Congress takes a tiny first step — the Conyers-Soho Amendment

By George Eliason
Global Research, June 19, 2015

Last week Congressmen John Conyers and Soho’s stance against providing weapons to Ukrainian nazi battalions should have been lauded by Americans because they stood up for our American values. The Ukrainian reaction to the amendment they attached on the support bill denying money to neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine provides the most telling look into Ukrainian nationalist politics the west has seen so far.

Kiev is “cleaning up” a few of the neo-nazi punisher groups many journalists including myself have been writing about over the 1 ½ years. This small admission that the torture, rape, sodomy, and murder of innocent civilians is geared to show their “democratic values.” In true Ukrainian nationalist fashion, they still give medals to the most egregious perpetrators and make examples that give photo ops for the press service.

The truth is that the crimes have been lauded across the spectrum of the Ukrainian government and as over the top as some of the stories coming out of Donbas seemed; they only scratch the surface. Ukrainian nationalism demands that its followers act without thinking, and heroism is doing the unthinkable and unspeakable. A real Ukrainian hero doesn’t need to sacrifice himself. A true hero according to this ideology will sacrifice everybody or anybody around them first (You really can’t make this stuff up!).

said Rep. John Conyers. 

I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion…

Responding to this Andrei Bilitsky, Ukrainian Senate MP and founder of Azov Battalion stated that American’s have no right to judge Ukrainian law enforcing structures.

He said this despite the fact that Ukraine is surviving on American handouts. Instead of building the democratic government it promised at the coup, Ukrainian nationalists have squandered the nation’s wealth trying to destroy part of its own population and infrastructure.

Biletsky couldn’t resist laying blame on Vladimir Putin by saying the amendment was the result of Russian lobbyists influence in Congress. With the anti-Russian sentiment on the Hill today, does this even sound plausible in his own ears?

Before going further, I ask; Does the US Congress have the obligation to question the morality, legality, and ethics of any party that wants American tax dollar support?

To be fair, the Americans defending the Azov Battalion and directing Ukraine’s Info War stated for the record:

Congressman, the Azov battalion uses symbology reminiscent of Neo-Nazis, but the Azov Battalion is neither full of Neo-Nazis nor do they engage in Neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic or Racially prejudiced behavior, and I have watched them, consistently, for close to 18 months.”

Quite clearly, Joel Harding knows Azov Battalion very well. If he’s correct then adding the amendment to the bill was wrong. That’s just a simple, logical, and unbiased assessment. Looking at the other side of the coin, with his credentials, if he’s covering up for Azov, then Congress needs to do a deep inspection on all parties supporting Ukraine.

Biletsky goes further and says America isn’t living up to the Budapest Memorandum which guaranteed the protection of Ukraine in the event Ukraine was attacked. Ukraine gave up its right to carry nuclear weapons based on this guarantee. After the Coup, the government of Ukraine announced it was a new state. It’s even gone as far to say it doesn’t owe the debts of the deposed government.

Did Russia Ever Attack Ukraine?

In a candid moment according to the person who developed their infowar and propaganda machine –

 “Once Ukraine determined that the RF (Russian Federation) was not going to attack and Russia was not a credible threat, they launched their Anti-Terrorist Operations against the rebels (p 65).”

If Russia had at any point invaded Ukraine the United States was bound to respond militarily. Because it never happened, there could not be a real military response to an attack that exists only inside Ukrainian and American propaganda.

Experts like Ukrainian interim-president Torchynov, the SBU, and Ukraine’s own top generals have testified that no Russian invasion has ever happened on multiple occasions.

What does Andrei Biletsky really think about the Americans he wants to fund and equip Azov Battalion?

Continue reading

Advertisements

U.S. to start training Nazi troops in Ukraine, on April 20th, Hitler’s birthday

by Eric Zuesse
April 5, 2015
RINF.com

It has just been announced that, on April 20th (Hitler’s birthday), U.S. troops will start training troops of Ukraine’s nazi Azov Battalion

The Azov Battalion was founded and its members were selected by Andrei Biletsky, a Ukrainian nazi (that’s an ideological term, meaning racist fascist — not a term referring specifically to the first political party with that particular ideology, the National Socialist Party of Germany). When Britain’s Guardian interviewed members, the reporter was shocked to find that they’re nazis (“neo-Nazis”).

Biletsky proudly explains his ideology as follows:

“Social Nationalism is based on a number of fundamental principles that clearly distinguish it from other right-wing movements. This triad is: socialism, racism, imperialism. … On the principle of socialism [in the sense that Hitler used it] follows our complete negation of democracy and liberalism. … Instead there is natural selection of the best representatives of the Nation — born-leaders as Ukraine’s leaders. … Racism: All our nationalism is nothing — just a castle in the sand — without reliance on the foundationstone of blood Races. … 

The historic mission of our Nation, a watershed in this century, is thus to lead the White peoples of the world in the final crusade for their survival. It is to lead the war against Semites and the sub-humans they use.  … Social Nationalism raises to shield all old Ukrainian Aryan values, forgotten in modern society.”

Biletsky founded the Azov Battalion soon after Obama’s February 2014 coup in Kiev, which was led by Andriy Parubiy, who had co-founded the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine. Parubiy’s masked men in the coup dressed as if they were Ukrainian security forces, and fired onto demonstrators during the Maidan demonstrations against Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych. They were paid by the CIA at the U.S. Embassy, and they included both foreign mercenaries and troops who had been trained by Dmitriy Yarosh, who had founded another of Ukraine’s nazi parties, this one called Right Sector. Most of the coup’s perpetrators were members of Right Sector, which, in addition to being a party, has an estimated 7,000 troops of its own, who were trained under Yarosh’s command.

The Azov Battalion was established on 13 April 2014 by the newly appointed post-coup Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, who had been appointed by the interim Ukrainian President Oleksandr Turchynov, who had been appointed by the person anointed (nominally temporarily but actually) permanently as Ukraine’s Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whose anointment came from the U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Pyatt, after Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland had instructed him on 4 February 2014, just 18 days before the coup, to do that. 

So, this overthrow was well planned in advance. In fact, it had even been arranged prior to its alleged precipitating-event, which was Yanukovych’s having announced on 20 November 2013 that he was turning down the EU’s offer to Ukraine. Yanukovych turned it down because his advisors calculated that it would cost Ukraine $160 billion.

Apparently, the Obama regime had already known, ahead of time, that it would cost Ukraine so much that Yanukovych would have to reject it. And his saying no to it turned out to be a popular political move. Public sentiment in Ukraine on whether the nation was heading in the “right direction” or the “wrong direction” boomed just after the decision: the “right direction” score, which was at a nearly two-year low of only 15.4% just a month before the decision’s announcement (which was the period when it seemed likeliest that Ukraine was heading into the EU), shot up to a nearly four-year high of 26.1% just a month after the announcement and while the U.S.-engineered “Maidan” demonstrations against Yanukovych were raging against Yanukovych. But, Obama didn’t really care at all about Ukrainian public opinion. He already had the support of Ukraine’s nazis, and that’s all he actually needed.

So: now he is expressing his appreciation, by providing America’s best military training, to Ukraine’s best nazi troops.

Going back again to that coup, in order the better to understand this history: Nuland had probably been informed ahead of time, by the lawyer for Yulia Tymoshenko — she was the founder of the third nazi party of Ukraine, which is called “Fatherland” — that Tymoshenko (in prison at the time, on a corruption conviction) said that Yatsenyuk was her most loyal lieutenant and was the person who would be the most cooperative in relinquishing power to her if and when Tymoshenko would be released from prison immediately after the planned coup and after she would then run for the Presidency and win it. She was expected to win, because she had come in a close second to Yanukovych in the last, the 2010, Presidential election, and especially because she was expected to be even more popular after a coup in which the man who had gotten her convicted, Yanukovych, would himself now have been framed by the Obama regime for the violence that the U.S. had planned in order to bring him down.

Yatsenyuk, Turchynov, and Avakov, were all members of Tymoshenko’s Fatherland Party; and, so, the entire security apparatus of the new, post-coup, state was under Tymoshenko’s control, from the very moment of the coup — which was why she was freed from prison by them on the very day of the coup.

But Tymoshenko, during her Presidential campaign, overplayed her hand: She got taped in a private phone-conversation during the campaign, saying (as this documentary excerpted and is transcribed here, and which was an accurate reflection of what she had said at the time):

Continue reading