President Obama sides with Victoria Nuland on Ukraine. Will John Kerry resign?

By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, June 7, 2015


On May 21st, I headlined “Secretary of State John Kerry v. His Subordinate Victoria Nuland, Regarding Ukraine,” and quoted John Kerry’s May 12th warning to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to cease his repeated threats to invade Crimea and re-invade Donbass, two former regions of Ukraine, which had refused to accept the legitimacy of the new regime that was imposed on Ukraine in violent clashes during February 2014. (These were regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the Ukrainian President who had just been overthrown.)

They didn’t like him being violently tossed out and replaced by his enemies.) Kerry said then that, regarding Poroshenko,

“we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be.”

Also quoted there was Kerry’s subordinate, Victoria Nuland, three days later, saying the exact opposite, that we “reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine.” I noted, then that, “The only person with the power to fire Nuland is actually U.S. President Barack Obama.” However, Obama instead has sided with Nuland on this.

Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, bannered, on June 5th, “Poroshenko: Ukraine Will ‘Do Everything’ To Retake Crimea’,” and reported that

President Petro Poroshenko has vowed to seek Crimea’s return to Ukrainian rule. … Speaking at a news conference on June 5, … Poroshenko said that ‘every day and every moment, we will do everything to return Crimea to Ukraine.’”

Poroshenko was also quoted there as saying, ”It is important not to give Russia a chance to break the world’s pro-Ukrainian coalition,” which indirectly insulted Kerry for his having criticized Poroshenko’s warnings that he intended to invade Crimea and Donbass.

Right now, the Minsk II ceasefire has broken down and there are accusations on both sides that the other is to blame. What cannot be denied is that at least three times, on April 30th, then on May 11th, and then on June 5th, Poroshenko has repeatedly promised to invade Crimea, which wasn’t even mentioned in the Minsk II agreement; and that he was also promising to re-invade Donbass, something that is explicitly prohibited in this agreement. Furthermore, America’s President, Barack Obama, did not fire Kerry’s subordinate, Nuland, for her contradicting her boss on this important matter.

How will that be taken in European capitals? Kerry was reaffirming the position of Merkel and Hollande, the key shapers of the Minsk II agreement; and Nuland was nullifying them. Obama now has sided with Nuland on this; it’s a slap in the face to the EU: Poroshenko can continue ignoring Kerry and can blatantly ignore the Minsk II agreement; and Obama tacitly sides with Poroshenko and Nuland, against Kerry.

The personalities here are important: On 4 February 2014, in the very same phone-conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, America’s Ambassador in Ukraine, in which Nuland had instructed Pyatt to get “Yats” Yatsenyuk appointed to lead Ukraine after the coup (which then occurred 18 days later), she also famously said “F—k  the EU!” Obama is now seconding that statement of hers.

In effect, Obama is telling the EU that they can get anything they want signed, but that he would still move forward with his own policy, regardless of whether or not they like it.

Kerry, for his part, now faces the decision as to whether to quit — which would force the EU’s hand regarding whether to continue with U.S. policy there — or else for Kerry to stay in office and be disrespected in all capitals for his staying on after having been so blatantly contradicted by his subordinate on a key issue of U.S. foreign policy. If he stays on while Nuland also does, then, in effect, Kerry is being cut out of policymaking on Europe and Asia (Nuland’s territory), altogether, and the EU needs to communicate directly with Obama on everything, or else to communicate with Nuland as if she and not Kerry were the actual U.S. Secretary of State. But if Kerry instead quits, then the pressure would be placed on EU officials: whether to continue with the U.S., or to reject U.S. anti-Russia policy, and to move forward by leaving NATO, and all that that entails?

If they then decide to stay with the U.S., after that “F—k the EU!” and then this; then, the European countries are clearly just U.S. colonies. This would be far more embarrassing to those leaders than John Kerry would be embarrassed by his simply resigning from the U.S. State Department. It might even turn the tide and force the Ukrainian Government to follow through with all of its commitments under the Minsk II accords.

It would be the most effective thing for Kerry to do at this stage. But, it would lose him his position as a (now merely nominal) member of Obama’s Cabinet.

The way this turns out will show a lot, about John Kerry. The nations of Europe already know everything they need to know about Barack Obama. If Kerry quits, he’ll have respect around the world. If he stays, he’ll be just another Colin Powell.

The ball is in Kerry’s court, and everyone will see how he plays it — and what type of man he is (and isn’t).

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of  Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics

Victoria Nuland: America’s riot-diplomat — Spiegel (English)

By Matthias Gebauer und Holger Stark
February 10, 2015

Victoria Nuland: A clear opinion on what needs to be done in Ukraine

“Fuck the EU” – Victoria Nuland can be very direct. For the US government’s diplomat to negotiate in Ukraine crisis with Europe. At the Munich Security Conference but they drew another irritation.

Victoria Nuland is in Washington in front of an azure video screen of the Brookings Institution [her husband Robert Kagan is a Senior Fellow at Brookings Institution] and wants to say a few basic sentences on Ukraine crisis. “We have to help Ukraine to stop the blood loss,” she says. Even with deadly weapons? Nuland speaks of “defensive” measures and makes only just before stop, to press for the delivery of heavy weapons to the government in Kiev.

Nuland has a very direct way, you can focus on entertaining, but also be undiplomatic -. For a diplomat these are dangerous properties.

The 53-year-old is the European representative of the US government, it is the United States pass through Ukraine crisis and solve the problems with Russian President Vladimir Putin. But in the crisis Nuland has itself become a problem.

Last Friday the American woman of their delegation to the Munich Security Conference gave an internal briefing. She was on the sixth floor of the Hotel Bayerischer Hof. In the room were perhaps two dozen US diplomats and senators. Especially the German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen had spoken publicly that arms sales could act as an accelerant in eastern Ukraine. The Americans were angry.

Nuland is supposed to have given the line: “We can fight against the Europeans, rhetorically fight them,” she said, according to the newspaper “Bild”.

Nuland called the journey of the Chancellor [Merkel] to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the report says, “Merkel Moscow stuff”. The atmosphere heated up, one of the senators spoke evilly of von der Leyen (“defeatist-Minister”), the term “Moscow bullshit” of the Europeans fell probably, too.

The top diplomat Nuland is considered conservative. In the case of an election victory of the Republicans in the coming year she will be considered a potential new Foreign Minister. She is married to Robert Kagan, a conservative thinker. He published last year a text, why America must remain the undisputed leading power in the world.

In Ukraine crisis Nuland is considered hardliner and follower of arms sales – unlike their President Barack Obama she has a clear opinion on what needs to be done.

Stroke of luck and burden for Obama

Nuland was on the US embassies in Moscow and Beijing, as a diplomat in NATO, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman in Washington. But no country fascinates her as much as Russia. She loves this country, she once said. Nuland speaks Russian fluently. As the “most important memory of her career” is the top diplomat day in August 1991, when it cooperated with 250,000 people in front of the Kremlin in Moscow confessed “and said no to the counter-revolution”. Victoria Nuland has therefore also made the fight against the forces of darkness in the former Russian Empire in the center of her career.

It is therefore a godsend and a burden at the same time for Obama. She made headlines after the Munich Security Conference last year. At that time she flew from Munich to Prague and Cyprus to Kiev, and on the way she called Geoffrey Pyatt, the American ambassador to Ukraine. Nuland renounced specific safety procedures and using her normal mobile phone. So the conversation was unencrypted.

On the evening of February 4, 2014 appeared on YouTube on a recording of four minutes and eleven seconds. The conversation between the two top diplomats gave a rare glimpse into the world of American diplomacy. At the end of the call Nuland said on a proposal by the US government, which was to outmaneuver the hesitant Europeans, and it has made world famous. Shortly before she had spoken with the United Nations, the United Nations should engage in Ukraine and send a messenger to the EU which would not have much to say. “That would be great, I think, to help things move, the UN would move things,” Nuland said and added: “. Fuck the EU”

“Absolutely unacceptable” were the words that the Chancellor was at that time aligned – an unusually sharp reaction. In the days that followed Nuland had to apologize. As a token of apology, she appeared in the next round with a homemade button “. I love the EU”

Now, for the second time Nuland’s derogatory statements have leaked out that were not meant for the public. The Germans were irritated, after all, the American had, at the meeting with German Minister Merkel, praised the initiative to defuse crisis in Ukraine.

The day after the report in the newspaper “Bild” Nuland wanted nothing more to do with the statements then. Rather, she was a fan of the diplomacy initiative of the German Chancellor. “In the public and internally all of us have, myself included, supported the diplomacy,” she said to the US newspaper “Wall Street Journal”, “and we have worked side by side with them.”


Used under Fair Use Rules.

Victoria Nuland: Amerikas Krawall-Diplomatin — Spiegel (Deutsch)

Von  und Holger Stark, Berlin und Washington

“Fuck the EU” – Victoria Nuland kann sehr direkt sein. Für die US-Regierung soll die Diplomatin in der Ukraine-Krise mit Europa verhandeln. Bei der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz aber sorgte sie erneut für Irritationen.

Victoria Nuland steht in Washington vor einer azurblauen Videoleinwand der Denkfabrik Brookings Institution [ihr Mann Robert Kagan ist Senior Fellow am Brookings Institution] und will ein paar grundsätzliche Sätze zur Ukraine-Krise sagen. “Wir müssen der Ukraine dabei helfen, den Blutverlust zu stoppen”, fordert sie. Auch mit tödlichen Waffen? Nuland spricht von “defensiven” Maßnahmen und macht nur knapp davor halt, auf die Lieferung von schweren Waffen an die Regierung in Kiew zu drängen.

Nuland hat eine sehr direkte Art. Sie kann scharf, unterhaltsam, aber auch undiplomatisch werden – für eine Diplomatin sind das gefährliche Eigenschaften.

Die 53-Jährige ist die Europa-Beauftragte der amerikanischen Regierung, sie soll die USA durch die Ukraine-Krise führen und die Probleme mit dem russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin lösen. Aber in der Krise ist Nuland selbst zum Problem geworden.

Am vergangenen Freitag gab die Amerikanerin ihrer Delegation bei der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz ein internes Briefing. Sie saß im sechsten Stock des Hotels Bayerischer Hof, im Raum waren vielleicht zwei Dutzend US-Diplomaten und Senatoren. Gerade hatte die deutsche Verteidigungsministerin Ursula von der Leyen öffentlich davon gesprochen, Waffenlieferungen könnten in der Ostukraine wie ein Brandbeschleuniger wirken. Die Amerikaner waren sauer.

Nuland soll die Linie vorgegeben haben: “Wir können gegen die Europäer kämpfen, rhetorisch gegen sie kämpfen”, sagte sie nach Angaben der “Bild”-Zeitung.

Die Reise der Kanzlerin zum russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin nannte Nuland dem Bericht zufolge “Merkels Moskau-Zeug”. Die Stimmung heizte sich auf, einer der Senatoren soll über von der Leyen (“Defätismus-Ministerin”) gelästert haben, der Begriff “Moskau bullshit” der Europäer fiel wohl auch.

Die Top-Diplomatin Nuland gilt als konservativ. Im Fall eines Wahlsiegs der Republikaner im kommenden Jahr wird sie als mögliche neue Außenministerin gehandelt. Sie ist mit Robert Kagan verheiratet, einem konservativen Vordenker. Er veröffentlichte im vergangenen Jahr einen Text, warum Amerika die unumstrittene Führungsmacht in der Welt bleiben müsse.

In der Ukraine-Krise gilt Nuland als Hardlinerin und Anhängerin von Waffenlieferungen – anders als ihr Präsident Barack Obama hat sie eine klare Meinung, was getan werden muss.

Glücksfall und Hypothek für Obama

Nuland war an den US-Botschaften in Moskau und Peking, als Diplomatin bei der Nato und Sprecherin des Außenministeriums in Washington. Aber kein Land fasziniert sie so wie Russland. Sie liebe dieses Land, hat sie einmal gesagt. Russisch spricht Nuland fließend. Als die “wichtigste Erinnerung ihrer Karriere” bezeichnet die Spitzendiplomatin den Tag im August 1991, als sie zusammen mit 250.000 Menschen vor dem Kreml in Moskau gestanden “und Nein zur Konterrevolution gesagt” habe. Victoria Nuland hat deshalb auch den Kampf gegen die Mächte des Finsteren im einstigen Zarenreich in den Mittelpunkt ihrer Karriere gestellt.

Sie ist damit ein Glücksfall und eine Hypothek zugleich für Obama. Für Schlagzeilen sorgte sie bereits nach der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz des vergangenen Jahres. Damals flog sie von München über Zypern und Prag nach Kiew, und auf dem Weg telefonierte sie mit Geoffrey Pyatt, dem amerikanischen Botschafter in der Ukraine. Nuland verzichtete auf besondere Sicherheitsvorkehrungen und benutzte ihr normales Mobiltelefon. Damit war das Gespräch unverschlüsselt.

Am Abend des 4. Februar 2014 tauchte bei YouTube ein Mitschnitt auf, vier Minuten und elf Sekunden lang. Das Gespräch zwischen den beiden Spitzendiplomaten gab einen seltenen Einblick in die Welt der amerikanischen Diplomatie. Am Ende des Telefonats sprach Nuland einen Vorschlag der US-Regierung an, der die zögerlichen Europäer ausmanövrieren sollte und sie weltberühmt gemacht hat. Kurz zuvor hatte sie mit den Vereinten Nationen gesprochen, die Uno sollte sich in der Ukraine engagieren und einen Gesandten schicken, damit hätte die EU nicht mehr viel zu sagen. “Das wäre großartig, denke ich, um zu helfen, die Dinge zu bewegen, die Uno würde die Dinge vorantreiben”, sagte Nuland und setzte hinzu: “Fuck the EU.”

“Absolut inakzeptabel” seien die Worte, ließ die Kanzlerin damals ausrichten – eine ungewöhnlich scharfe Reaktion. In den Tagen danach musste Nuland sich entschuldigen. Als Zeichen der Abbitte erschien sie bei der nächsten Runde mit einem selbstgemachten Anstecker: “I love the EU.”

Nun sind zum zweiten Mal abfällige Aussagen Nulands durchgesickert, die nicht für die Öffentlichkeit gedacht waren. Die Deutschen zeigten sich irritiert, schließlich hatte die Amerikanerin bei den Treffen mit deutschen Ministern Merkels Initiative zur Deeskalation in der Ukraine-Krise gelobt.

Am Tag nach dem Bericht in der “Bild”-Zeitung wollte Nuland von den Aussagen dann auch nichts mehr wissen. Vielmehr sei sie ein Fan der Diplomatie-Initiative der deutschen Kanzlerin. “In der Öffentlichkeit und intern haben alle von uns, mich eingeschlossen, deren Diplomatie unterstützt”, sagte sie der US-Zeitung “Wall Street Journal”, “und wir haben Seite an Seite mit ihnen gearbeitet.”

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Congress is failing the Tonkin Gulf test on Ukraine

by Robert Parry
Posted on  Information Clearing House, February 21, 2015

As the Ukraine crisis worsens, Official Washington fumes only about “Russian aggression” — much as a half century ago, the Tonkin Gulf talk was all about “North Vietnamese aggression.” But then and now there were other sides to the story – and questions that Congress needed to ask, writes Robert Parry.

February 21, 2015 “ICH” – “Consortium News” – Many current members of Congress, especially progressives, may have envisioned how they would have handled the Tonkin Gulf crisis in 1964. In their imaginations, they would have asked probing questions and treated the dubious assertions from the White House with tough skepticism before voting on whether to give President Lyndon Johnson the authority to go to war in Vietnam.

If they had discovered what CIA and Pentagon insiders already knew – that the crucial second North Vietnamese “attack” on U.S. destroyers likely never happened and that the U.S. warships were not on some “routine” patrol but rather supporting a covert attack on North Vietnamese territory – today’s members of Congress would likely see themselves joining Sens. Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening as the only ones voting no.

Bravery in hindsight is always easy, but things feel quite different when Official Washington is locked in one of its pro-war “group thinks” when all the “important people” – from government to the media to think tanks – are pounding their chests and talking tough, as they are now on Russia and Ukraine.

Then, if you ask your probing questions and show your tough skepticism, you will have your patriotism, if not your sanity, questioned. You will be “controversialized,” “marginalized,” “pariahed.” You will be called somebody’s “apologist,” whether it’s Ho Chi Minh or Vladimir Putin.

And nobody wants to go through that because here’s the truth about Official Washington: if you run with the pack – if you stay within the herd – you’ll be safe. Even if things go terribly wrong – even if thousands of American soldiers die along with many, many more foreign civilians – you can expect little or no accountability. You will likely keep your job and may well get promoted. But if you stand in the way of the stampede, you’ll be trampled.

After all, remember what happened to Morse and Gruening in their next elections. They both lost. As one Washington insider once told me about the U.S. capital’s culture, “there’s no honor in being right too soon. People just remember that you were out of step and crazy.”

So, the choice often is to do the right thing and be crushed or to run with the pack and be safe. But there are moments when even the most craven member of Congress should look for whatever courage he or she has left and behave like a Morse or a Gruening, especially in a case like the Ukraine crisis which has the potential to spin out of control and into a nuclear confrontation.

Though the last Congress already whipped through belligerent resolutions denouncing “Russian aggression” and urging a military response – with only five Democrats and five Republicans dissenting – members of the new Congress could at least ascertain the facts that have driven the Ukraine conflict. Before the world lurches into a nuclear showdown, it might make a little sense to know what got us here.

The Nuland Phone Call Continue reading

Robert Parry: How the New York Times falsifies the Ukraine narrative

In late February, a conference is scheduled in New York City to discuss the risk of nuclear war if computers reach the level of artificial intelligence and take decisions out of human hands. But there is already the old-fashioned danger of nuclear war, started by human miscalculation, fed by hubris and propaganda.

That possible scenario is playing out in Ukraine, where the European Union and the United States provoked a political crisis on Russia’s border in November 2013, then backed a coup d’etat in February 2014 and have presented a one-sided account of the ensuing civil war, blaming everything on Russia.

Possibly the worst purveyor of this Cold War-style propaganda has been the New York Times, which has given its readers a steady diet of biased reporting and analysis, including now accusing the Russians for a resurgence in the fighting.

One way the Times has falsified the Ukraine narrative is by dating the origins of the crisis to several months after the crisis actually began. So, the lead story in Saturday’s editions ignored the actual chronology of events and started the clock with the appearance of Russian troops in Crimea in spring 2014.

The Times article by Rick Lyman and Andrew E. Kramer said: “A shaky cease-fire has all but vanished, with rebel leaders vowing fresh attacks. Civilians are being hit by deadly mortars at bus stops. Tanks are rumbling down snowy roads in rebel-held areas with soldiers in unmarked green uniforms sitting on their turrets, waving at bystanders — a disquieting echo of the ‘little green men’ whose appearance in Crimea opened this stubborn conflict in the spring.”

In other words, the story doesn’t start in fall 2013 with the extraordinary U.S. intervention in Ukrainian political affairs – spearheaded by American neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain – nor with the U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22, 2014, which ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych and put one of Nuland’s chosen leaders, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in as Prime Minister.

No, because if that history were included, Times readers might actually have a chance for a balanced understanding of this unnecessary tragedy. For propaganda purposes, it is better to start the cameras rolling only after the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from the failed state of Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

Except the Times won’t reference the lopsided referendum or the popular will of the Crimean people. It’s better to pretend that Russian troops – the “little green men” – just invaded Crimea and conquered the place against the people’s will. The Russian troops were already in Crimea as part of an agreement with Ukraine for maintaining the Russian naval base at Sevastopol.

Which leads you to the next paragraph of the Times story: “The renewed fighting has dashed any hopes of reinvigorating a cease-fire signed in September [2014] and honored more in name than in fact since then. It has also put to rest the notion that Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, would be so staggered by the twin blows of Western sanctions and a collapse in oil prices that he would forsake the separatists in order to foster better relations with the West.”

That last point gets us to the danger of human miscalculation driven by hubris. The key error committed by the EU and compounded by the U.S. was to assume that a brazen bid to get Ukraine to repudiate its longtime relationship with Russia and to bring Ukraine into the NATO alliance would not prompt a determined Russian reaction.

Russia sees the prospect of NATO military forces and their nuclear weapons on its borders as a grave strategic threat, especially with Kiev in the hands of rabid right-wing politicians, including neo-Nazis, who regard Russia as a historic enemy. Confronted with such a danger – especially with thousands of ethnic Russians inside Ukraine being slaughtered – it was a near certainty that Russia’s leaders would not succumb meekly to Western sanctions and demands.

Yet, as long as the United States remains in thrall to the propagandistic narrative that the New York Times and other U.S. mainstream media outlets have spun, President Barack Obama will almost surely continue to ratchet up the tensions. To do otherwise would open Obama to accusations of “weakness.”

During his State of the Union address, Obama mostly presented himself as a peacemaker, but his one major deviation was when he crowed about the suffering that U.S.-organized sanctions had inflicted on Russia, whose economy, he boasted, was “in tatters.”

So, with the West swaggering and Russia facing what it considers a grave strategic threat, it’s not hard to imagine how the crisis in Ukraine could escalate into a violent clash between NATO and Russian forces with the possibility of further miscalculation bringing nuclear weapons into play.

The Actual Narrative

There’s no sign that the New York Times has any regrets about becoming a crude propaganda organ, but just in case someone is listening inside “the newspaper of record,” let’s reprise the actual narrative of the Ukraine crisis. It began not last spring, as the Times would have you believe, but rather in fall 2013 when President Yanukovych was evaluating the cost of an EU association agreement if it required an economic break with Russia.

This part of the narrative was well explained by Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, even though it has generally taken a harshly anti-Russian line. But, in a retrospective piece published a year after the crisis began, Der Spiegel acknowledged that EU and German leaders were guilty of miscalculations that contributed to the civil war in Ukraine, particularly by under-appreciating the enormous financial costs to Ukraine if it broke its historic ties to Russia.

In November 2013, Yanukovych learned from experts at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine that the total cost to the country’s economy from severing its business connections to Russia would be around $160 billion, 50 times the $3 billion figure that the EU had estimated, Der Spiegel reported.

The figure stunned Yanukovych, who pleaded for financial help that the EU couldn’t provide, the magazine said. Western loans would have to come from the International Monetary Fund, which was demanding painful “reforms” of Ukraine’s economy, structural changes that would make the hard lives of average Ukrainians even harder, including raising the price of natural gas by 40 percent and devaluing Ukraine’s currency, the hryvnia, by 25 percent.

With Putin offering a more generous aid package of $15 billion, Yanukovych backed out of the EU agreement but told the EU’s Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Nov. 28, 2013, that he was willing to continue negotiating. German Chancellor Angela Merkel responded with “a sentence dripping with disapproval and cool sarcasm aimed directly at the Ukrainian president. ‘I feel like I’m at a wedding where the groom has suddenly issued new, last minute stipulations,” according to Der Spiegel’s chronology of the crisis.

After the collapse of the EU deal, U.S. neocons went to work on one more “regime change” – this time in Ukraine – using the popular disappointment in western Ukraine over the failed EU agreement as a way to topple Yanukovych, the constitutionally elected president whose political base was in eastern Ukraine.

Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, a prominent neocon holdover who advised Vice President Dick Cheney, passed out cookies to anti-Yanukovych demonstrators at the Maidan Square in Kiev and reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations.”

Sen. McCain, who seems to want war pretty much everywhere, joined Ukrainian rightists onstage at the Maidan urging on the protests, and Gershman’s U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy deployed its Ukrainian political/media operatives in support of the disruptions. As early as September 2013, the NED president had identified Ukraine as “the biggest prize” and an important step toward toppling Putin in Russia. [See’s “Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit.”]

By early February 2014, Nuland was telling U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt “fuck the EU” and discussing how to “glue this thing” as she handpicked who the new leaders of Ukraine would be; “Yats is the guy,” she said about Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

As violent disorders at the Maidan grew worse – with well-organized neo-Nazi militias hurling firebombs at police – the State Department and U.S. news media blamed Yanukovych. On Feb. 20, when mysterious snipers – apparently firing from positions controlled by the neo-Nazi Right Sektor – shot to death police officers and protesters, the situation spun out of control – and the American press again blamed Yanukovych.

Though Yanukovych signed a Feb. 21 agreement with three European countries accepting reduced powers and early elections, that was not enough for the coup-makers. On Feb. 22, a putsch, spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias, forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives.

Remarkably, however, when the Times pretended to review this history in a January 2015 article, the Times ignored the extraordinary evidence of a U.S.-backed coup – including the scores of NED political projects, McCain’s cheerleading and Nuland’s plotting. The Times simply informed its readers that there was no coup. [See’s “NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine.”]

But the Times’ propaganda on Ukraine is not just wretched journalism, it is also a dangerous ingredient in what could become a nuclear confrontation, if Americans come to believe a false narrative and thus go along with more provocative actions by their political leaders who, in turn, might feel compelled to act tough because otherwise they’d be attacked as “soft.”

In other words, even without computers seizing control of man’s nuclear weapons, man himself might blunder into a nuclear Armageddon, driven not by artificial intelligence but a lack of the human kind.

Asst. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland discussed how to install a puppet regime in Kiev in February — transcript

US-EU Clash on How to Install a Puppet Regime in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland

By Global Research News, February 07, 2014
Oriental Review

Yesterday’s leak of the flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt has already hit the international media headlines. In short, it turned out that the US officials were coordinating their actions on how to install a puppet government in Ukraine. They agreed to nominate Bat’kyvshchina Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko off the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as “Yanukovych’s project”. Then Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the Washington’s hand by the UN Secretary General, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey  Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send his special envoy to Kyiv this week “to glue the things”. Touching the European role in managing Ukraine’s political crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: “Fuck the EU”.

In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State Department: “this is a new low in Russian tradecraft”), Mrs. Nuland brought her apologies to the EU officials. Does it mean that the Washington’s repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the “strategic Transatlantic partnership” is much worthy of apology than the direct and clear interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994 Budapest memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine?  Meanwhile this document inter alia reads as follows:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Back to the latest Mrs. Nuland’s diplomatic collapse made public,  it is hardly an unwilling and regretful fault. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report (Bride at every wedding, Part I and Part II) a couple of days ago depicting a blatant lack of professionalism and personal intergity of Mrs. Nuland. He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the circumstances of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012 and her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian “independent” NGOs seeking to bring a color revolution to Russia.

Her diplomatically unacceptable behavior on the Ukrainian track, which culminated on YouTube this week (video and full transcript are available below), suggests that Mrs. Nuland is perhaps a wrong person in a wrong position for protecting American interests in Eurasia.

Full transcript of the telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt (posted on YouTube on Feb 6, 2014):

Victoria Nuland (V.N.): What do you think?

Geoffrey R. Pyatt (G.P.): I think we are in play. The Klitchko piece is obviously the most complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as Deputy Prime Minister. You have seen my notes on trouble in the marriage right now, so we are trying to get a read really fast where he is on the staff. But I think your argument to him which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call that you want to set up is exactly the one you made to Yats (Yatsenuk’s nickname). I’m glad you put him on the spot. <…> He fits in this scenario. And I am very glad he said what he said.

V.N.: Good. I don’t think Klitsch (Klitschko’s nickname) should be in the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.

G.P.: Yeah, I mean, I guess… In terms of him not going into the government… I’d just let him stay out and do his political homework. I’m just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is gonna be with Tyahnibok and his guys. And, you know, I am sure that is part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

V.N.: I think Yats is the guy. He has economic experience and governing experience. He is the guy. You know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnibok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think if Klitchko gets in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenuk, it’s just not gonna work…

G.P.: Yeah, yeah, I think that’s right. Ok, good. Would you like us to set up a call with him as the next step?

V.N.: My understading from that call that you tell me was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was gonna offer in this context, you know, a «three plus one» conversation or a «three plus two» conversation with you. Is that not how you understood it?

G.P.: No. I think that was what he proposed but I think that knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitchko has been the top dog, he’ll show up for whatever meetings they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point. So, I think you reaching out directly to him, helps with the personality management among the three. And it also gives you a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it, before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.

V.N.: Ok. Good. I am happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

G.P.: Ok, I will do it. Thanks.

V.N.: I can’t remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this: when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning he had a new name for the UN guy – Robert Serry. I wrote you about it this morning.

G.P.: Yeah, I saw that.

V.N.: Ok. He’s gotten now both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry will come on Monday or Tuesday. That would be great I think to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, if you like, fuck the EU.

G.P.: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I am still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych <…> that. In the meantime there is a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I am sure there is a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway, we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… I think we just want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

V.N.: So on that piece, Jeff, when I wrote the note Sullivan’s come back to me V.F.R., saying you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta boy and to get the details to stick. So, Biden’s willing.

G.P.: Ok. Great, thanks.

The EU Response

Deputy Secretary General EE AS External Service Helga M. Schmid (H.S.) and Jan Tombinsky (J.T.), EU Ambassador to Ukraine (rendering, starting 0:04:13 on the tape):

H.S.: Jan, it’s Helga once again. I’d like to tell you one more thing, it’s confidential. The Americans are beating about the bush and saying that our stand is too soft. They believe we should be stronger and apply sanctions. I talked to Cathy (Cathrene Ashton – OR) and she agrees with us on the matter we were discussing last time. We will do it but we must arrange everything in a clever way.

J.T.: You know we have other instruments.

H.S.: The journalists are already talking that the EU stand is “too soft”. What you should really know is that we are very angry that the Americans are beating about the bush. Maybe you tell the US Ambassador and draw his attention to the fact that our stand is not soft, we’ve just made a hard-line statement and took a tougher stance… I want you to know that it would be detrimental to our interests if we see in the newspapers that «The European Union does not support freedom». Cathy will not like it.

J.T.: Helga, we do not compete in a race. We should demonstrate that this situation is not a competition in diplomatic toughness. I’ve just heard about the opposition’s new proposal to the president. I’ll write Cathy about it right now.

H.S.: Ok.

P.S. Awkward attempts to question “morality” is such revelations sound especially hypocritical from a global spying power that monitors and controls most of the mobile phone and internet users activities, taps the phone lines of world leaders, and oversees the world’s most far-reaching wire-tapping program.

Copyright Oriental Review 2014

Reprinted in


Reprinted under Fair Use Rules.