The Remarkable Coincidences of John C. Tefft

From Fort Russ


The Remarkable Coincidences of John C. Tefft

By J.Hawk

The graphic above is going viral on the Russian side of the internet, and it reads as follows:

“Since the current US ambassador arrived in Russia, they killed Nemtsov, while he was in Georgia they killed Zhvaniya, and in Ukraine—Gongadze. Coincidence?”

Each of the three was a prominent opposition figure, and in each case his death had led to political upheaval. To quote Ian Fleming, “once is a happenstance, twice–a coincidence, three times–enemy action.”

Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine — West’s absorption of former Soviet countries

From Stop NATO

Civil Georgia
March 7, 2015
Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine to Hold Consultations over EaP Riga Summit
Eastern Partnership: The West’s Final Assault On the Former Soviet Union


Tbilisi: Deputy foreign ministers of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will meet next week in Tbilisi to elaborate “joint position” in the process of their European integration, especially in the light of upcoming Eastern Partnership (EaP) summit in Riga in late May, the Georgian Foreign Ministry said on Saturday.

“During the meeting a special emphasis will be made on expectations, which are related to the Eastern Partnership summit in Riga,” it said.

Issues of bilateral relations will also be discussed when deputy foreign ministers of Moldova and Ukraine, Iulian Groza and Olena Zerkal, respectively, will visit Tbilisi on March 10-11 and meet their Georgian counterpart Gigi Gigiadze, according to the Georgian Foreign Ministry.

When visiting Brussels late last month Georgia’s PM Irakli Garibashvili said that Tbilisi is committed to fulfill all the requirements under the visa liberalisation action plan with the EU and expects the European Commission to recommend visa waiver by the time of the Riga summit.

Preparation for the upcoming Eastern Partnership summit was one of the issues discussed by EU foreign ministers at an information meeting in Riga on Saturday.

“There has been a broad agreement that Riga summit has to reaffirm the political commitment of the European Union to its eastern neighborhood,” said after the meeting Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs, whose country holds EU’s rotating presidency.

“We are of the same opinion that we should have more individual approach to any of eastern partners, it applies also to our southern neighborhood. We also are of the same opinion that we need more support to those countries that are conducting reform process,” he said.

“We have to work on the package of assistance for all three countries that have signed the Association Agreement with the EU – Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The assistance package should help them implement deep and comprehensive free trade agreement,” Rinkēvičs said.

He also said that the issue of visa liberalisation was also discussed at the EU foreign ministers’ informal meeting and added that they are now waiting for the results of the European Commission assessment of how Georgia and Ukraine are implementing their respective visa liberalisation action plans.

If Georgia’s progress is assessed positively and the European Commission recommends the lifting of visa requirements, it must then be approved by the European Parliament and the EU-member states before it comes into force.

Washington stalks its next victim, sends color revolution expert “male Nuland” to Kyrgyzstan

From Oriental Review, March 5, 2015
By Andrew Korybko


Image: Richard Miles a.k.a father of Color Revolution

One of the most prominent Color Revolution experts in America’s coup d’état toolkit has been hurriedly recalled from retirement for immediate deployment to Kyrgyzstan. Richard Miles, the engineer of the first Color Revolution in Serbia and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, has been appointed as charge d’affaires in Kyrgyzstan until a new ambassador is confirmed by the Senate, because the former one, Pamela Spratlen, has been reassigned as the US Ambassador to Uzbekistan. While it is not known how long Miles will remain in Kyrgyzstan, which will be the Eurasian Union’s weakest economy when it joins in May of this year, ordinary citizens there already suspect that foul play is being planned against their country and have protested his arrival. Given that Miles’ track record of regime change makes him worthy of the ‘Male Nuland’ moniker, it’s appropriate to investigate what tricks the US may be up to in Central Asia, and how it may be trying to force the Ukrainian scenario onto Russia’s southern doorstep.

“The Male Nuland”

Richard Miles has kept a relatively low profile throughout the years and hasn’t garnered the notoriety that his ideological protégé Nuland has, but this doesn’t mean that he’s any less dangerous for the countries he visits. In fact, since he’s the individual who spearheaded the Color Revolution tactic in the first place, he can even be referred to as a ‘proto Nuland’, owing to his ‘successes’ in Serbia and Georgia that helped make EuroMaidan possible in the first place. While he was no longer the American Ambassador to Yugoslavia when the 2000 Bulldozer Revolution overthrow Slobodan Milosevic, he certainly paved the way for its implementation during his work over the three years prior, including overseeing the NATO War on Serbia. As regards Georgia, he served as US Ambassador from 2002-2005 and repeated the Belgrade template in Tbilisi.

Afterwards, he became the Executive Director for the Open World Leadership Center for most of 2006, during which he fostered the creation of thousands of pro-American ‘leaders’ in the former Soviet Union. To Center’s own mission statement concisely describes the type of work that it does:

“Begun as a pilot program in 1999 and established as a permanent agency in late 2000, the Center conducts the first and only international exchange agency in the U.S. Legislative Branch and, as such, has enabled more than 17,000 current and future leaders from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan to meaningfully engage and interact with Members of Congress, Congressional staff, and thousands of other Americans, many of whom are the delegates’ direct professional counterparts.”

The above statement can be read as an admission that the Center’s purpose is to create pro-American proxies that can seamlessly interact with and do the bidding of their Washington patrons, thereby essentially making it an NGO front for the US intelligence community’s cultivation of Color Revolution assets. The organization doesn’t hide the fact that its purpose is to promote American interests and profit, brazenly bragging that:

“Open World offers an extraordinary “bang for the buck” in terms of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and value. The Center boasts an overhead rate of about 7 percent, every grant contains cost-shared elements, and more than 75 percent of our appropriation is plowed back into the American economy every year. The Center might best be described as both a mini-stimulus plan as well as a true international exchange program.”

Bearing in mind Miles’ experience in running this Color Revolution recruitment front, as well as his contribution to managing two ‘successful’ regime change operations in Serbia and Georgia, he can easily be identified as one of the most dangerous people in the US deep state establishment, and the fact that he was recalled from retirement to urgently take the ‘temporary’ post in Kyrgyzstan during these tense geopolitical times must absolutely be seen as a warning about Washington’s nefarious intentions.

Uzbekistan’s Role In The US’ Central Asian Strategy

While Washington is poised to destabilize Kyrgyzstan, it’s showing strong signals that it’s ready to do the opposite in neighboring Uzbekistan, and has been reingratiating itself with Tashkent over the past couple of years in a bid to shore up what it intends to become its Lead From Behind proxy in the region. Continue reading

Great embarrassment for Washington if Saakashvili Is convicted — experts

From Sputnik News, November 11, 2014

New criminal charges have been pressed against Georgia’s ex-president Mikhail Saakashvili. What are the accusations and how good are the chances that the case gets into court? Radio Sputnik is discussing it with Nana Devdariani (Tbilisi) and Mikhail Alexandrov (Moscow).

On Monday new charges were brought against former President Mikhail Saakashvili and former Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili. This time the ex-President and his minister have been linked to the beating up of lawmaker Valery Gelashvili in July 2005, according to Prosecutor General’s Office report.

Merabishvili held the ministerial post from December 2004 to July 2012. He was arrested in Tbilisi in July last year and is still kept in custody, charged with abuse of power and several other offences.

Saakashvili was president of Georgia from January 2004 to November 17, 2013. He has already been charged with misappropriation of funds, with abuse of power and other criminal offences.

Nana Devdariani, former Head of Georgian Central Electoral Committee, now the Director of the Center for Global Studies (Tbilisi):

If we consider the majority, well, figures tell the whole story.  The population of our country is four and a half million people. Of these more than three hundred thousand have been detained, jailed or have been otherwise repressed by the state law enforcement system. These people have families, relatives and friends.

So, the majority of people in Georgia have already been demanding – and for quite some time, too — that justice must be restored. Yet, there are people, who are quite clearly in the minority, who still support the nationalist movement, and who grow sarcastic asking – from which moment in our history do we need to start restoring justice? Their point is that even the Communist Party of Georgia has not been put on trial, whereas you can often hear that nationalist movement should be banned.

Now, coming to Saakashvili. Saakashvili was a ruler who had all power under his personal control. It was he who used to decide on virtually every matter, including which color houses had to be painted in Tbilisi…

So, naturally enough, he was well informed, if not directly involved, in all major criminal acts committed by his government. It’s a well-known fact. And everyone here has been expecting criminal investigation into his role for quite some time, yet, sometimes, it starts to resemble a comedy, or a farce.

It’s little surprise that Saakashvili has long ago taken all his billions, everything he stole and looted, out of the country. So, when, in compliance with the legislation he himself had introduced, the property which allegedly belonged to him and his family, was to be arrested, there appeared to be only an old and beaten car which used to belong to his grandmother. It could have been amusing if it hadn’t been so sad. In fact, people here are waiting for Saakashvili, and his team, to be held accountable for what they had committed…

But how realistic are these expectations? After all, Saakashvili can count on strong support from the US?

Nana Devdariani: Well, that’s true, that they had used all their PR skills heavily on Saakashvili. But even that might not be of great help. Look, to make it short, if we look at all dictators who lost their power in the course of the so-called ‘velvet’ or ‘color’ revolutions, almost all of them had enjoyed some support from the West. So the support from the West has come to sound comic. Every time we discuss democracy we end looking into the national interests of the United States.

But on the other hand, more corruption schemes have been revealed not only in Georgia, but in other countries. For instance, the recent case of Carl Bildt, high ranking European official.  As it turned out Saakashvili paid Bildt’s lobbyist company several million dollars for lobbying [while Mr. Bildt held the position of the Foreign Minister of Sweden]. So, Mr. Bildt and his company continue to lobby Saakashvili. There’s a good saying – there is nothing secret that would not come to light. Now coming to light are the facts which some ten years ago used to be known to merely a couple of people.

Saakashvili who left Georgia in mid-November 2013, several days before the expiration of his presidential term (and immunity), has since stayed mainly in the United States and Europe. He said he had no intentions of cooperating with the investigation, neither would he turn up for being questioned. 

Mikhail Alexandrov, Senior expert at the Center for military and political studies, MGIMO, Russia:

I must say that it is very serious. The whole situation around Saakashvili is very serious. The point is that Saakashvili was not just a leader of a small country, he was a protégé of the US, which actually supported him in various ways and gave him a go-ahead for various things that he did. And later they covered him from the criticism inside the country and outside of it, when he left his post.

And now it turns out that Mr. Saakashvili is a criminal. And not simply a corrupt official, but a person who can be accused of murder, who can be accused of torture and who is actually regarded as a thief in his own country, and it turns out that Mr. Saakashvili was supported by the official Washington. And everybody around will naturally ask – did they support a criminal, a thief, a murderer?

It is very discrediting information that discredits the US and its policies, because they claim that they support democracy, human rights, good governments. And what we see is vice versa – an absolutely different situation. They simply supported not even a dictator – a person who violated human rights, but the person who used such techniques as political repression, even killing his political opponents, torturing them, putting them into jail and, moreover, stealing the Government’s money.

It will be a great embarrassment for Washington if he is actually convicted of these crimes. That’s why we see that Washington is very unhappy about these court procedures that started in Georgia concerning Saakashvili.

Dr. Alexandrov, do you think we could remind our listeners of how it all started? 

Mikhail Alexandrov: I think it started with the fact that the US was not satisfied with Shevardnadze. Shevardnadze was a very experienced and a cunning politician who managed to maneuver in various ways. And he didn’t want to become simply an American puppet. He tried to conduct what we call a multi-vector policy and maintained very good relations with the US, but also he didn’t break up the relations with Russia.

And just before he was ousted from the office, he made a number of very serious economic deals with Russia – with the Russian electric energy companies, with the Russian gas companies. And also, he insisted on withdrawing only two Russian military bases from Georgia, leaving the two others. And this didn’t correspond with the actual plans of the US to advance NATO to the east and to draw Georgia into this military\political combination against Russia.

They needed a person who would break up the relations with Russia completely and more unequivocally towards the West. They started to look around and Saakashvili seemed to be a very appropriate person. He was an opportunist, he also was married to the Westerner and he lived and worked in the West for some time, I think, at that moment. Later he moved to the political elite of Georgia.

He was actually promoted by Shevardnadze himself, who regarded him as a person who had some potential. Shevardnadze wanted to rule the country for some time to come, but the US wanted to take simple and drastic decisions. And that’s why they saw that Saakashvili is a suitable candidate to take Shevardnadze’s place and they supported him.

We remember this first so-called color revolution in the post-Soviet space happen in Georgia. It was an illegal coup, actually. At that time the Russian Government didn’t understand what was happening. It actually helped the US to perform this coup d’état. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov came to Tbilisi and actually calmed down the tensions, because he talked Shevardnadze out of using force against those demonstrators and protestors who ousted him from the office.

So, this ended like that. But then, we saw that Saakashvili started to undermine the Russian interests in Georgia one by one. First, he went after Adjara, then he tried to take control of South Ossetia. In 2004 there was the first small war there. And then, he ousted the Russian military bases from Georgia. Of course, he subdued all the opposition, even those who were not exactly pro-Russian, but simply against him.

They were all subdued and threatened, and even Burjanadze was silenced, because she was afraid. If Zhvania was killed, anybody could be killed either. And also, some prominent figures from the former Saakashvili allies, they actually fled the country, like Alasania, for example, who went to Paris, and other smaller figures in the political establishment also fled the country. Some of the people were charged with preparing a pro-Russian coup d’état and were put into jail for 10-13 years, which is a tremendous period of jail sentence. So, these were quite cruel methods of the subjugation of the opposition.

Precisely! But, somehow, Saakashvili was there, he ruptured all the ties with Russia but Georgia has not become a NATO member.

Mikhail Alexandrov: Yes, because of the question of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As a matter of fact, NATO cannot admit Georgia into its membership, because the next day Georgia would say that – look, our territories are occupied and NATO should defend us against the Russian aggression. So, admitting Georgia means starting a war with Russia. That’s why NATO actually doesn’t want to admit Georgia at this point of time.

So, Georgia should recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And then, probably, NATO will accept it. But at this moment and with the current Georgia policies of regarding these two territories as part of Georgia, I don’t think NATO will ever admit Georgia.

Now that you’ve mentioned Nino Burjanadze, the ex-speaker of the Georgian Parliament, the other day she said that Kiev authorities are committing all the mistakes and all the blunders Saakashvili had committed…

Mikhail Alexandrov: Burjanadze is now positioning herself as the real opposition not only to Saakashvili, but to the present authorities in Georgia who are unsure in what direction they should move. These new authorities of Georgia are very timid with regards to Saakashvili and his associates who are actually responsible for various crimes against the Georgian people.

And Burjanadze sees the political opportunity here, where she could move. Of course, she criticizes not only Saakashvili by saying that, but she criticizes the policies of the current Georgian Government, because she says that the Georgian Government didn’t condemn the war of 2008 against the South Ossetia, which was the major crime committed by Saakashvili. And look, if this happens, if the Georgian Government condemns this war, it will mean putting part of the blame on the West for supporting Saakashvili and supporting this war. And that’s why the current Government of Georgia is a bit timid and doesn’t want to recognize this obvious fact.

But Burjanadze sees the political opportunity and she goes further, than the current Government. And she also wants to take revenge over Saakashvili who actually removed her from power, and actually put a political pressure on her, intimidated her when she was in opposition.

Now it is a good chance to show everybody that the advice that Saakashvili is giving to Ukraine is wrong and what actually has led to this situation now in Ukraine, where Crimea has detached itself from Ukraine and Donbass is also detaching itself from Ukraine, it is the result of the advice that Saakashvili is giving to the current Ukrainian Government. Basically, his advice is wrong and counterproductive, and leads not to the effective results but quite the opposite. I think that is the reason why she made this statement.


Saakashvili, a wanted man at home, lobbies Washington for arms for Ukraine

From Sputnik News, February 26, 2015

Former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is on a mission. He’s come to Washington to persuade national legislators and government officials that they should arm the Ukrainian government.

While US President Barack Obama’s administration declared publicly that it hasn’t made a decision about sending lethal military aid to Ukraine, and European powers as well as Russia have warned Washington against doing so, Beltway hawks are getting another blast of warmongering adrenaline from a man who led his country to a disastrous war in 2008 and now seems eager to push Ukraine into an open confrontation with Russia.

Saakashvili’s closest friends in Washington: ever looking for a place to send US troops, Senator John McCain and his sidekick Sen. Lindsay Graham have long been advocating for sending arms in support of Petro Poroshenko’s government in Kiev.  Western powers failing to come to Ukraine’s aid “are legitimizing the dismemberment of a sovereign nation in Europe for the first time in seven decades,” they wrote in a joint statement.
Mikheil Saakashvili         @SaakashviliM

And I am proud to be friends for more than 20 years with this true American hero. 

However, Saakashvili — who has recently become an adviser to Ukrainian President Poroshenko — is looking to expand the number of supporters ready to arm Kiev.

Obviously, in the name of democracy and progress.

“[N]ever have so many [U.S.] lawmakers agreed to meet with me, even when I was president:” he posted on Facebook about the trip. “34 meetings in three days.”

Calling Ukraine “today’s West Berlin,” Saakashvili painted the conflict in unequivocal terms in a Feb. 24 op-ed in the Washington Post, appearing just in time for him to meet with US lawmakers.

“What is being decided in Ukraine — the largest country in Europe — is whether the post-Soviet space will be allowed to free itself from a vicious cycle of inefficiency, corruption, violence and failed governments to build instead modern, open, democratic societies,” he wrote.

While Saakashvili is on an international tour to drum up military aid, his own country has sought to have him extradited from Ukraine to face charges of abuse of authority.

Ukraine has so far refused Georgia’s extradition request, and Saakashvili has called the charges politically motivated and “a farce.”

Though the charges relate to abuses of power from earlier in his presidency, Saakashvili also came under fire from the European Union for his role in the 2008 war with Russia which led to Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.

The EU-commissioned report blamed Saakashvili for starting the conflict due to his “penchant for acting in the heat of the moment.” The report further dismissed claims that Russia had attacked prior to Georgia’s bombardment of the Southern Ossetian town of Tskhinvali, the first confrontation of the war.

“It is not possible to accept that the shelling of Tskhinvali with Grad multiple rocket launchers and heavy artillery would satisfy the requirements of having been necessary and proportionate,” the 2009 report concluded.

Saakashvili was elected in 2004 and held office until 2013, with strong support from the United States. The opposition Georgian Dream coalition won the country’s 2012 parliamentary elections, while the United National Movement, the ruling party since the Rose Revolution in 2003 and led by former President Saakashvili, became its rival. A year later, Giorgi Margvelashvili from Georgian Dream won the presidency, replacing Saakashvili. Immediately after losing presidential immunity, Saakashvili fled the country and since then has refused to return to Georgia to face the trial.

Inside the “Ukraine Freedom Support Act”

From Sputnik, December 16, 2014
By Andrew Korybko

The latest anti-Russian bill to come out of Washington does a lot more than simply arm Ukraine, although that’s destabilizing enough as it is. Contained within the Act are powerful provisions that expand NATO’s influence in Russia’s backyard and continue the War on Syria.

The Ukrainian Freedom Support Act (UFSA) is essentially the actionable successor to the recently passed House Resolution 758, which itself has been referred to as the declaration of the New Cold War. It’s exceptionally noteworthy for fulfilling John McCain’s threat to arm Ukraine, but it’s the other decrees within it that have gone unnoticed by the mainstream media, although they’re just as troubling, if not more so. And unsurprisingly, Congress somehow found a way to group its War on Syria into the UFSA, showing that it truly exploits any opportunity to push through its agenda of regime change there even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill at hand.

The Three Amigos
The UFSA is just as much about Moldova and Georgia as it is about Ukraine, as all three countries are collectively grouped together except for when it comes to assisting with internally displaced persons. For example, when it comes to ‘the three amigos’, UFSA says that sanctions will be imposed if:

  • Russia (or any actor affiliated with it) sends “defense articles” to those countries without the consent of its government’
  • And Russia “withholds significant natural gas supplies from countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova” and NATO members.

And that the three are to be ‘rewarded’ with:

  • Major non-NATO ally status (which allows them to purchase weapons only reserved for NATO allies);
  • And a prioritized information campaign run by Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, where these countries are given a greater focus than the other former Soviet states.

Putting it all together, it is clear that the US has strategically incorporated Moldova and Georgia into its legislation about Ukraine, providing proof that it is Washington and not Moscow which is ‘widening the battlefield’ of the New Cold War. This isn’t the first time either, as all the amigos were first lumped together in May when the so-called Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014 was unveiled, which served as the predecessor of House Resolution 758.

The reasoning for this is rather simple, actually. The US wants to coordinate its push against the former Soviet periphery and is pulling out all the stops along the way. The primary objective is NATO expansion all the way to the Russian border, as well as the destabilization of Russian interests in or near these countries. Russia has a military base in the de-facto independent Transnistrian region of Moldova, while the historic reunification of Crimea and Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence from Georgia are well known. It is these precise interests and territories that the US wants to threaten with the Act.

The Big Tent
Another observation that’s lost on the mainstream media is that the Act creates a ‘big tent’ of American interests in Eurasia. When addressing the non-consented transfer of Russian defense articles to “specified countries”, other than the three amigos, it describes these as being “any other country of significant concern for purposes of this Act, such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Central Asia republics.” It’s obvious that the US would place its NATO allies under this designation, but to spread the umbrella over the Central Asian republics is a strategy that has more to it than originally meets the eye.

Russia in no way supports separatism in Central Asia, and aside from neutral Turkmenistan, it actually has constructive military and anti-terror relations with all of the regional states as a result of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This group has explicitly stated its opposition to terrorism, separatism, and extremism, and all of its members are now watching the violent situation in Afghanistan with the trepidation that it may move northward next year.

Within this context, the US is sending smoke signals to those governments that it is open for cooperating with them, but with the implicit understanding that they have to abandon their alliance with Russia and accuse it of the fantasy-driven treachery of arming separatist groups. The purpose here is to expand the reach of NATO’s 12,000 or so troops that will stay behind in Afghanistan and use them to push Russian influence (no matter how beneficial to anti-terrorist operations and regional stability) out of Central Asia.

Slick Talking About Syria
Congress understood that the current anti-Russian climate meant that the UFSA was surely bound to pass, so it added a completely irrelevant clause relating to Syria in order to strengthen the war effort against it. Specifically, the Act mandates that sanctions be imposed against any Russian company or related individual that sells defense articles to Syria. This is the complete opposite standard that it is applying to the ‘big tent’ countries. Congress says that Russia can’t transfer such units to the ‘big tent’ without the consent of their governments, but such transfers are prohibited to Syria when its government consents to it.

So what’s going on here?
The US and its allies don’t recognize the legitimacy of the Syrian government, despite President Assad having been democratically re-elected with 88.7% of the vote back in June, and the fact that they support regime change within the country. They’d rather give weapons to the insurgents fighting to overthrow the government (even if such arms sometimes end up in the hands of terrorists) than approve of Russia’s continued support for the government’s anti-terrorist war. The Syrian Arab Army is once more on the upswing (backed by Russian support), so it’s not coincidental that such a provision was made at this time. Nonetheless, such bullying by the US will never result in Russia abandoning its support for Syria, especially at this critical time, and should be seen as nothing more than the naked intimidation tactic that it is.

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow.

Posted at

Engdahl: Foreign bankers rape Ukraine

Published in New Eastern Outlook
December 18, 2014

If it were not for the fact that the lives of some 45 million people are at stake, Ukrainian national politics could be laughed off as a very sick joke. Any pretenses that the October national elections would bring a semblance of genuine democracy of the sort thousands of ordinary Ukrainians demonstrated for on Maidan Square just one year ago vanished with the announcement by Victoria Nuland’s darling Prime Minister, “Yat” Yatsenyuk, of his new cabinet.

The US-picked Ukraine President, billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko called “snap” elections at the end of August for October 26. He did so to make sure genuine opposition to his regime of murderers, gangsters and in some cases outright Nazis would be able to push an unprepared genuine opposition out of the Verkhovna Rada or Parliament. Because the parliament had significant opposition parties to the US-engineered February 22 coup d’etat, they had blocked many key pieces of legislation that the Western vultures were demanding, from changing key land ownership laws to privatization of precious state assets. By law, the old parliament would have sat until its five year term ended in October, 2017. That was clearly too long for State Department neo-con Ukraine puppet-mistress Victoria Nuland and her backers in Washington.

Now, with a new parliament that is controlled by the Petro Poroshenko bloc as largest party and the boyish-looking former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who is also new Prime Minister as head of the second largest party, the way was clear to get on with the rape of Ukraine. What shocked some is the blatant foreign takeover that followed, like a Wall Street vulture fund raid on a distressed debtor country of the Third World.

The ridiculous charade

Yatsenyuk, former finance minister in a previous criminal regime, and a suspected senior member of the US-intelligence-friendly “Church of Scientology,” has named three complete foreigners as cabinet ministers in key economic posts. And in an extraordinary act, the three have been made instant Ukrainian citizens by Poroshenko in a ridiculous ceremony. Ukraine is looking more and more like the US-occupied Philippines after the Spanish-American War of 1898 when General Arthur MacArthur, father of the mentally-dis-ordered Douglas, was Washington’s dictator on the spot.

The new Ukrainian Finance Minister, the one who will control the money and decides where it goes, is one Natalia A. Jaresko. She speaks fluent Ukrainian. Only problem—she is an American citizen, a US State Department veteran who is also a US investment banker. Now, the Ukrainian Constitution, prudently enough, stipulates that government ministers be Ukrainian. How then does our sweet Natalia come in? Continue reading