coup

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s remarks at UN Security Council meeting on situation in Ukraine – September 20, 2023

Posted by

0

From the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the UN Security Council meeting “Upholding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter through effective multilateralism: maintenance of peace and security of Ukraine,” New York, September 20, 2023

Mr President,

Mr Secretary-General,

Colleagues.

The international order as it exists today emerged from the ruins of World War II and resulted from this tremendous tragedy. The UN Charter served as its foundation, as the key source of present-day international law. It is largely thanks to the United Nations that a new world war leading to a nuclear catastrophe has been averted.

Unfortunately, when the Cold War came to an end, the US-led so-called collective West appropriated the right to rule the destinies of the entire humankind and, driven by its exceptionalism complex, started ignoring the legacy of the UN founding fathers more often and on an increasingly greater scale.

Today, the West makes selective use of the Charter’s norms and principles, on a case-by-case basis, and only when they serve its vested geopolitical needs. This inevitably throws global stability off-balance, exacerbating the existing hotbeds of tension and creating new ones, which in turn raises the spectre of a global conflict in the process. Seeking to offset these risks and ensure that events unfold in a peaceful manner, Russia has been insisting and keeps insisting that all the provisions of the UN Charter be respected and carried out in full and with due regard for their interconnected nature, rather than selectively, including the principles of the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, respect for territorial integrity and the right of people to self-determination. However, we see that the balance of requirements stipulated in the Charter is being trampled upon by the actions undertaken by the United States and its allies.

The United States and its allies have been interfering in Ukraine’s domestic affairs in a blatant and open manner since the dissolution of the USSR, when independent states replaced it. In late 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland admitted publicly and even with some pride that Washington spent $5 billion on nurturing politicians in Kiev that would obey the West.

All the facts on how the Ukraine crisis was engineered have long been exposed, while everything is being done to sweep them under the carpet as if they wanted to cancel everything that happened before 2014. For this reason, the topic of today’s meeting as suggested by the Albanian Presidency is very timely. It offers us an opportunity to restore the sequence of events in the context of the way the key actors have been carrying out the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

In 2004 and 2005, the West sought to bring a pro-American candidate to power and for this purpose gave the green light to the first government coup in Kiev by forcing the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to adopt an illegal decision for holding a third round in the presidential election, even though the country’s Constitution does not provide for it. The West acted in an even more heavy-handed manner when it interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs in 2013 and 2014, during the second Maidan movement. At the time, Western visitors travelled there one after another to directly encourage those taking part in anti-government demonstrations to engage in violence. It was the same Victoria Nuland who discussed the future cabinet to be formed by the putsch perpetrators with the US Ambassador in Kiev. At the same time, she showed where the European Union actually belongs, in Washington’s thinking, on the international political stage. We remember the two words she said, and it is quite telling that the European Union swallowed it.

Handpicked by the Americans, the key actors took part in carrying out a bloody coup in February 2014. Let me remind you that it was organised the next day after the legitimately elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, reached an agreement with the opposition leaders, with Germany, Poland and France acting as the guarantors. The principle of non-interference in domestic affairs was trampled upon many times over.

Right after the coup, its perpetrators said that curtailing the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population was their utmost priority. They designated people in Crimea and southeastern regions who refused to accept the anti-constitutional coup as terrorists and unleashed a punitive operation against them. Crimea and Donbass responded by holding referendums in full compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as enshrined in Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the UN Charter.

When it comes to Ukraine, Western diplomats and politicians have been turning a blind eye to this fundamental tenet of international law in an attempt to cast what led to these developments and their meaning as being merely an unacceptable violation of territorial integrity. In this connection, I would like to recall the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States. It reads that the principle of territorial integrity applies to “states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples <…> and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory.” It goes without saying that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis who seized power in Kiev did not represent the people of Crimea or Donbass. As for the unquestionable support the Western capitals offered to the criminal Kiev regime, it was nothing short of violating the self-determination principle on top on interfering in domestic affairs.

Following the government coup, Ukraine adopted racist laws to cancel everything Russian during Petr Poroshenko’s and Vladimir Zelensky’s presidencies, including education, media, culture, destroying books and monuments, banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and seizing its property. All this constituted a blatant violation of Article 1, Paragraph 3 of the UN Charter, which talks about encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Let alone the fact that these actions clearly ran counter to the Constitution of Ukraine under which the state is under obligation to respect the rights of Russians and other ethnic minorities.

Hearing calls to follow the so-called peace formula and return Ukraine within its 1991 borders raises the following question: are those making these calls aware of the statements by the Ukrainian leadership on what they intend to do to the people living in those territories? These people have been targeted by multiple public threats of being exterminated, either in legal or physical terms, and this has been happening at an official level. Not only is the West unwilling to hold back its protégés in Kiev, but enthusiastically encourages them in their racist policies.

Similarly, the EU and NATO have been encouraging Latvia and Estonia for decades in their efforts to deny hundreds of thousands of Russian speakers their rights by designating them as non-citizens. They are now seriously discussing introducing criminal liability for using one’s native tongue. High-ranking officials have been making public statements that spreading information about opportunities for local students to follow the Russian school curriculum remotely must be viewed as nothing short of a national security threat requiring the attention of law enforcement agencies.

But getting back to Ukraine, the UN Security Council adopted a dedicated resolution to approve the February 2015 Minsk Agreements in full compliance with Article 36 of the Charter, which supports “any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.” In this case, the parties included Kiev, the DPR and the LPR. However, last year, all those who signed the Minsk Agreements, apart from Vladimir Putin, i.e., Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko, all recognised in public and with a certain degree of satisfaction that they had no intention of fulfilling this document when they signed it. In fact, all they wanted was to win some time to reinforce Ukraine’s military capabilities and supply it with more weapons for countering Russia. For all these years, the EU and NATO engaged in an outright effort to support Kiev in sabotaging the Minsk Agreements while encouraging the Kiev regime to resolve the so-called Donbass issue by force. All this was being done in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, which says that all UN members must “accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

Let me recall that the Minsk Package included a declaration signed by the leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine. In it, Berlin and Paris undertook to do many things, including help restore the banking system in Donbass. However, they did not even move a finger. All they did was stand back and watch Petr Poroshenko impose a trade, economic and transport blockade on Donbass despite all these commitments. In the same declaration, Berlin and Paris undertook to facilitate trilateral cooperation between the EU, Russia and Ukraine for addressing Russia’s concerns in trade, as well as promote the “creation of a joint humanitarian and economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific.” The Security Council adopted this declaration too, making it binding under Article 25 of the UN Charter as I have already mentioned. But this commitment by the leaders of Germany and France turned out to be null and void, becoming yet another violation of the Charter’s principles.

Andrey Gromyko, the legendary Foreign Minister of the USSR, often said, quite rightly, that “ten years of talks are better than one day of war.” In keeping with this maxim, we spent many years in talks and sought agreements on European security. We approved the Russia-NATO Founding Act and adopted OSCE declarations on indivisible security at the highest level in 1999 and 2010. Since 2015, we have been insisting that the Minsk Agreements be executed in full and without any exemptions as agreed during the talks. In all these instances, we acted in full compliance with the UN Charter, which talks about establishing “conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.” Our Western colleagues have trampled upon this principle too by signing all these documents knowing in advance that they would not fulfil them.

As for talks, we do not refuse to talk now either. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said this on numerous occasions, including recently. I would like to remind the Secretary of State that President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky has signed an executive order prohibiting talks with the government of Vladimir Putin. If the United States is interested in such talks, I think it only needs to give the signal for Zelensky’s order to be cancelled.

Today, the rhetoric of our opponents is full of slogans such as “invasion,” “aggression” and “annexation.” They do not say a word about the inner reasons for the problem, or the fact that for many years they nurtured a downright Nazi regime, which is openly rewriting the results of World War II and the history of their own people. The West does not want to hold a substantial discussion based on facts and respect for all the requirements of the UN Charter, probably because they have no arguments for an honest dialogue.

One gets a strong impression that Western representatives are afraid of professional discussions where their empty rhetoric can be exposed. While chanting their mantras about the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the former colonial powers keep silent about the UN decisions inviting France to return the island of Mayotte to the Comoros and Britain to withdraw from the Chagos Islands and to resume negotiations with Argentina to resolve the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) issue. These “advocates” of Ukraine’s territorial integrity pretend to have forgotten the essence of the Minsk Agreements, under which Donbass was to be reintegrated into Ukraine on the condition of guaranteed respect for all the fundamental human rights, primarily the right to one’s own language. The West, which thwarted their implementation, is directly responsible for the disintegration of Ukraine and for inciting a civil war there.

Regarding other principles of the UN Charter, respect for which could have prevented the security crisis in Europe and could have helped coordinate confidence measures based on a balance of interests, I would like to cite Article 2 of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. It calls for developing the practice of a peaceful settlement of local disputes through regional organisations.

In accordance with that principle, Russia and its allies have been consistently encouraging contacts between the CSTO and NATO for promoting the implementation of decisions on the indivisibility of security adopted at the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2010. They stipulate, in part, that “no state, group of states or organisation can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence.” Everyone knows that this is exactly what NATO has been doing, that is has been trying to create its complete pre-eminence first in Europe and now in the Asia-Pacific region. Numerous appeals from the CSTO to NATO were disregarded. The reason for that arrogance of the United States and its allies, as everyone can see today, is their unwillingness to conduct an equal dialogue with anyone. If NATO had not rejected the CSTO’s offers of cooperation, this could have likely prevented many of the negative processes that have led to the current European crisis because they refused to listen to Russia or deceived it for decades.

Today, when we are discussing “effective multilateralism” at the initiative of the presidency, we should also recall the numerous facts of Western rejection of any form of equal cooperation. One shocking example of the phrase by Josep Borrel, who said that “Europe is a garden [and] most of the rest of the world is a jungle.” It is a clear neocolonial syndrome and evidence of disregard for the sovereign equality of states and the goal of using effective multilateralism to defend the principles of the UN Charter, which we are discussing today.

Trying to hinder efforts to make international relations more democratic, the United States and its allies are taking over the secretariats of international organisations increasingly openly and impudently, violating the established procedure to create mechanisms with non-consensual mandates, which they can control and use to condemn anyone who does not suit Washington for whatever reason.

In this connection, I would like to remind you that not only member states but also the UN Secretariat must strictly comply with the UN Charter. Under Article 100 of the UN Charter, the Secretariat must act without bias and “shall not seek or receive instructions from any government.”

I have already mentioned Article 2 of the UN Charter. I would like to draw your attention to its main principle: “1. The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” In accordance with that principle, the UN General Assembly adopted a declaration on October 24, 1970, which I have mentioned before, to reaffirm that “every state has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another state.” In this connection, we have serious questions for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who said on March 29, 2023, that “autocratic leadership is not a guarantor of stability; it is a catalyst of chaos and conflict,” whereas “strong democratic societies are places that are capable of self-correction — and self-improvement. They can enable change — even radical change – without bloodshed and violence.” This brings to mind the “changes” that resulted from the actions of “strong democratic societies” in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many other countries.

Antonio Guterres went on to say that “they [strong democratic societies] are centres for broad-based cooperation, rooted in the principles of equality, participation and solidarity.” It is notable that these statements were made at the “summit for democracy,” which was convened by US President Joe Biden outside the UN framework, whose participants were chosen by the US Administration based on the principle of loyalty not to so much to Washington as to the ruling Democratic Party. The attempts to use such forums as a crony gathering for discussing global matters stand in direct conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the UN Charter, which says that the purpose of the United Nations is “to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”

Contrary to that principle, France and Germany announced several years ago the establishment of an Alliance for Multilateralism, to which they invited those who are obedient, which confirmed the initiators’ colonial mentality and attitude to the principle of effective multilateralism we are discussing today. At the same time, they promoted the narrative about the EU as the ideal example of “multilateralism.” Today, Brussels calls for the EU enlargement as soon as possible, in particular, in the Balkans. Moreover, the main focus is not on Serbia or Turkey, which have been holding useless accession talks for decades, but on Ukraine. Josep Borrel, who claims the role of the ideologist of European integration, has recently gone as far as to call for accelerating the admission of the Kiev regime into the EU. According to him, without the war, Ukraine’s candidacy would have taken years, but now it can and should be admitted without any conditions. Serbia, Turkey and other candidates can wait, but a Nazi regime can be admitted out of turn.

By the way, the UN Secretary-General said the following at that “summit for democracy”: “Democracy flows from the United Nations Charter. Its opening invocation of ‘We the Peoples’ reflects the fundamental source of legitimate authority: the consent of the governed.” I suggest comparing that thesis with the “achievements” of the Kiev regime, which launched a war against a large part of its own people, the millions of people who did not grant their consent to be governed by the neo-Nazis and Russophobes who usurped authority in the country and buried the Minsk Agreements approved by the UN Security Council, thereby disrupting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Those who divide the world into “democratic societies” and “autocracies,” contrary to the UN Charter, should ask themselves which of the two the Kiev regime is. But I do not expect them to answer.

When we talk about the principles of the UN Charter, we should also address the issue of relations between the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. The Western “team” has been aggressively espousing the idea of the “abuse of veto” for a long time and has ensured – by putting pressure on other UN member states – the adoption of a decision on convening a General Assembly meeting every time the veto is cast, even though it is the West that provokes this increasingly frequently. We do not regard this as a problem. Russia’s positions on all issues on the agenda are open to the public. We have nothing to hide, and it is not difficult for us to put forth our positions again. Besides, veto is an absolutely legitimate instrument that is stipulated in the UN Charter to prevent the adoption of decisions that can split the Organisation. However, since the procedure of discussing every veto at a General Assembly meeting has been approved, why not discuss also the Security Council resolutions that have been adopted, including many years ago, but are not being implemented, contrary to the provisions of Article 25 of the UN Charter? Why cannot the General Assemble discuss reasons for this, for example, with regard to UNSC resolutions on Palestine and the entire range of issues related to the Middle East and North Africa, the JCPOA, or Resolution 2202, which approved the Minsk Agreements on Ukraine?

The issue of sanctions should be given attention as well. It has become standard practice that after the UNSC adopts sanctions against a certain country, after long discussions and in strict compliance with the UN Charter, the United States and its allies adopt “additional” unilateral restrictions against that same state without the approval of the Security Council or the inclusion of these sanctions into a council’s resolution within the framework of a coordinated package. A regrettable illustration is a recent decision by Germany, France and Britain to use their national legislations to “extend” restrictions against Iran, which will expire in October under UNSC Resolution 2231. In other words, European countries and Britain have announced that they do not care that the UNSC decision has expired, because they have their own “rules.”

This is why it is so important to consider a decision according to which nobody will have a right to devalue UNSC resolutions on sanctions by adopting their own illegitimate restrictions against that same country.

Furthermore, all sanctions regimes adopted by the UN Security Council should have an expiry date, because the lack of a deadline is undermining the council’s flexibility when it comes to the ability to influence the policies of sanctioned governments.

It is also necessary to address the issue of the “humanitarian limits of sanctions.” It would make sense for the drafts of sanctions proposals submitted to the Security Council to include the assessment of their possible humanitarian consequences made by the UN human rights bodies, rather than the empty rhetoric of our Western colleagues to the effect that “ordinary people will not suffer.”

Colleagues,

Facts point to a deep crisis in international relations and the absence of the Western countries’ desire and will to overcome this crisis.

I hope a way out of this situation exists and will be found. But first all of us should acknowledge our responsibility for the future of our Organisation and the world in the historical context rather than in terms of the immediate populist electoral considerations in any member state. I would like to repeat that, when global leaders signed the UN Charter nearly 80 years ago, they agreed to respect the sovereign equality of all states be they big or small, rich or poor, monarchies or republics. In other words, back then humanity recognised the importance of an equal and polycentric world order as the guarantee of stable and safe development.

Therefore, the issue today is not about giving our consent to a “rules-based world order” but about fulfilling the obligations all of us assumed by signing and ratifying the UN Charter in their entirety and as a whole.

https://mid.ru/en/press_service/video/view/1905317/

Why does the collective West wage a direct war against Russia?

Posted by

0

From Strategis Stability
January 31, 2023

Report # 197.

1. NATO and non-NATO countries are waging a multifaceted direct war against Russia

The bellicose and provocative statement made publicly by Annalena Baerbock, German Foreign Minister, at the PACE session on January 24 that “… we are fighting a war against Russia …”, where “we” can be interpreted as the FRG or NATO or Europe, evoked many debates as to what is really happening in Ukraine. No doubt that such countries that regularly supply heavy weapons to ultra-Nazi regime in Kiev may well be characterized as “aggressors” or as countries that are waging a multifaceted direct war against Russia. They include the majority of NATO member-states (29 from 30 in the full list), and nearly 20 that are not considered as NATO participants.

Earlier it was called as ‘undeclared war” against Russia. Since Baerbock’s statement it clearly became as “a declared war’ against Russia.

Why such war is called as a multifaceted direct war?

A) In terms of military-technical and military-political factors:

It is called as such because it is unleashed with the use of heavy NATO-made offensive weapons. It is coordinated by NATO HQ. It is supplied with NATO intelligence, including that of collected by space-based assets. It is financed by NATO money. It is staffed with NATO military men. E.g. all US-made MLRS HIMERS are operated by exclusively the US GIs. The German and the US tanks that are be sent to Ukraine in violation of the OSCE rules will be operated by the FRG and the US servicemen.

B) In terms of other factors, it is called as a multifaceted direct war because it is a religious war against Russia conducted by Ukraine against Orthodox Christianity.

It is also an information war against Russia because it is waged by a huge NATO and the EU propaganda machine using distortions and lies across the globe.

It is a genocide war against Eastern Slav nations – Ukrainians and Russians. Ukrainian and NATO leaders intend to kill more and more Ukrainians and Russians only because they speak Russian language, profess Orthodox Christianity, have their own ethnic culture and traditions, different assessment of historic events in the past, and bravely fought [against] Nazi Germany in 1941-1945.

Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the State Duma, noted “the direct participation of the USA in combat operations in Ukraine.” He argued that the US military instructors and mercenaries are there in order to save the Kiev regime and for fear of losing its colony in Europe.

2. What are the phases of the NATO/non-NATO aggression against Russia?

The first stage began since April 2014 when Kiev decided to attack Donbass, the second took place after the second part of the Minsk Agreement was reached in March 2015, and the third stage started on February 14, 2022.

A proxy war involving Ukraine started since April 2014.

A combined direct Ukrainian-NATO aggression (or war) against Russia began on February 14, 2022, when Zelensky ordered to attack Donbass on a massive scale. On February 18, 2022, millions of Ukrainian refugees rushed into Western Europe and Russia seeking shelter and escaping from Ukrainian attacks.

Russia launched the Special Military Operation (SMO) in response to Ukrainian aggression on February 24, 2022.

3. Can Russian again win Western aggression against it?

Yes, it can, and it will. Offsetting Ukrainian-NATO aggression against Russia became the nation’s major goal. The country is united. All confessions are fighting together against attackers. All political Parties sitting in the Parliament and the rank-and-file citizens are supporting Russian Armed Forces. Mobilization targets were fully reached. Russian defense-industrial complex operates in three shifts during 24 hours.

If one counts a large-scale foreign multilateral armed aggressions against the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation since the Napoleonic War in 1812, any person will find out that since that time the country won all five major wars: the Napoleonic War (1812), the Crimean War (1853-1856), the Allied 14 States War (1918), and Nazi War (1941-1945).

The current Ukrainian- NATO war against Russia began initially against Donbass in April 2014 when Ukrainian neo-Nazi and Banderists started attacking two Republics in that region – the DPR and LPR wishing to separate from newly-entrenched ultra-nationalist regime in Kiev due to direct moral, financial and military support of the USA that spent by February 2014 ten billion dollars to engineer a military coup in the capital Kiev, including $ 5.0 billion spent by the US State Department, and the rest – by the CIA – mainly by bribing Ukrainian opposition leaders and by using widely and effectively the local NGOs created with the purpose of making a radical regime change in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Obama’s Ukrainian coup triggered the influx of 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees into Russia

Posted by

0

By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, March 14, 2017
Strategic Culture Foundation 12 March 2017
Obama Ukraine
This man did it.
On Tuesday, March 7th, Russia’s top parliamentarian dealing with the Ukrainian refugee influx into Russia — dealing, that is, with the people who have fled Ukraine as a result of U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2014 coup overthrowing Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych — presented the first-ever comprehensive number of asylum-applicants from Ukraine who have received asylum there after that February 2014 coup. The Russian government had never before publicly provided a number, but does have an established system of processing refugees, including assignment of official refugee status, which «allows the recipient various social benefits, including unemployment compensation» and so each Ukrainian refugee has a file with the government.

As reported by Tass: 

Russia has received more than 2,500,000 refugees since the outbreak of the conflict in eastern Ukriane, Yuri Vorobyov, Deputy Speaker of Russia’s Federation Council (upper house of parliament) and Chairman of the Committee for Public Support to Residents of Southeastern Ukraine, said on Tuesday.

«Europe has received 900,000 [refugees] and shuddered, while we have received over 2,500,000 refugees on our territory and continue to provide assistance», he said opening the round table discussion «Russia-Donbass: New Cooperation Mechanisms».

Obama’s Ukrainian Coup Caused 2.5 Million Ukrainian Refugees into Russia

That coup, which generated these millions of refugees, had been planned by the U.S. White House since 2011, and culminated on 20 February 2014. Also on that day, hundreds of Crimeans who had been standing in Kiev with signs opposing the overthrow of the President for whom 75% of Crimeans had voted, were attacked by supporters of the coup (which was fronted by, and was propagandized as being, the «Maidan revolution» demanding ‘democracy’ in Ukraine, though it actually ended democracy there).

These Crimeans immediately scrambled back into the eight buses that had taken them to Kiev and headed back homeward, but the U.S.-government-backed Right Sector paramilitaries went in hot pursuit of the buses, and burnt some of them and massacred many of the demonstrators, outside of Kiev, in the town of Korsun. This became called «the Korsun Massacre», and Crimeans in Crimea immediately started demonstrating in Crimea, for Crimea to become, once again, as it had been until 1954, part of Russia.

Crimeans overwhelmingly favored Russia over the United States, and were terrified by the racist anti-Russian government that now ruled in Kiev. This fear wasn’t only because of the massacre, nor only because 75% of Crimeans had voted for the man whom Obama had overthrown, but also because Crimeans generally (and most Ukrainians who had voted for Yanukovych) knew well the intense racist hatred against pro-Russian Ukrainians by the Right Sector people, who had actually carried out the coup.

A plebiscite was held in Crimea on 16 March 2014, and the vote to rejoin Russia was over 90%. U.S. President Obama then imposed economic sanctions against Russia for accepting Crimea back into Russia. These sanctions, and U.S. military aid to the new junta-government in Kiev, publicly renewed The West’s Cold War against Russia (which had actually continued secretly against Russia ever since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991; the Cold War had ended only on the Russian side).

U.S. President Obama recognized, of course, that the residents in the far-eastern region of Ukraine, Donbass, where the vote had been 90% for Yanukovych, could make impossible, in any subsequent nationwide Ukrainian Presidential election, a continuation of the U.S.-imposed Ukrainian government’s rule over Ukraine; and, so, his Ukrainian government instituted an ethnic-cleansing campaign in Donbass to kill as many of them as possible and force as many as possible of those Donbass residents to flee into Russia.

Getting rid of those voters was essential to the success of Obama’s Ukrainian operation. That ethnic cleansing is the reason why 2.5 million former Ukrainians are now living in Russia: their presence in the Ukrainian electorate would jeopardize continued U.S. control over the Ukrainian government and was thus impermissible. These 2.5 million have thus been entirely removed from Ukraine now, and perhaps enough of those voters are gone from Ukraine so that once again Donbass will be able to become part of Ukraine, even while the U.S. continues to control Ukraine.

In the U.S. and the other nations that are controlled by the U.S. aristocracy, newsmedia typically criticize Russia regarding the Ukrainian refugees, such as by saying that «the Russian government’s policies puts them in an even more disadvantaged position» than Russia’s native population endure, so that these refugees suffer not because of the U.S. government, but because of the Russian government.

America’s new President, Donald Trump, has made clear that the economic sanctions against Russia will not end until both Crimea and Donbass become again parts of Ukraine. So, he supports his predecessor’s Russia-policy. America’s wars to strangle Russia (such as by eliminating leaders friendly toward Russia, including Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Viktor Yanukovych — and attempting to do it also to Bashar al-Assad) will, in other words, continue.

The original source of this article is Strategic Culture Foundation
Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Strategic Culture Foundation, 2017
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obamas-ukrainian-coup-triggered-the-influx-of-2-5-million-ukrainian-refugees-into-russia/5579719

A documentary you’ll likely never see: “Ukraine on Fire” by Oliver Stone

Posted by

0

Trailer

Neo-Nazis are being used by the Ukrainian Government,

“That whole process was headquartered in the US  Embassy” (former Ukraine president Yanukovitch)

Nobody should feel safe today… 

By James DiEugenio
Global Research, February 14, 2017
Consortiumnews 13 February 2017
0

It is not very often that a documentary film can set a new paradigm about a recent event, let alone, one that is still in progress. But the new film Ukraine on Fire has the potential to do so – assuming that many people get to see it.

Usually, documentaries — even good ones — repackage familiar information in a different aesthetic form. If that form is skillfully done, then the information can move us in a different way than just reading about it.

A good example of this would be Peter Davis’s powerful documentary about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Hearts and Minds. By 1974, most Americans understood just how bad the Vietnam War was, but through the combination of sounds and images, which could only have been done through film, that documentary created a sensation, which removed the last obstacles to America leaving Indochina.

Ukraine on Fire has the same potential and could make a contribution that even goes beyond what the Davis film did because there was very little new information in Hearts and Minds. Especially for American and Western European audiences, Ukraine on Fire could be revelatory in that it offers a historical explanation for the deep divisions within Ukraine and presents information about the current crisis that challenges the mainstream media’s paradigm, which blames the conflict almost exclusively on Russia.

Key people in the film’s production are director Igor Lopatonok, editor Alex Chavez, and writer Vanessa Dean, whose screenplay contains a large amount of historical as well as current material exploring how Ukraine became such a cauldron of violence and hate. Oliver Stone served as executive producer and conducted some high-profile interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin and ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The film begins with gripping images of the violence that ripped through the capital city of Kiev during both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 removal of Yanukovich. It then travels back in time to provide a perspective that has been missing from mainstream versions of these events and even in many alternative media renditions.

A Longtime Pawn

Historically, Ukraine has been treated as a pawn since the late Seventeenth Century. In 1918, Ukraine was made a German protectorate by the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Ukraine was also a part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 signed between Germany and Russia, but violated by Adolf Hitler when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941.

German dictator Adolf Hitler

The reaction of many in Ukraine to Hitler’s aggression was not the same as it was in the rest of the Soviet Union. Some Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis. The most significant Ukrainian nationalist group, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), had been established in 1929. Many of its members cooperated with the Nazis, some even enlisted in the Waffen SS and Ukrainian nationalists participated in the massacre of more than 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar ravine in Kiev in September 1941. According to scholar Pers Anders Rudling, the number of Ukrainian nationalists involved in the slaughter outnumbered the Germans by a factor of 4 to 1.

But it wasn’t just the Jews that the Ukrainian nationalists slaughtered. They also participated in massacres of Poles in the western Ukrainian region of Galicia from March 1943 until the end of 1944. Again, the main perpetrators were not Germans, but Ukrainians.

According to author Ryazard Szawlowksi, the Ukrainian nationalists first lulled the Poles into thinking they were their friends, then turned on them with a barbarity and ferocity that not even the Nazis could match, torturing their victims with saws and axes. The documentary places the number of dead at 36,750, but Szawlowski estimates it may be two or three times higher.

OUN members participated in these slaughters for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, wanting Ukraine to be preserved for what OUN regarded as native Ukrainians. They also expected Ukraine to be independent by the end of the war, free from both German and Russian domination. The two main leaders in OUN who participated in the Nazi collaboration were Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was a virulent anti-Semite, and Lebed was rabidly against the Poles, participating in their slaughter.

After the war, both Bandera and Lebed were protected by American intelligence, which spared them from the Nuremburg tribunals. The immediate antecedent of the CIA, Central Intelligence Group, wanted to use both men for information gathering and operations against the Soviet Union. England’s MI6 used Bandera even more than the CIA did, but the KGB eventually hunted down Bandera and assassinated him in Munich in 1959. Lebed was brought to America and addressed anti-communist Ukrainian organizations in the U.S. and Canada. The CIA protected him from immigration authorities who might otherwise have deported him as a war criminal.

The history of the Cold War was never too far in the background of Ukrainian politics, including within the diaspora that fled to the West after the Red Army defeated the Nazis and many of their Ukrainian collaborators emigrated to the United States and Canada. In the West, they formed a fierce anti-communist lobby that gained greater influence after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

Important History

This history is an important part of Dean’s prologue to the main body of Ukraine on Fire and is essential for anyone trying to understand what has happened there since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. For instance, the U.S.-backed candidate for president of Ukraine in 2004 — Viktor Yushchenko — decreed both Bandera and Lebed to be Ukrainian national heroes.

Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and Nazi collaborator.

Bandera, in particular, has become an icon for post-World War II Ukrainian nationalists. One of his followers was Dmytro Dontsov, who called for the birth of a “new man” who would mercilessly destroy Ukraine’s ethnic enemies.

Bandera’s movement was also kept alive by Yaroslav Stetsko, Bandera’s premier in exile. Stetsko fully endorsed Bandera’s anti-Semitism and also the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Stetsko, too, was used by the CIA during the Cold War and was honored by Yushchenko, who placed a plaque in his honor at the home where he died in Munich in 1986. Stetsko’s wife, Slava, returned to Ukraine in 1991 and ran for parliament in 2002 on the slate of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party.

Stetsko’s book, entitled Two Revolutions, has become the ideological cornerstone for the modern Ukrainian political party Svoboda, founded by Oleh Tyahnybok, who is pictured in the film calling Jews “kikes” in public, which is one reason the Simon Wiesenthal Center has ranked him as one of the most dangerous anti-Semites in the world.

Another follower of Bandera is Dymytro Yarosh, who reputedly leads the paramilitary arm of an even more powerful political organization in Ukraine called Right Sektor. Yarosh once said he controls a paramilitary force of about 7,000 men who were reportedly used in both the overthrow of Yanukovych in Kiev in February 2014 and the suppression of the rebellion in Odessa a few months later, which are both fully depicted in the film.

This historical prelude and its merging with the current civil war is eye-opening background that has been largely hidden by the mainstream Western media, which has downplayed or ignored the troubling links between these racist Ukrainian nationalists and the U.S.-backed political forces that vied for power after Ukraine became independent in 1991.

The Rise of a Violent Right

Continue reading →

Oliver Stone calls on President Trump to “declassify” all secret documents on Ukraine conflict

Posted by

0

By Alex Christoforou
Global Research, February 07, 2017
The Duran 6 February 2017

The Obama Administration, with the help of the CIA and main stream media, cleverly diluted the fact they they violently overthrew the democratically elected government in Ukraine, and encouraged the illegal, putsch government to attack its own citizens in the east of the country.

Oliver Stone was never fooled by Obama’s Ukraine game, which resulted in the former POTUS getting outplayed in Crimea by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Oliver Stone is now urging US President Donald Trump to make public any secret documents he has in his possession on the origins of Obama’s conflict in Ukraine.

We are certain that Trump now knows the full truth of the Obama Administration’s action in Ukraine, and will use this truth as leverage to hold over Obama, Kerry, Nuland, Clinton, McCain, Brennan and the rest of the neo-liberal/neocon warmonger elite.

In an interview with Russia’s Channel One, the Academy Award winning director said that unfortunately, most Americans do not know the origins to the crisis in Ukraine.

“If I were President Trump, I would declassify all this information on Ukraine, as well as Syria, but above all Ukraine, because it’s the focal point of where this [new] Cold War has come about.”

Stone went further in his characterized of the current government in Kiev, calling it a government that is…

–‘unelected, extremely-right wing, heavily corrupted and controlled from abroad.’

Stone said that the Kiev regime’s survival solely depends on financial support from the US, EU, and the CIA.

“Ukraine was one of the main objectives of the CIA”, Stone noted…saying that since the start of the Cold War, the United States provided covert aid to militia and dissident groups looking to dislodge the country from its Russian heritage and history.

Exposing Ukraine’s restrictions against the work of journalists, and attacks against anyone who speaks out against the putsch government, Stone said, “I don’t see any real democracy in Ukraine.”  

Sputnik News notes that Oliver Stone called the current resurgence of hostilities in eastern Ukraine “disgusting,”saying that Kiev was obviously trying to get Trump to provide financial and other assistance.

The mainstream US media, he noted, has been nearly unanimous in blaming Russia for the fighting.

The director noted that the US establishment has stuck to the same false narrative about Russia ‘seizing’ Crimea, about Russian involvement in the Ukrainian civil war, its posing a ‘threat’ to Ukraine, etc. There are important facts left unsaid about the origins of the Ukrainian crisis, Stone said, including the ‘color revolutionary’ techniques employed in the lead-up to the Maidan coup, who provided the funding, and who the mysterious snipers were that fired on police and protesters alike at the height of the crisis.

*****

In 2016, Stone co-produced the documentary ‘Ukraine on Fire’, a film which discussed the historical origins of the crisis in Ukraine, the lead-up to the Maidan coup, US and European involvement, and the danger the ongoing crisis poses to Europe and to the world. The film, a response to the 2015 pro-Maidan film ‘Winter on Fire’, featured an interview with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted by the coup, as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This year, Stone plans to release a new documentary about Vladimir Putin. The director told Sunday Vremya that the film was just as important as his film about Ukraine.

The “military-industrial security state needs enemies,” Stone said, “because that’s where the money is,” and Russia and its President have long been presented as one of America’s main adversaries. Stone’s film will attempt to set the record straight.

Oliver Stone interview, below, begins at the 44:15 mark…

http://www.globalresearch.ca/oliver-stone-calls-on-president-trump-to-declassify-all-secret-documents-on-ukraine-conflict/5573424

1,000s Turkish forces surround NATO’s Incirlik air base for ‘inspection’ amid rumors of coup attempt

Posted by

0

From RT

July 30, 2016

Some 7,000 armed police in heavy vehicles surrounded the Incirlik air base used by NATO forces in Adana in what a Turkish minister called a “security check.” With no official explanation, speculations have arisen about a new coup attempt or VIP visit.

READ MORE: Anti-US rally staged at NATO Incirlik air base in Turkey (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

Hurriyet reported earlier that Adana police had been tipped off about a new coup attempt, and forces were immediately alerted. The entrance to the base was closed off.

Security forces armed with rifles and armored TOMA vehicles used by Turkish riot police could be seen at the site in photos taken by witnesses.

Turkey’s minister for EU Affairs downplayed the situation in a Twitter post, saying a “security inspection” was carried out.

“We did the general security check. There is nothing wrong,” he tweeted from Adana.

Some supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have reportedly flocked to the cordon surrounding the base. The scene, however, did not appear as massive and tense as the recent Adana protests demanding for the base to be shut down.

On Thursday, a huge rally marched towards the NATO base, as people with loudspeakers chanted anti-American and anti-Israel slogans. The demonstrators claim that the US had a hand in the failed July 15 coup attempt in which 270 people died. Tens of thousands people, including members of the military, police, judiciary, media, and civil service, have been arrested in connection with the coup, which Turkish officials say was organized by US-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, Erdogan’s former ally, who is now his most hated rival.

READ MORE: Anti-US rally staged at NATO Incirlik air base in Turkey (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

Read more

© Medya GundemTurkish commander of air base housing US nukes detained for complicity in coup attempt – official

In the wake of the coup attempt, several military officials at the Incirlik Air Base, including its commander, General Bekir Ercan Van, were arrested on treason charges by Turkish authorities, which claimed that one of the rogue F-16 planes taking part in the rebellion to overthrow Erdogan’s government had been refueled there.

The general had even reportedly attempted to seek asylum in the US, but his plea was apparently rejected.

Incirlic Air Base is used by both the Turkish and US militaries and is vital to the US-led anti-terror bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq. It also serves as one of six NATO storage sites for US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The exact number of nuclear bombs kept at the base is unknown, although, according to various estimates, it may store up to 90 warheads.

The US-led coalition’s airstrikes had to be halted for several days when power was cut at the base. US military personnel stationed there had to switch to an internal power supply.

READ MORE: Local authorities block access to air base in Turkey that houses US nukes

The “inspection” at the base comes as the Turkish government announced a sweeping military reform on Saturday. In an interview with TV broadcaster A-Haber, Erdogan unveiled plans to scrap all military academies and replace them with a new national defense university.

The commanders of the different branches of the Turkish armed forces are to be put under the defense minister’s chain of command. In addition, Erdogan wants the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) and military chief of staff to report directly to him, which would require a new constitutional amendment to be passed by the parliament.

It also comes on the eve of a visit from a top US military official, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, who is scheduled to arrive in Turkey on Sunday. Diplomatic sources quoted by Hurriyet claim Dunford will go visit both Ankara and Incirlik.

https://www.rt.com/news/354042-turkish-police-incirlik-nato-coup/

IPT rules Indonesia guilty of crimes against humanity in 1965 massacre; rules UK, US, Australia complicit in massacre

Posted by

0

From Sputnik

July 20, 2016

A non-binding international tribunal at The Hague has ruled that Australia, the UK and the United States were complicit in 1965 mass killings and human rights atrocities in Indonesia.

During that period, some 500,000 to one million people died in one of the bloodiest massacres of the 20th century. What began as a purge of communists after a failed coup attempt, went on to encompass ethnic Chinese and alleged leftists, which led to the massacre being referred to as “politicide.”

According to the ruling by the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) at The Hague, the 1965 government of Indonesia committed crimes against humanity, but the finding, similar to that ruled against China by the Philippines last week regarding disputed territories in the South China Sea, is non-binding and carries no punitive consequences.

The judges found that allegations of “cruel and unspeakable murders” and the “unjustifiable imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people without trial” were well founded.

“It has also been demonstrated that sexual violence, particularly against women, was systematic and routine, especially during the period 1965 to 1967,” the Tribunal report says.

The Tribunal demanded an apology from the present-day Indonesian government and demanded investigations and prosecutions into those perpetrators still alive. The Tribunal also demanded a public opening of archives and an unveiling of truth about the events.

Moreover, three countries — the UK, the US and Australia — were found complicit in facilitating the massacre by using propaganda to manipulate international opinion in favor of the Indonesian army.

According to the report, Australia and the UK, “… shared the US aim of seeking to bring about the overthrow of President Sukarno.”

“They continued with this policy even after it had become abundantly clear that killings were taking place on a mass and indiscriminate basis. On balance, this appears to justify the charge of complicity,” the report says.

The details of the crimes committed by the Indonesian army, which include brutal murder, imprisonment under inhumane conditions, enslavement, torture, forced disappearance, and sexual violence, can be found in the full text of the report.

The Indonesian government recently refused to apologize, and reaffirmed its stance regarding the victims and survivors of the 1965 atrocities.

“Our country is a great nation. We acknowledge and we will resolve this problem [the 1965 massacre] in our way and through universal values,” Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister of Indonesia Luhut Pandjaitan told reporters at the Presidential Palace on Wednesday.

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160721/1043375620/UK-US-Australia-Complicit-Indonesia-Massacre.html

Ukrainian National Academy of Science journal publishes the truth about Donbass. Panic ensues.

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

Panic in Kiev: A scientific journal published a “separatist” article on genocide of residents of Donbass by the Ukrainian Armed Forces
Original headline

Antifascist
October 12, 2015

October 14, 2015
Translated from Russian by Tom Winter

 Panic in Kyiv: A scientific journal of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NANU) has published a “separatist” article about the genocide of the residents of Donbass by the VSU.

The Ukrainian Banderized public is in a state of shock. In Kiev, they called it unprecentented betrayal. The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine is disgraced, having dared to suspect Ukraine’s valiant armed forces of genocide against the population of Donbass. And they not only suspected, but they dared to release an article on this subject with, so to speak, absolutely “separatist” content.

{Inset in Russian text from a Ukrainian paper: “Some Putinist name of Lopata scribbled up some garbage about the genocide of Donbass, and she even called The Revolution of Dignity a coup.”}

So, at least, say a number of pro-regime Ukrainian media, starting with Oksana Onishchenko in the “Weekly Mirror” in her column from the department of education, science, medicine and the environment.

Onishchenko, on her Facebook page, denounced the terrible “crime” committed by a candidate of jurisprudence A. Lopata, who dared to openly publish, in the magazine of the National Academy of Sciences, a “separatist” and propagandist article, which calls into question the essence of “The Revolution of Dignity,” according to Onishchenko and the Ukrainian press, which has been blossoming with typical and predictable headlines.

In fact, the other day a scientific academic journal of NANU, “Sociology: theory, methods, marketing,” published an article by master of laws A. Lopata: “Lugansk: the hot summer of 2014,” in which the author dares to “wrongly” interpret the triumph of the “The Revolution of Dignity” and accuses the APU of the genocide of the people of Donbass.

According to the scientist, this revolution was nothing more than a coup.

“Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies … Its main participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from “Donetskis”, but also from “Kievskis”, “Lvivskis”, “Rivnenskis” and others,” wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific publication.

In addition, Lopata qualified the war in the Donbass as the genocide of the people in the east of the country by the army of Ukraine.  “Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law,” – wrote A. Lopata.

The author also points out that “the authorities of the country have made a decision to urgently direct the entire Maidan “fuel” material to Eastern Ukraine;” and that “there is no aggression of Russia against Ukraine, but instead there is a US war with Russia in Donbass “to the last Ukrainian.”

The horror that seized the properly patriotic (svidomized) media yesterday was shared today by Ukraine’s Ministry of Education. Its Certifying Authority immediately instructed the NANU publication board to investigate the journal “Sociology: theory, methods, marketing” for compliance with the criteria that apply to the specialized scientific journals.

The reason for the inquest is “a great disturbance in the academic community and the media caused by the publication in the proceedings of the” round table “held in Luhansk on January 9 this year, entitled” Lugansk: hot summer of 2014″ in the form of an article by master of laws A. Lopata. “
“The Ministry of Education and Science is sure: The ideological cliches of a neighboring aggressor-state published in this article have nothing to do with scientific discourse. We believe that the tragic events in the Crimea and the Donbass should be subject to rigorous academic study, but such cannot work at the “round table” held in the occupied territory, where there are no opportunities for the expression of free thought “- they sniffed at the Ministry.
The ministry added that the authors of numerous appeals to the Ministry of Education and Science “see in the actions of the magazine not only an insult to tens of millions of Ukrainians, but also a flagrant violation of the principles of scientific ethics.”
“I ask the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the absolute majority of whose workers exhibit a clear patriotic position, to give the proper scientific, professional and civic assessment of the aforementioned publication, its author, and editorial offices that put it together” – ordered the head of the Ministry, Sergei Kvit.
There is no doubt that following up on Minister Kvit, the SBU will be interested in the publication of the material, and the researcher will be subjected to brutal violence, and well, if it would cost only dismissal, rather than arrest followed by a long prison term. The courage of the man it is impossible not to admire. These people inspire a timid hope that the healing of Ukraine from its Banderist poisoning, sooner or later, but, ultimately, is inevitable.

British General: British Army would use “whatever means possible” should Jeremy Corbyn become Prime Minister

Posted by

0

By Jonathan Cook
Global Research, September 21, 2015
Jonathan Cook: The Blog from Nazareth 20 September 2015

There has been some debate about the significance of a warning issued this weekend through Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times by a British general that the army would “mutiny” and use “whatever means possible, fair or foul” should the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn ever get near 10 Downing Street.

Here is what the general says:

Owen Jones has wondered whether this is tantamount to a threat of a coup by the military. I think it would be foolhardy indeed to read it as anything else.

None of us should be surprised either. We have been here before. In the late 1960s and early 1970s serving British generals, former generals, members of the royal family and the British security services regularly spoke in such terms to each other – and even occasionally on prime-time television.

More than that, when they believed their privileges were under serious threat, as they did during Harold Wilson’s various governments of that period, they actively plotted for “regime change”, or a military takeover.

In what became a self-serving vicious spiral, the establishment’s fears were further stoked by the stream of black propaganda being fed to the British media by MI5, Britain’s version of the FBI. It painted Wilson’s government and the trade union movement as overrun with Communists trying to bring down the UK. One can imagine a Corbyn government will receive no better treatment from the UK media than Wilson’s did.

Like Corbyn today, Wilson was seen in the 60s and 70s as a major threat to the entrenched privileges of British elites.

There is a wealth of evidence for all this, though perhaps unsurprisingly many sources, including Wikipedia, casually dismiss these accounts as “conspiracy theories” – the ultimate way to shut down scrutiny.

But the evidence was so compelling even the BBC, hardly a risk-taking broadcaster at the best of times, girded its loins back in 2006 to make a documentary called “The Plot Against Harold Wilson”. In fact, as the 90-minute film makes clear by interviewing many of those directly involved, there was not one plot but many against Wilson. You can watch it below.

It probably all seemed like old, slightly quaint history to the BBC nine years ago. Now it sounds frighteningly relevant again.

Here is a fascinating line from one plotter, Sir General Walter Walker, at about 1hr 2 mins in. Speaking in the early 1970s, he says on film:

If you plot to destroy this present system, what are you doing? You are committing a form of treason. I have taken an oath of allegiance to my Queen and I am not prepared to see that oath interfered with.

For me at least, that puts the ludicrous current confected debate about Corbyn refusing to sing the national anthem in an even more sinister light.

Lord Mountbatten, the Queen’s cousin, a mentor to Prince Charles, and the chief of the defence staff at the time, became a figurehead for this group (45.30) and even approached the Queen Mother to seek her blessing for a military takeover. Walker says Mountbatten told him: “If you want help from me, will you let me know?”

David Stirling, the founder of Britain’s most elite military unit, the SAS, also confirmed to journalists that a coup against Wilson was seriously being considered (1.03). He contemplated bumping off trade union leaders to foment so much anger among workers that the military would be forced to move in to restore order.

Soon, the army, members of the royal family and the intelligence services were all considering how they might launch a military coup to stop a Communist takeover (the one that had been created in MI5’s lurid imagination). Brian Crozier, a former intelligence officer who supported a coup, says there was a “widespread attitude” in favour of it among the military (1.05)

It culminated in a show of force by the armed forces, which briefly took over Heathrow airport (1.06) without warning or coordination with Wilson’s government. Marcia Williams, Wilson’s secretary, called it a “dress rehearsal”. Wilson resigned unexpectedly soon afterwards, apparently as the pressures started to get to him.

As the BBC concludes:

The actions of Lord Mountbatten and senior military and intelligence officers undermined democracy and brought this country to the brink of a coup. Yet no one has been held accountable, there has been no proper inquiry.

Such an inquiry might have served at least as a small deterrent for those, like the general who approached the Sunday Times, who are thinking once again in terms of a coup.

Copyright © Jonathan Cook, Jonathan Cook: The Blog from Nazareth, 2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-army-would-use-whatever-means-possible-should-jeremy-corbyn-become-prime-minister-british-general/5477206

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

U.S.-orchestrated coup attempt in Ecuador

Posted by

0

By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, July 07, 2015

Washington wants all independent governments toppled – regime change by US-orchestrated color revolutions, coups or naked aggression.

Ecuador is in the eye of the storm. Obama’s earlier 2010 attempt to forcibly unseat popular President Rafael Correa failed.

He’s trying again. Ecuadorean democracy is being attacked. Since early June, US-orchestrated right-wing protests (mainly in Quito and Guayaquil) erupted. They continue at times violently to replace Correa with fascist rule.

They began on the pretext of announced higher inheritance and capital gains taxes affecting about 2% of the population – the Law to Redistribute the Wealth now being debated after Correa halted its implementation to make rich Ecuadorians pay more along with creating more social enterprises, collectives and cooperatives.

Protest leaders want Correa forcibly ousted. Interior Minister Jose Serrano revealed a plot to storm the presidential palace, block airports and bridges on the Colombian and Peruvian borders, as well as attack security forces.

Serrano said opposition lawmakers Andres Paez and Lourdes Tiban conspired with former Col. Mario Pazmino to instigate violence and chaos during protests.

Pazmino was former army military intelligence head – “very close to the CIA,” according to Correa. In 2008, he was sacked for colluding with Colombia’s bombing of Ecuador.

The coup plotters’ plan involved advancing from north and south to converge around Quito’s presidential palace – intending to occupy it forcibly.

They planned to use pointed sticks to break police shields, throw balloons filled with paint for police to lose visibility, pepper-spray police horses and dogs” to scare and scatter them, Serrano explained.

They intended publishing letters in two national newspapers – El Universo and La Hora – as well as anti-government letters to Pope Francis to undermine his forthcoming visit, an American tour beginning in Ecuador on July 5 followed by Bolivia, Paraguay, Cuba and the United States.

Serrano said “if they were not able to seize power, (they) would have created national chaos” to force Pope Francis to cancel his visit, as well as “maintain…indefinite protest(s).

Correa commented on “clear evidence of a plot meant to take over the (presidential) palace. They want to defeat violently a government internationally and domestically supported,” he explained.

They’ll be defeated like September 30, 2010 plotters (called 30S) “peacefully but firmly,” Correa said. “We are more, many more,” he stressed.

On Thursday, violent clashes erupted. Right-wing extremists attacked Ecuadorean police near Quito’s presidential palace. Their plan to breach their lines failed. Four officers sustained injuries.

Journalists were attacked. Culture Minister Guillaume Long said “(t)oday we are facing (a) real threat of destabilization. It is fundamental (for) the people of Ecuador to come here and (defend) democracy. We’re not going to allow more coups.”

Thousands of Correa supporters rallied Thursday night to defend their government in Quito’s Independence Plaza, its main square (the Carondolet).

Correa addressed them saying “(w)e are ready to defend the revolution against coup plotters. We will remain firm in defending the revolution against the ultra-right.”

“(M)obilizations to tire us out…to prevent us from governing (won’t) work. We are willing to defend our history and our citizen’s revolution. Here we have democracy. Here the majority rule and the past will never return.”

Washington wants Correa’s government replaced by a regime it controls, neo-colonial rule most Ecuadoreans oppose – following the pattern of earlier failed Venezuelan protests.

So far, popular support for Correa prevails. At the same time, dark forces headquartered in Washington never end their dirty game for unchallenged global dominance – a plot to create unfit to live in ruler-serf societies worldwide.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-orchestrated-coup-attempt-in-ecuador/5460479