from autumn 1941 to early 1944. Cut off from grain supplies from Ukraine and unable to obtain food supplies from the surrounding countryside, the town’s inhabitants quickly faced devastating hunger.

Individual Wehrmacht soldiers living in the occupied city tried to help the starving population. However, any softening of the policy was vehemently opposed by the Army leadership.

In an order from October 10, 1941, Generalfeldmarschall Walther von Reichenau emphasized that “… What the Heimat [Homeland] has spared, what the command has brought to the front despite great difficulties, should not be given by the troops to the enemy, even when it comes from war booty. This is a necessary part of our supply.” [P. 138]

As the resistance of the Red Army grew toward the end of 1941 and the German Wehrmacht was unable to advance further to virgin soil regions, the acquisition of food stuffs from the population in occupied cities such as Pavlovsk became even more brutal.

Of the 11,000 inhabitants of the town (1939 census), 6,000 starved to death during the German occupation. Rutherford notes that the fate of Pavlovsk was “symptomatic of the general misery that accompanied German occupation.” [P. 146]

In addition to millions of civilians, some 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war out of a total of 5.7 million captured died in captivity, mostly of starvation. Of those 3.3 million, 2 million died in the first seven months of the war, before the beginning of February 1942.

The starvation policy was linked to the systematic devastation of Soviet cities. With the assault on the USSR, urban warfare in World War II acquired new dimensions. In Western Europe, the only city to experience a siege by the Nazi army was Rotterdam (in May 1940). In Eastern Europe, urban warfare and the siege of cities—usually aimed, at least in part, at starving the population—were integral parts of the war.

The first Eastern European city to face Nazi urban warfare was Warsaw, where the Wehrmacht met unexpected resistance following its invasion on September 1, 1939. But even in comparison to the brutal sieges of Warsaw and Rotterdam, urban warfare in the Soviet Union was particularly violent. Here, there were no orders to avoid, at least to some extent, excessive cruelty against civilians.

The essay by historian Adrian Wettstein, which focuses on the Battle for Dnipropetrovsk, is significant in this regard. While hitherto little researched, the Battle for Dnipropetrovsk was an important turning point in the war in the east.

With a population of 500,000 in 1939 (up from 100,000 in the 1920s), the city formed an important infrastructural and strategic nexus. It took the Wehrmacht much longer than expected to break the resistance of the Red Army and conquer the city.

In the course of the one month the German advance was delayed, important steps were taken to mobilize the Red Army and marshal economic resources for the defense of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the city of Dnipropetrovsk was entirely destroyed. It faced, as Wettstein notes, “one of the strongest concentrations of artillery during the entirety of Operation Barbarossa.”

This provides insight into the criminal historical antecedents for the current siege of the city by the Western-installed regime in Kiev. In the spring of 2014, for the first time since the end of World War II, the city’s working class was confronted with massive artillery fire from the Ukrainian army, spearheaded by Ukrainian fascist forces and supported by the Western imperialist powers.

A criminal war from beginning to end

Several essays in the book focus on the preparations for Operation Barbarossa. While presenting only some of the most important facts, they provide an unambiguous refutation of revisionist theories that seek to portray the crimes of the Nazis in the Soviet Union as a mere “reaction” to the violence of the Russian Revolution.

Most prominently, German historian Ernst Nolte argued in the 1980s that the crimes of the Nazis, and, in particular, Auschwitz, constituted a “fear-borne reaction to the acts of annihilation” triggered by the Russian Revolution. “The demonization of the Third Reich,” Nolte insisted, “is unacceptable.” [1] (See: “An attempt to rehabilitate Hitler”)

More recently, Professor Jörg Baberowski argued in the German magazine Der Spiegel that, unlike Stalin, “Hitler wasn’t vicious,” and that “historically speaking, he [Nolte] was right.”

In fact, Operation Barbarossa was from the beginning conceived of as a war of unrestrained plunder and colonial subjugation of the peoples of the Soviet Union. All basic tenets of international and military law were to be ignored.
Bodies of executed Soviet civilians [© Yad Vashem Photo Archive
Bodies of executed Soviet civilians [© Yad Vashem Photo Archive]

In his contribution, German historian Felix Römer focuses on the criminal orders issued by Hitler to the eastern Army on the eve of the assault on the Soviet Union. The most notorious was the “Commissar Order.” It said: “In this battle [against Bolshevism, CW] it would be a mistake to show mercy or respect for international law towards such elements… The barbaric, Asiatic fighting methods are originated by the political commissars… Therefore, when they are picked up in battle or resistance, they are, as a matter of principle, to be finished immediately with a weapon.” [2]

In post-war Germany, it was vehemently denied that these orders had ever been issued to the Wehrmacht in the east, let alone carried out. This changed only in the 1970s and 1980s.

Still, the extent of the Wehrmacht’s involvement in such crimes was either not researched or belittled. (See: “The debate in Germany over the crimes of Hitler’s Wehrmacht”). Felix Römer carried out the first comprehensive research on the Wehrmacht’s pursuit of Hitler’s criminal orders. He draws the following devastating conclusion:

“For almost all formations that fought on the Eastern Front, there is evidence of their adherence to the Commissar Order… As a rule, every time the external prerequisites were fulfilled and the units were actually in the position of having to apply the Commissar Order, they decided to do so.” [Pp. 88, 91]
Ukraine, Kharkov, Civilians hanged by the Germans in retaliation
Ukraine, Kharkov, Civilians hanged by the Germans in retaliation for a terrorist attack on German headquarters, November 1941 [© Yad Vashem Photo Archive]

The total number of commissars who fell victim to murder by the Wehrmacht is difficult to establish. Römer cites a minimum figure of around 4,000, and adds that “[t]he actual number of victims must, however, be set much higher (…).” [P. 88]

The Commissar Order was eventually canceled in June 1942. Nazi generals were concerned over the fact that the order had strengthened the already enormous resistance of the Red Army and contributed to record-high German casualties.

The other criminal order analyzed by Römer, the Martial Jurisdiction Decree, issued on May 31, 1941, established that crimes committed by the Wehrmacht against the civilian population were not subject to the jurisdiction of military courts. In other words, Soviet civilians were declared fair game. Römer states that there is “hardly a division and no corps or army in whose records evidence of executions of Soviet civilians and real and alleged partisans without legal proceedings cannot be found.” [P. 84]

The total number of casualties among Soviet civilians has to this day not been definitively established, but is usually put at around 18 million out of a total of some 27 million people from the Soviet Union who died in the war.

To be continued.

**


 

[1] Ernst Nolte, “Between Historical Legend and Revisionism? The Third Reich in the Perspective of 1980,” in Forever in the Shadow of Hitler? Original Documents of the Historikerstreit, the controversy concerning the singularity of the Holocaust, Humanities Press, 1993, pp. 14, 15.

[2] Yitzhik Arad, Yisrael Gutman, Abraham Margaliot (eds.): Documents on the Holocaust: Selected Sources on the Destruction of the Jews of Germany and Austria, Poland, and the Soviet Union, Jerusalem/Oxford 1981, p. 376.





 

And now a word from the Editors of The Greanville Post


FRIENDS AND FELLOW ACTIVISTS—

AS YOU KNOW, THERE’S A COLOSSAL INFORMATION WAR GOING ON, AND THE FATE OF THE WORLD LITERALLY HANGS ON THE OUTCOME.

THEIR LIES.
THEIR CONSTANT PROPAGANDA.

OUR TRUTH.

HUGE ISSUES ARE BEING DECIDED: Nuclear war, whether we’ll live in democracy or tyranny, dignity or destitution, planetary salvation or doom…
It’s a battle of communications we can’t afford to lose. 


So, we request that you do something.
Reading is not enough. Action of some sort is needed.

Start with something simple: Share our posts.
If you don’t, how can we ever neutralize the power of the corporate media?

And if you took the time to read this article, and found it worth SHARING, then why not sign up with our special bulletin to be included in our future distributions? And please tell others about The Greanville Post. 


YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS (SIGNUPS TO THE GREANVILLE POST BULLETIN, SEE BELOW) ARE COMPLETELY FREE, ALWAYS. AND WE DO NOT SELL OR RENT OUR EMAIL ADDRESS DATABASES—EVER. That’s a guarantee.