Wow, Twitter says this about one of the best American filmmakers they have:
“The link you are trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially spammy or unsafe, in accordance with Twitter’s URL Policy. This link could fall into any of the below categories:
malicious links that could steal personal information or harm electronic devices
spammy links that mislead people or disrupt their experience
violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm
certain categories of content that, if posted directly on Twitter, are a violation of the Twitter Rules“
Wow!
Made in 2014 this documentary has been removed from most platforms. It’s brilliant!
Russia could not stand idly by when Kiev started eliminating people just for associating themselves with Russian culture, language and traditions, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday as he explained the reasoning behind Moscow’s ongoing military operation in Ukraine.
Russia could not stand idly by when Kiev started eliminating people just for associating themselves with Russian culture, language and traditions, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday as he explained the reasoning behind Moscow’s ongoing military operation in Ukraine.
Speaking at an event dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the breakthrough of the blockade of Leningrad, Putin noted that the Donetsk and Lugansk regions were “historical territories” of Russia and that he ultimately made the decision to launch the military operation in order to end the eight-year-long war in Donbass and to protect its people.
“We endured for a long time, tried to reach an agreement for a long time. But, as it turns out now, we were simply led by the nose, deceived,” the president added, apparently referring to the admissions by former German chancellor Angela Merkel and former Ukraine president Pyotr Poroshenko that the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, designed to bring peace to Donbass, were a ruse by Kiev to buy time in order to build up its forces.
“It’s not the first time this has happened,” Putin admitted, stating Russia had done its best to resolve the situation by peaceful means. “It is now clear that this was, by definition, impossible. The enemy was preparing to transfer the conflict into an acute, hot phase. We had no choice but to do what we are doing now,” Putin explained.
Earlier on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia will consider its objectives in Ukraine fulfilled when no military infrastructure that poses a direct threat to Moscow remains. He also stated that, in order to bring the conflict to an end, Kiev must stop harassing and discriminating against Russian speakers.
NewsGuard gave Consortium News a red mark for “publishing false content” on Ukraine, including that there was a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev in 2014. Here is CN‘s detailed proof.
December 29, 2022
By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News NewsGuard, the media rating agency, alleges that Consortium News has published “false content” by reporting that there was a U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014 and that ne0-Nazis have significant influence in the country.
NewsGuard took issue with a:
“February 2022 article ‘Ukraine: Guides to Reflection,’ [which] asserted, ‘Hence, the inflation of Russian behavior in Ukraine (where Washington organized a coup against a democratically elected government because we disliked its political complexion) … .’
It then wrote:
“The U.S. supported the Maidan revolution that ousted then-Ukraine President Viktor Yanikovych (sic) in 2014 — including a December 2013 visit by John McCain to Kyiv in support of protesters — but there is no evidence that the U.S. ‘organized’ a ‘coup.’ Instead, it has the markings of a popular uprising, precipitated by widely covered protests against Yanukovych’s decision to suspend preparations for the signing of an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union.”
Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 in an election certified by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a fact not mentioned in NewsGuard’s writings on the change of government in Ukraine. Even though Yanukovych agreed to an EU political settlement and early elections, violence forced him to flee from the capital on Feb. 21, 2014. Reporting that the neo-Nazi Right Sector was at the forefront of the violent overthrow, The New York Times (NewsGuard green check) wrote earlier that day:
“Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of Right Sector, a coalition of hard-line nationalist groups, reacted defiantly to news of the settlement, drawing more cheers from the crowd.
‘The agreements that were reached do not correspond to our aspirations,’ he said. ‘Right Sector will not lay down arms. Right Sector will not lift the blockade of a single administrative building until our main demand is met — the resignation of Yanukovych.’ He added that he and his supporters were ‘ready to take responsibility for the further development of the revolution.’ The crowd shouted: ‘Good! Good!’
A study on the violence used to overthrow the government, by Prof. Serhiy Kudelia, a political scientist at Baylor University, says the overthrow succeeded because of “the embeddedness of violent groups” in a non-violent protest. The violence began on Dec. 1, 2013 when these violent groups attacked police with “iron chains, flares, stones and petrol bombs” and tried to ram a bulldozer through police lines. The police viciously fought back that day.
As the International Business Times (IBT) (green check) wrote about these groups at the time:
“According to a member of anti-fascist Union Ukraine, a group that monitors and fights fascism in Ukraine, ‘There are lots of nationalists here [EuroMaidan] including Nazis. They came from all over Ukraine, and they make up about 30% of protesters.
Different groups [of anarchists] came together for a meeting on the Maidan. While they were meeting, a group of Nazis came in a larger group, they had axes and baseball bats and sticks, helmets, they said it was their territory. They called the anarchists things like Jews, blacks, communists. There weren’t even any communists, that was just an insult. The anarchists weren’t expecting this and they left. People with other political views can’t stay in certain places, they aren’t tolerated,’ a member of the group continued.”
The violence by far-right groups was evidently condoned by Sen. John McCain who expressed his support for the uprising by addressing the Maidan crowd later that month. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and then U.S. ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt visited the square after the violence had broken out.
NewsGuard’s account of the events of Feb. 21, 2014 says that even though Yanukovych agreed to the early elections, “angry protestors demanded Yanukovych’s immediate resignation,” and he fled on that day after “hundreds of police guarding government buildings abandoned their posts.” NewsGuard then says “protestors took control of several government buildings the next day.”
Government Buildings Seized
Protestors occupied Kiev’s City Hall, replete with Confederate flag. (YouTube)
But protestors had already seized government buildings as early as December 2013. On Jan. 24 protestors broke into the Agriculture Ministry building in Kiev and occupied it. On the same day, barricades were set up near the presidential headquarters. Government buildings in the west of the country had also been occupied. The Guardian (green check) reported on Jan. 24:
“There were dramatic developments in the west of the country on Thursday as hundreds of people forced their way into the office of the regional governor in the city of Lviv, and forced him to sign a resignation letter. Oleh Salo, a Yanukovych appointee in a city where support for the president is in the low single digits, later said he signed the letter under duress and was rescinding his resignation.
Thousands also stormed regional administration headquarters in Rivne on Thursday, breaking down doors and demanding the release of people detained in the unrest there, Unian news agency reported. In the town of Cherkasy, 125 miles south of Kiev, about 1,000 protesters took over the first two floors of the main administration building and lit fires outside the building.
Similar action took place in Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Khmelnytsky in western and central Ukraine, as well as parts of the north-east, the Party of the Regions said.”
Protestors had begun occupying Kiev City Hall in December, with a portrait of Ukraine’s World War II fascist leader Stepan Bandera hanging from the rafters. On the night of Feb. 21, the leader of the Neo-fascist Right Sector, Andriy Parubiy, announced that the Verkhovna Rada (parliament), the Presidential Administration, the Cabinet of Ministers and the Ministry of Internal Affairs had all come under the control of the protestors.
Therefore NewsGuard has published “false content” by reporting that government buildings were occupied the day after Yanukovych fled the capital. It should print a correction.
On the day after Yanukovych fled, the Rada voted without the presence of Yanukovych’s party — the largest in the country — to impeach him after the fact of his violent overthrow. NewsGuard omitted the key fact that the impeachment vote was tainted by the absence of Yanukovych’s party and that the impeachment became largely irrelevant after violence forced him to flee the capital.
Democratically-elected leaders are removed by electoral defeat, impeachment or votes of no confidence, not by violence. NewsGuard writes that “hundreds of police guarding government buildings abandoned their posts” on the day Yanukovych was forced out but doesn’t say why. As Jacobin (NewsGuard green check) magazine reports:
“Whatever one thinks of the Maidan protests, the increasing violence of those involved was key to their ultimate victory. In response to a brutal police crackdown, protesters began fighting with chains, sticks, stones, petrol bombs, even a bulldozer — and, eventually, firearms, all culminating in what was effectively an armed battle in February, which left thirteen police officers and nearly fifty protesters dead. The police ‘could no longer defend themselves’ from protesters’ attacks,’ writes political scientist Sergiy Kudelia, causing them to retreat, and precipitating Yanukovych’s exit.”
NewsGuard calls the events a “revolution,” yet revolutions in history have typically been against monarchs or dictators, not against democratically-elected leaders. For instance, the 1776 American Revolution, the 1789 French Revolution, the 1917 Russian Revolution, the 1952 Egyptian Revolution, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and countless others were against monarchs. Coups have been against both elected and non-elected leaders. Revolutions change political systems, usually from monarchies to republics. Ukraine’s political system was not changed, only its leader.
As a reader, Adrian E.. commented below on this article:
“When a movement that is supported by about half the population and opposed by about half the population violently overthrows a democratically elected government, this may be given different names (e.g. coup), but it is certainly not a “popular revolution”.
The Maydan movement was never supported by more than about half the Ukrainian population. It was supported by a vast majority in Western Ukraine, by very few people in the East and South of the country, with people more evenly split in the center/North. This clearly was not a case of a government that had lost public support to such a degree that there was a general consensus that it should resign. It was the case of one political camp representing about half the country that had lost the last elections imposing its will with brutal deadly violence.”
By any measure, Yanukovych’s ouster was an unconstitutional change in government. His “impeachment” without his party present for the vote came after government buildings had been seized and after violence drove him from the capital.
Circumstantial Evidence
McCain addressing crowd in Kiev, Dec. 15, 2013. (U.S. Senate/Office of Chris Murphy/Wikimedia Commons)
In its version of these events, NewsGuard only refers to circumstantial evidence of the coup, interpreting it as U.S. “support” for a “revolution” against a democratically-elected president.
NewsGuard fails to point out that McCain, Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-CT) as well as Nuland appeared on stage in the Maidan with Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the Neo-fascist Svoboda Party, formerly known as the Social National Party.
NewsGuard does not consider how such events would be seen in the United States if a senior Russian foreign ministry official, two leading Russian lawmakers and Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. appeared on stage with a far-right American leader to address a crowd on the Washington Mall seeking to oust an elected U.S. president. If that president were overthrown violently, would Americans think it was a Russian-backed coup?
NewsGuard discusses Nuland’s 2013 speech in which she revealed that since 1991 the U.S. had spent $5 billion to help bring about Ukraine’s “aspirations.” What it fails to point out is that U.S. aspirations were to turn Ukraine towards the West and away from Russia. And the U.S. had work to do.
NewsGuard does not mention that part of the $5 billion the U.S. spent was to help organize protests. There was genuine popular dissatisfaction with Yanukovych whom the NED nurtured and trained. Jacobin reported of the 2014 events:
“US officials, unhappy with the scuttled EU deal, saw a similar chance in the Maidan protests. Just two months before they broke out, the NED’s then president, pointing to Yanukovych’s European outreach, wrote that ‘the opportunities are considerable, and there are important ways Washington could help.’
In practice, this meant funding groups like New Citizen, which the Financial Timesreported ‘played a big role in getting the protest up and running,’ led by a pro-EU opposition figure. Journalist Mark Ames discovered the organization had received hundreds of thousands of dollars from US democracy promotion initiatives.”
Writing in Consortium News six days after Yanukovych’s ouster, Parry reported that over the previous year, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which funds NGOs in countries the U.S. targets for regime change, had bankrolled 65 projects in Ukraine totalling more than $20 million. Parry called it “a shadow political structure of media and activist groups that could be deployed to stir up unrest when the Ukrainian government didn’t act as desired.”
The NED, on Feb. 25, the day after the Russian invasion, deleted all projects in Ukraine it funded, which are archived here. The NED meddled in Ukrainian politics in 2004 in the so-called Orange Revolution. The Washington Post (green check) wrote in 1991 that what the C.I.A. once did in secret — destabilizing and overthrowing regimes — the NED was now doing openly.
C.I.A. or NED-led coups are never made up out of whole cloth. The U.S. works with genuine opposition movements within a country, sometimes popular uprisings, to finance, train and direct them. The U.S. has a long history of overthrowing foreign governments, the most infamous examples being Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Chile in 1973.
In September 2013, before the Maidan uprising began, long-time NED head Carl Gerhsman called Ukraine “the biggest prize” in a Washington Post op-ed piece, and warned that “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”
In 2016 he said the NED has been involved in Ukraine since the 1980s and he praised the “overthrow of Yanukovych.”
Nuland-Pyatt Tape Omitted
Most significantly, NewsGuard’s attempt to refute U.S. involvement in the coup omits the 2014 intercepted and leaked telephone call between Nuland and Pyatt, the then U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, in which the two discuss who will make up the new government weeks before Yanukovych was overthrown.
On the leaked tape, Nuland and Pyatt talk about “midwifing” a new government; Vice President Joe Biden’s role, and setting up meetings with Ukrainian politicians to make it happen. Nuland says the prime minister should be Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and indeed he became prime minister after the coup.
At the time, the BBC (green check) wrote of the leak: “The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that ‘ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future’. However, this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals.”
The U.S. State Department never denied the authenticity of the video, and even issued an apology to the European Union after Nuland is heard on the tape saying, “Fuck the EU.” Mainstream media at the time focused almost exclusively on that off-color remark as a distraction from the greater significance of U.S. interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs.
Why did Nuland say, “Fuck the EU”? At the time she said it, France, Germany and Poland were working for the EU on a political settlement with Russia to the Maidan crisis that would leave Yanukovych in power.
Indeed the E.U. brokered a deal with Yanukovych, who agreed to early elections by December 2014, a restoration of the 2004 Constitution and an amnesty for all protestors, clearing the way for no one to be held responsible for the violent ouster. Yanukovych announced the agreement, with E.U. officials at his side in Kiev, on Feb. 21, 2014. Later that day he was violently driven from power.
Leaving the historic role of the NED and the essential Nuland-Pyatt conversation out of its reporting is an omission of evidence by NewsGuard, typical of corporate media. Omitting crucial elements of a story changes its meaning and in this case undermines NewsGuard’s account of the events of 2014.
This is an excellent example of why Parry started Consortium News: to report on crucial information that corporate media sometimes purposely and deceptively leave out to change the meaning of a story. NewsGuard should correct its story about the coup, not Consortium News. NewsGuard invites readers to request corrections by emailing them at corrections@newsguardtech.com.
Likely Reasons for the Coup
U.S. enabled Yeltsin’s 1996 reelection.
Wall Street and Washington swept in after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 under a pliable Boris Yeltsin (who received direct U.S. help to win re-election in 1996) to asset-strip the formerly state-owned industries, enrich themselves and a new class of oligarchs and impoverish the former Soviet people.
The ascension of Vladimir Putin to power on New Year’s Eve 1999 gradually began to curb U.S. influence in post-Soviet Russia, especially after Putin’s 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, in which he blasted U.S. unilateral aggression, especially in Iraq.
Eventually, Putin restored sovereignty over much of the Russian economy, turning Washington and Wall Street against him. (As President Joe Biden has now made clear on more than one occasion, the U.S. aim is to overthrow him.)
In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, former U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.”
Thus U.S. “primacy,” or world dominance, which still drives Washington, is not possible without control of Eurasia, as Brzezinski argued, and that’s not possible without control of Ukraine by pushing Russia out (U.S. takeover of Ukraine in the 2014 coup) and dominating Moscow as it did when this was written in the 1990s.
Deep Western involvement in Ukrainian politics and economy never ended from those early post-Soviet days. When Yanukovych acted legally (the Rada authorized it) to reject the European Union association agreement in favor of a Russian economic package on better terms, it threatened to curtail Western economic involvement. Yanukovych became a marked man.
Yanukovych had already made Russian an official language, he had rejected NATO membership and reversed his pro-Western predecessor’s move to glorify Nazi collaborators. Yanukovych’s predecessor, President Viktor Yuschenko, had made Ukraine’s World War II-era fascist leader Stepan Bandera a “Hero of Ukraine.”
There was genuine popular dissatisfaction among mostly Western Ukrainians with Yanukovych, which intensified and became violent after he rejected the EU deal. Within months he was overthrown.
After the Coup
The U.S.-installed government in Kiev outlawed political parties, including the Communist Party, and stripped Russian as an official language. Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions was banned in several oblasts and eventually collapsed. An American citizen became finance minister and Vice President Joe Biden became Barack Obama’s virtual viceroy in Ukraine.
Videos have emerged of Biden giving instructions to the nominal president at the time, Petro Poroshenko. By his own admission, Biden forced the resignation of Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s prosecutor general.
Shokin testified under oath that he was about to investigate Burisma Holdings, the company on which the vice president’s son was given a lucrative board membership just months after the U.S.-backed coup.
Biden, other U.S. officials, and the media at the time lied that Shokin was removed because he was corrupt. State Dept. memos released this year and published by Just the News (green-check) actually praise Shokin for his anti-corruption work. The question of whether the leader of a foreign nation has the right to remove another country’s prosecutor was buried.
Eight days after nearly 50 anti-coup protestors in Odessa were burned to death on May 2, 2014, by far-right counter-protestors dominated by Right Sector, the coup-resisting provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbass region declared independence from Ukraine. Russia began assisting them and, after a visit to Kiev by then C.I.A. Director John Brennan, Poroshenko launched a war against the separatists that lasted eight years, killing thousands of civilians, until Russia intervened in the civil conflict in February.
After the coup, NATO began arming, training and conducting exercises with the Ukrainian military, turning it into a de facto NATO member. These were not just the interests of part of Ukraine that were being served, but those of powerful foreign actors. It was akin to a 19th-century-style colonial takeover of a country.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year-old stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe
The reason why the US wants a war with Russia is first and foremost that the poor policy choices of the US political leadership over the last five decades ended American economic and political dominance somewhere around 2008. Starting in the 1970s, market fundamentalist ideology became the American tool of choice for extracting wealth from poor and working people and nations around the globe. The political class, acting at the behest of industrialists and Wall Street, believed its own fantasy that ‘nature,’ and not imperialist looting, had made rich Americans rich.
…the cost is being paid by others. Russians and Ukrainians (and Poles, etc.) are dying to raise profits for ‘American’ corporations. And the Ukrainians that manage to survive the war will rue the day that they handed control of Ukraine to the Americans.
The ongoing US war against Russia has elevated American-allied Nazis to the international stage as ‘freedom fighters,’ resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians, raised the risk of nuclear war, ended any effective international cooperation on environmental issues through rekindling energy geopolitics, assured Europe of one or more Great Depression type winters with limited heating fuel, and more probably than not will soon produce the total annihilation of Ukraine as a modern state by the Russians.
The ‘American view’ towards the war, informed domestically by an absence of the political violence that the US so regularly visits upon innocents around the globe, rank ideology, state propaganda, ignorance of world history, and the narrow economic interests of American oligarchs, imagines that it is fighting Frankenstein’s monster when it is that monster. What is the strategic interest of Ukraine to the US? More importantly, is it worth a potentially world-ending war?
In recent history, the US could have abided by the 1991 promise made by the George H.W. Bush administration to keep NATO away from Russia’s border. The US could have negotiated a security agreement with the Russians— as they have regularly requested over the last three decades. The US could have made Ukraine abide by the Minsk Accord(s) to which the Ukrainians and Russians had in principle agreed. There have been so many requests from the Russians to negotiate a lasting peace with the US that there is no convincing argument that the US didn’t want this war.
And yet the American anti-war left continues to insist, with decades of evidence to the contrary, that German and French guardians of the oligarchs (Scholz, Macron) would / could have overridden the (Joe) Biden administration’s drive to war when, as I predicted here in 2019, Biden was brought to power by the national security state to launch a war against Russia. Biden was up to his eyeballs in the US-led coup in Ukraine in 2014, was subsequently appointed to be the American prefect in Ukraine; and began preparing for war the day he entered office.
The reason why the US wants a war with Russia is first and foremost that the poor policy choices of the US political leadership over the last five decades ended American economic and political dominance somewhere around 2008. Starting in the 1970s, market fundamentalist ideology became the American tool of choice for extracting wealth from poor and working people and nations around the globe. The political class, acting at the behest of industrialists and Wall Street, believed its own fantasy that ‘nature,’ and not imperialist looting, had made rich Americans rich.
The result since the 1970s has been a shift from political leaders governing to the ideological use of government to serve business interests. The logic is that business makes ‘us’ rich, despite the fact that most of ‘us’ aren’t rich. The insight that emerged from the Great Depression— that unhindered capitalism was both unstable and destabilizing, was flipped to the disproven logic that it is government that destabilizes capitalism. In economic terms, this shift placed American liberals well to the political right of the historical American political right.
The response from power was to redefine left and right in terms that flattered power. Capitalism could be made ‘just’ by making it fairer, went the new political project of the liberal – left. This, despite half-a-millennium of capitalism causing the very illiberalism that it is now expected to ameliorate. This imagined flat society, where one ‘equal’ earns a few billion dollars a year scamming widows and orphans while another ‘equal’ begs for money on a highway off-ramp, defines the political project of this new left.
To the social democracy that young liberals eternally call for, the US had that in the 1970s, just before it was abandoned by liberals. The (Ronald) Reaganite effort to shift resources, and with it, power, from the public sphere to the private was matched by liberals using an ideological market fundamentalism to accomplish similarly motivated outcomes from a better-hidden position. Wall Street and the largely privatized US military were re-elevated to be the economic bludgeon / capital allocation device of militarized capitalist-imperialism.
More to the point, social-democratic governments have been the vanguard of neoliberalism since the 1970s. Recall, the Biden administration was going to broaden economic distribution through raising the minimum wage, govern on the side of labor, enact environmental programs that might actually stabilize, or even reverse, environmental decline, and it was going to keep the US out of forever wars. While Democrats may need another twenty or thirty years to acquaint themselves with their actual policies, the other 80% of the country has already come to different conclusions.
In the meantime, the US has two political parties to represent the interests of capital and the radical right, but none to support the interests of ‘the people’ more broadly considered. Quickly, what are the metrics by which quasi-privatized public schools (Charter Schools) are measured? Well, most have been exempted from having to demonstrate that they are successfully educating students for a decade or more. How about healthcare? Since the ACA was implemented in 2015, 3 – 5 million Americans have died who wouldn’t have if the US had a functioning healthcare system.
The point is that, as these metrics suggest, raising profits for ‘American’ corporations has been the singular goal of social-democratic policies in the US, and similarly in Europe. The easiest way to sell ruling class interests as those of ‘the people’ is to claim that they are for the people— while setting them up to benefit only executives and oligarchs. Question: if Americans understood that the American war against Ukraine was provoked by the Americans, would they still support it? If so, why are the Biden administration and the state-affiliated press (NYT, WP) continuing to lie about the causes of the war?
With Ukraine being supplied with weapons by the US; being central to American oil geopolitics in Europe; and key to the neo-colonial wealth extraction from Ukraine that the US imagines it will exert after the conflict ends, US arms and materiel makers started shopping for larger houses the day that Joe Biden was elected president. But again, the cost is being paid by others. Russians and Ukrainians (and Poles, etc.) are dying to raise profits for ‘American’ corporations. And the Ukrainians that manage to survive the war will rue the day that they handed control of Ukraine to the Americans.
An historical analogy: during WWII the OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists- Bandera) had Ukrainian nationalists join with the German Nazis to commit racist / antisemitic atrocities across Eastern Europe and ultimately, to attack the Soviets. These Banderites—followers of Ukrainian nationalist and enthusiastic Nazi Stepan Bandera, imagined that Adolf Hitler would want like-minded Nazis to rule Ukraine as a racialized Nazi state. Surprise: Hitler was using the Banderites to further the Nazi goal of defeating the Soviets. The German Nazis reportedly shot OUN-B leaders when they dared to suggest that they be allowed to rule Ukraine.
This brings us to the current geopolitical predicament. The American war against Russia comes as the US political leadership tries to recover a functioning economy using the same logic and institutions that produced the dysfunction in the first place. Deindustrialization? Check. Financialization? Check. Militarization? Check. The American economic and political leadership spent five decades ending what it was that America ‘does’ without any apparent plan to address the (predictable) consequences that are now upon us.
The American war against Russia has been framed by the Americans in terms of oil geopolitics and humanitarian intervention. A seven-year-old with a map of the world could see easily enough that geography favors the Russians in terms of both prosecuting a major war in Europe and providing oil and gas to Europeans and to European industry. The effort by the American political and military leadership to cleave Europe from Russia faces this insurmountable problem of geography. Add 4,000 miles of supply lines, the distance from the US to Germany, to the Nazi Siege of Leningrad for insight into the nature of the problem.
Moreover, the American plan reeks of desperation. The explanation given by the Biden administration, by CIA linked commercial news outlets like the New York Times, and by what is claimed to be a dissident left in the US, depends on a stopping point in history that few outside of the US find plausible. The Russians were rebuffed by the Americans for three decades as they tried to negotiate security guarantees, including immediately prior to the launch of Russia’s SMO (Special Military Operation) and again in April 2022, when UK PM Boris Johnson told the Ukrainian political leadership that the Americans had refused any negotiations.
(Here is a background history of the US – Russia conflict that I wrote a couple of weeks after the conflict started. Here is where I correctly predicted in 2019 that Joe Biden would be brought to power by the national security state to launch a war against Russia. And here is a history of the American alliance with German and Ukrainian Nazis for purposes of enticing them to commit terrorist attacks against the Soviets, now the Russians, since the mid-1940s).
(Here is American historian and Cold Warrior George Kennan explaining US President Woodrow Wilson’s use of the American Expeditionary Force in 1919 to launch a stealth American war against the Bolsheviks with the goal of reversing the October Revolution. As ideologically and constitutionally inconvenient as this might be for American liberals and ‘the left,’ there is history to the US – Russia relationship that preceded the launch of Russia’s SMO (Special Military Operation) in 2022.
Likewise, American claims of Ukrainian sovereignty are almost too stupid to countenance. Starting in 2013, the US State Department, likely with direct or indirect assistance from the CIA and its stealth cut-outs like NED (National Endowment for Democracy), stoked a burgeoning uprising by the Ukrainian people to turn it into an American regime change operation. Around this same time Ukrainian Nazis from Right Sector and Svoboda committed suspiciously well-timed atrocities against Ukrainian citizens that de-legitimated the democratically elected president of Ukraine to install a government chosen by the American State Department.
The ‘American view’ has it that the Ukrainian people ousted the Ukrainian President, after which Ukraine returned to being the liberal democracy that it never was. In fact, an early act by the US was to retain predatory and potentially extractive loans from the IMF for Ukraine that the Ukrainian people are on the hook to repay. From 2014 forward the US was arming, supplying, and training Ukrainian militias, including significant contingents of self-described Nazis, to fight in the civil war that the US instigated.
At the time of the launch of Russia’s SMO, US-armed Nazis had surrounded Russian ethnic enclaves in Eastern Ukraine and were preparing to ethnically-cleanse Russian-speaking Ukrainians from Eastern Ukraine. This followed eight-years of civil war where the Americans supplied, armed, and trained Ukrainian Nazis to do exactly that. Why Russia’s SMO doesn’t qualify as ‘humanitarian intervention’ in the American view, while far more destructive American interventions in Syria, Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. do, would be a puzzle if it were a puzzle.
For those who missed it, here is the infamous ‘fuck the EU’ call from 2014 where former US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, lays out US plans to install a US-allied puppet government to run Ukraine following the US-led coup there. To my knowledge, this (link above) is the only clip that includes mention of Joe Biden’s future role as the American prefect in Ukraine. Recall: the first Trump impeachment was over Trump halting weapons shipments that the US was sending to Ukraine to commit terrorist attacks against Russia with.
While Joe Biden appears to have played largely a figure-head role in the coup and subsequent CIA / Nazi civil war against Russian-speaking Ukrainians, what he represents to not-Americans is the persistence of an adversarial foreign policy towards Russia that re-emerged when US President Bill Clinton reneged on the George H.W. Bush administration’s promise to keep NATO away from Russia’s border. Biden’s response has been to censor press accounts that contradict the official storyline while using state propaganda to convince gullible liberals that Nazis doing the bidding of American capital are ‘freedom fighters.’
The question for most of us is: why? What possible interest does American capital have in destroying Ukraine? Well, there is the means— weapons and materiel ‘lent’ to the Ukrainian-Nazi leadership by the Americans that they (the Ukrainians) will spend the next several decades paying for. There is the replacement of Russian oil and gas with more expensive and environmentally-destructive-to-transport ‘American’ oil and gas. There is the rebuilding of Ukraine by American corporations at Ukrainian expense after it has been destroyed. And there is the regional control over Europe currently imagined to accrue to the Americans from the war.
But how realistic is this? If the Americans can blow up the Nord Stream pipeline supplying Russian LNG to Europe, why can’t the Russians blow up LNG transport ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean to deliver ‘American’ oil and gas to Europe? More to the point, how will European industry be affected by rising energy prices that disproportionately affect it? Reminder: Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the pit of the Great Depression. Is another Great Depression in Europe really what the Americans want?
The Wall Street meltdown of 2008 raised very basic questions regarding the future role of the US in the world. The child-like / aggressively implausible stage of neoliberal capitalism (1980s – today), where the US abandoned its industrial policy while deindustrializing the nation in order to foster money-manager capitalism where bankers allocate capital— mostly to themselves, raises the question of what it is that Americans ‘do?’ In history, the trajectory ran from manufacturing to service jobs to gig jobs.
Joe Biden has been a part of every bad policy decision that the American political leadership has made from the 1970s to today. The neoliberal turn? Check. Resources wars for ‘American’ business interests? Check. Repressive social policies to create the largest carceral population in world history? Check. Promoting George W. Bush’s lie that Iraq possessed WMDs? Check. Privatizing and cutting Social Security? Check. Funding executive bonus pools under the guise of solving environmental problems? Check.
Biden was elected to start a war with Russia. If you follow the history, he has been in place at critical junctures to do just that. That he was a right-wing, neoliberal, war hawk for forty-eight of his fifty years of public self-service— until he ran for president in 2020, should have been a clue that he was the wrong politician for this time. And while the warm embrace of American liberals with self-described Nazis is no surprise here, the broader political context suggests that those interested in political solutions should stop calling each other names and end the war.
This written, the US is in a bad way. And it will remain so no matter who is president. These problems will be intractable until the existing distribution of wealth and power has been reconsidered (redistributed). As long as Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, and Amazon rule the nation, ‘public’ policies will be for their benefit, not ours. Younger readers don’t have twenty or thirty years to figure this out. The problem with low and mid-level conflicts that persist is that they can escalate in the blink of an eye. This war has to be ended quickly. The Americans need to end the bullshit and negotiate a peace.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.
Views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House. in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
An academic study by @JasonHickel estimates British colonialism caused 165 million deaths in India from 1880-1920, while stealing trillions of dollars of wealth
The global capitalist system was founded on European imperial genocides, which inspired Hitlerhttps://t.co/2R5cdMGU0L
Just as it had happened in 1941, Europe is now engaged in a desperate battle on two different fronts, but the struggle is now mainly economic and cultural, not military: it is a “full spectrum dominance” war. The struggle is still ongoing, but it seems already clear that Europe is being defeated. Just like Germany had destroyed itself with a military attack on Russia in 1941, the European Union is destroying itself with its economic sanctions against Russia. Effectively, Europe is committing a slow and painful suicide. But that’s how full spectrum dominance works: it destroys enemies from the inside.
The failure of the European Union may have started with the choice of the flag. Not that state flags are supposed to be works of art, but at least they can be inspiring. But this flag is completely flat, unoriginal, and depressing. It looks mostly like a blue cheese pizza gone bad. And that’s just one of the many things gone bad with the European Union. (attempts to make it more appealing failed utterly). It is the conclusion of a thousand-year cycle that’s coming to an end. It was probably unavoidable, but that doesn’t make it less painful.
Europe has a long history that goes back to when the ice sheets retreated at the end of the last ice age, some 10,000 years ago. At that time, our remote ancestors moved into a pristine land, cultivated it, and built villages, roads, and cities. They travelled, migrated, fought each other, created cultures, and built temples, fortresses, and palaces. On the Southern coast of Europe, a lively network of commercial exchanges emerged, made possible by maritime transportation over the Mediterranean Sea. Out of this network, the Roman Empire was born around the end of the first millennium BCE. It included most of Western Europe. (image from ESA)
As all empires do, the Roman Empire went through its cycle of glory and decline. In the 5th century AD, as Europe entered the Middle Ages, the Empire had disappeared except as a memory of past greatness. In the following centuries, the population of Western Europe declined to a historical minimum, maybe less than 20 million people. Europe became a land of thick forests, portentous ruins, small villages, and petty warlords fighting each other. No one could have imagined that, centuries later, Europeans would become the dominators of the world.
Sometimes, collapses bring with them the seed of recovery. It is what I called the “Seneca Rebound.” For some reason, we moderns disparage the Middle Ages, calling the era the “Dark Ages.” But there was nothing dark during the European Middle Ages. Europe was poor in material terms, but Europeans managed to create a culture of refined literature, splendid cathedrals, sophisticated music, advanced technologies, and much more. One reason for the prospering of the European culture was the presence of tools that other regions of the world lacked. One was the Latin language, used to keep alive the ancient Classical Culture and its achievements. It also helped trade and created strong cultural bonds all over the continent. Europeans also inherited the bulk of Roman law and culture, and Roman technologies in fields such as metallurgy and weapon making.
With Europe recovering from the 5th-century collapse, new precious metal mines in Eastern Europe started pumping wealth into the continent. The result was explosive. Already in 800 AD, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, could assemble an army powerful enough to create a new Europe-wide Empire, the “Sacred Roman Empire.” With the turn of the millennium, the European population was rapidly growing, and it needed space to expand. Europe was a coiled spring, ready to snap. In 1095, a burst of armies emerged out of Europe, crashing into the Near East. It was the time of the Crusades.
Initially, the invasion of the Middle East was a spectacular success: the Christian armies defeated the local rulers, established new kingdoms, and recreated a direct commercial connection with East Asia, along the Silk Road. But the task was too huge for a still young Europe. After two centuries of struggle, the European armies were forced to abandon the Holy Land, defeated and in disarray. At this point, Europe faced again the problem it had tried to solve with the Crusades: overpopulation. The problem solved itself by means of a quick population collapse, first with the great famine (1315–1317), then the black plague. The Europe of the 13th century was so weakened that it seriously risked being overcome by the Mongol armies coming from Asia. Fortunately for the Europeans, the Mongols couldn’t sustain a full-scale attack so far from the center of their Empire.
A schematic view of the European population during about one millennium. Note the two collapses: both have the typical “Seneca-Shape,” that is, decline is faster than growth. The first collapse was caused by famine and by the black plague, the second by the 30-year war, and the associated plagues and famines.
Despite the ravages of the Black Plague, Europe emerged out of it with its culture, social structure, and technological knowledge still intact. Europe didn’t just recover, but it rebounded in a spectacular way. Shipbuilding technologies were improved, allowing Europeans to sail across the oceans. During their internecine quarrels, the Europeans had also turned firearms into terribly effective weapons. During the 16th and 17th centuries, they rebuffed the attempts of the Ottoman Empire to expand into Europe. The Ottomans were dealt a crushing blow on the sea at Lepanto, in 1571. Then, they were decisively defeated on land at the siege of Vienna, in 1683. With their Eastern Borders now safe, Europeans had a free hand to expand overseas.
The 16th century saw the birth of a pattern that would persist for several centuries. European armies would invade foreign kingdoms, crush all military resistance, and replace the native leaders with European ones. Sometimes they used the local inhabitants as slaves, sometimes they wiped them out and replaced them with European colonists. The new lands were an incredible source of wealth. Europe imported precious metals, timber, spice, and even food in the form of sugar produced from sugarcane. The inflow of gold and silver from overseas stimulated the European economy, and timber allowed Europeans to build more ships. And the imports of food allowed the European population to grow and to field new armies that could conquer new lands that produced even more food.
Nevertheless, Europe’s expansion started to slow down in the 17th century. The 30 years’ war, 1618 to 1648, was a terrible disaster that may have exterminated 10% of the European population. Then, as usual with wars, another outburst of plague followed. Europe seemed to have reached a new limit to its expansion. Sugar was not enough, by itself, to sustain the need for materials to keep and further expand the European empire. Wood was needed to produce ships and, at the same time, to be turned into the charcoal needed to smelt metals. But trees were depleted in Europe and importing timber from overseas was expensive. Most of the Southern European countries saw their forests decline and their growth stall.
(image from Foquet and Bradberry). (France is not shown in the figure, but it shows a pattern similar to that of England).
Despite the troubles, the Northern European economies, (especially England) rapidly restarted to grow after the 17th-century crisis. The trick was a new technological development: coal. Coal had already been used as a fuel in Roman times, but nobody in history had used it on such a large scale. With coal, Europeans didn’t need anymore to destroy their forests to make iron. That was the start of a new, successful rebound. By the early 20th century, Europe dominated the whole world, directly or indirectly.
Europe’s population according to Zinkina et al. (2017). The two drops of the 14th and the 17th century are clearly visible, although less dramatic on this scale than in the earlier work of Langer
As typical of empires, with the conquests completed, there came a time of consolidation. No more risky adventures of individual states, but a central government to manage the empire and keep it together. For the ancient Romans, it had been the task of Julius Caesar to create a strong, centralized state. For modern Europe, it was a much more difficult story: how to tame a group of quarrelsome states that seemed to spend most of their time fighting each other?
The Holy Roman Emperor, Charles 5th (1500-1558), was among the first to try, without success. His successor, Philip 2nd of Spain (1527- 1598), tried to subdue Britain with his “invincible armada” in 1588, but he failed, too. The decline of Spain left space for other European powers to try again. Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 -1821) almost succeeded, but his imperial dreams sank at Trafalgar and then froze to death in the Russian plains. Then, it was the turn of Germany. The attempt started in 1914, and again in 1939. In both cases, it was a tragic failure. Even the weak Italy had imperial dreams. In the 1940s, Benito Mussolini attempted to recreate a new version of the ancient Roman Empire in the Mediterranean Sea. Utter failure, again.
Over and over, the would-be European Imperial powers found themselves facing an impossible challenge. In the West, Britain had no interest in seeing a European Empire arising just on the other side of the Channel. The same was true for the East, with Russia not keen to see a major power near its borders. The result was that the European armies found themselves fighting on two sides at the same time. Then, the Mediterranean Sea was in the iron grip of the British Navy — no way for continental powers to expand South. With the end of WW2, Europe emerged out of the struggle destroyed, impoverished, and humiliated.
The latest (and perhaps the last) attempt to unify Europe was the European Union. The creators of the Union understood that it was impossible to unify Europe by military means, so they tried to do it in the form of an economic free zone and an elected parliament. It was a bold attempt, but it didn’t work. It could not have worked. The Union faced enormous hostile forces, both internal and external. Britain and France were supposed to be balancing the German power, but when Britain left, in 2020, the Union suffered an economic defeat equivalent to the military one suffered by Germany in the Battle of Britain, in 1940. In both cases, they had tried to absorb Britain into continental Europe, and they had failed.
The defection of Britain left the European Union with Germany dominating it. Just like during WW2, the German government never understood that throwing its weight around was not the way to endear itself with the neighboring states. The result was the growth of anti-European forces all over the continent — the movement called “sovereignty” that aimed to restore the power of nation-states and get rid of the EU bureaucrats. So far, this movement has played only a marginal role in politics, but it has succeeded in making the EU deeply hated by everyone who is not getting their salaries from Brussels.
Just as it had happened in 1941, Europe is now engaged in a desperate battle on two different fronts, but the struggle is now mainly economic and cultural, not military: it is a “full spectrum dominance” war. The struggle is still ongoing, but it seems already clear that Europe is being defeated. Just like Germany had destroyed itself with a military attack on Russia in 1941, the European Union is destroying itself with its economic sanctions against Russia. Effectively, Europe is committing a slow and painful suicide. But that’s how full spectrum dominance works: it destroys enemies from the inside.
And now? It was unavoidable that Europe would cease to be an Empire. The human and material resources that had made European dominance possible are not there any longer. But it was not unavoidable that Europe would destroy itself. Europe could have survived and maintained its independence by remaining on good terms with the other Eurasiatic powers, China, Russia, and India, But, choosing to break the commercial, cultural, and human relations with the rest of Eurasia was not just an economic suicide. It was a cultural and moral suicide.
So, what’s going to happen to poor Europe? History, as usual, rhymes: do not forget that in 1945 the official US plan was to destroy the German economy and exterminate most of the German population. Fortunately, the plan was shelved, but could that idea become fashionable again? We cannot exclude this possibility. In any case, an impoverished Europe could go back to something not unlike what it was during the early Middle Ages: depopulated, poor, primitive, a mere appendage of the great Eurasian Continent.
And, yet, Europe has rebounded more than once from terrible disasters. It may happen again. Not soon, though.
In short: No one should be the gatekeepers of our history. Least of all those who laud their certitude in the face of the unknowable.
The mystery is exciting. The evidence is compelling. The series is engaging. Even if none of it turns out to be true, the questions are still worth asking.
Why has the popular Netflix documentary ignited the ire of the media?
It never ceases to amaze me what seemingly innocuous ideas the establishment media find ‘dangerous’ or ‘controversial’.
Netflix recently released an eight-part documentary series titled Ancient Apocalypse, where Graham Hancock (who has been a household name for “alternative archeology” since the release of his book ‘Fingerprints of the Gods’ in 1995), introduces us to his central theory that human civilisation is considerably older than current archeological orthodoxy believes, but that most evidence for this was wiped out by a colossal natural disaster around 12,000 years ago.
He supports this theory with physical evidence for such a natural disaster, curious geological anomalies and seemingly ancient megalithic structures.
He points out that the mainstream view of pre-history insists civilisation did not and had never existed before the year 4000BC, but that recent discoveries such as the Temple at Gobekli Tepe, which dates back to 9600BC call that mainstream view into question.
He also collates mythic stories and old legends from over around the world that all reference some massive, global catastrophe. (Floods, earthquakes, giant snakes in the sky, strange visitors from across the sea etc.) And then emphasises their many eerie similarities.
Through the collation of this research, Hancock then asks some questions of the mainstream view of our ancient history and posits a theory of his own – that ‘we are a species with amnesia’, who have forgotten our own past.
These are not new ideas, solely from Hancock’s imagination. Immanuel Velikovsy said something very similar half a century ago, in fact, his last book, published posthumously, was titled “Mankind in Amnesia”, and explored the psychological impact of us, as a species, repressing the memories and forgetting the stories that echo from a distant, traumatised past.
These questions might sound intriguing to you, or you may be indifferent to them, or you may even vehemently disagree with them, but I bet you didn’t know they were racist, did you?
That’s right. Racist. Don’t believe me, you conspiracy theorist? Just ask the Guardian.
Yes, the Graun has spoiled us with not just one hit-piece, but two! All in the space of one week.
Robin McKie writes his from an archaeological standpoint, while Stuart Heritage speaks as an entertainment critic. However, one is very much like the other. They both agree the Netflix series is wholly unacceptable. All of it. These are ‘dangerous ideas’ that shouldn’t be ‘allowed’.
McKie alleges Hancock’s claims reinforce ‘white supremacist ideas’, because questioning the age of human civilisation
…strip[s] indigenous people of their rich heritage and instead gives credit to aliens or white people”
McKie further explains:
Then there were the Nazis. Many swore by the idea that a white Nordic superior race – people of “the purest blood” – had come from Atlantis. As a result, Himmler set up an SS unit, the Ahnenerbe – or Bureau of Ancestral Heritage – in 1935 to find out where people from Atlantis had ended up after the deluge had destroyed their homeland.”
There we have it, you see! Don’t even bother linking to any sources, Robin (which he doesn’t). I hear you, loud and clear. The idea of Atlantis is inherently racist, because the Nazis believed in it.
The fact Hancock never mentions race, or white people (or aliens) in the series, nor (to the best of my knowledge) in any of his books, makes no difference to this.
So, what are you going to do now? Keep researching the Atlantis myth?
Like a Nazi would?
Of course, going by this logic, we should really do away with Christianity as well. God in general, in fact. Perhaps we should cancel Volkswagen and Wagner too. Nazis also brushed their teeth and wore shoes, I believe, neither of which shall I be taking part in from this day onwards, just to be sure.
So, there we have it – Ancient Apocalypse is racist, even though it never mentions race.
The remainder of their twin critiques is no better argued or supported by reality. Here is a typical example of the intellectual level they work on:
For a story that was first told 2,300 years ago, the myth of Atlantis has demonstrated a remarkable persistence over the millennia. Originally outlined by Plato, the tale of the rise of a great, ancient civilisation followed by its cataclysmic destruction has since generated myriad interpretations.”
It was this opening paragraph alone that prompted my response. As it is so uniquely meaningless.
What does he mean by ‘For a story 2,300 years old it has demonstrated remarkable persistence’? As opposed to what? All those other stories that we don’t know about? How is that measurable, exactly?
Besides, we have a plethora of stories and mythologies dating back two and a half thousand years, and even much further into the past than that. Including all the Greco-Roman myths, plays by Sophocles and Aesop’s Fables. We have detailed legends and lore passed down from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Old Testament fits the bill as well.
And of course, Homer’s Iliad, which describes the fabled Trojan War.
Let us remember that the City of Troy was also believed to have been just a myth until we discovered that it wasn’t. And I’m sure before 1870, when it was first discovered, that there was no shortage of academics decrying the search for Troy as a heretical waste of time.
What is the essential attraction of the tale? For answers we only have to look at the works of Tolkien, CS Lewis, HP Lovecraft, Conan Doyle, Brecht and a host of science fiction writers who have all found the myth an irresistible inspiration.”
Simplicity itself! The reason the Atlantis myth is so popular is because it’s so popular!
Robin then asserts as fact that Plato intended the tale of Atlantis to be little more than an allegory. There is no way of knowing that, of course, he merely asserts it and then goes into a Gish Gallop.
“As to the likely site of the original Atlantis, the serious money goes on the destruction of the Greek island of Santorini and its impact on Crete and puts the blame on volcanic eruptions – not errant comets, as Hancock argues”
Whoa there, Robin. Firstly, Graham Hancock never ‘argues’ that the Greek island of Santorini was struck by an errant comet. That is misleading. He argues that a comet struck somewhere in North America and rising sea levels may have obliterated an island civilisation (that Plato calls Atlantis) in the Atlantic Ocean. It’s only you, Robin, who is conflating this Atlantis myth with Santorini.
[NB – Robin also fails to mention the physical evidence for just such an impact at the beginning of the Younger Dryas.]
Secondly, should we not give credit where credit is due, and assume that Plato (and Solon, from whom Plato got the story, and the Dynastic Egyptians, from whom Solon got the story), most likely knew the difference between ‘inside the Mediterranean’ and ‘outside the Mediterranean’?
If they place Atlantis beyond the Pillars of Hercules, should we not at least consider it possible that this is indeed where “the original Atlantis” was? (I invite readers to listen to Plato’s accounting yourselves and see what you make of it, here is an unabridged and well-produced reading.)
The history of Santorini’s volcanic eruption was probably, by contrast, relatively well known. Santorini didn’t actually sink, after all, as Atlantis is said to have done. It’s still there. The Ancient Greeks called it ‘Thera’ and they were perfectly well aware of its existence. It shares no cultural, historical or technological similarities to Plato’s description of Atlantis at all, short of ‘being an island’.
But none of that bothers McKie who at this point, and without ceremony, just sort of stops writing. Job Done. Atlantis debunked. What’s for lunch?
Moving on to Stuart Heritage’s piece, which is thankfully briefer but in no way less smug. In his subheading, he boldly asks:
“Why has this been allowed?”
Allowed?
I’m not sure which authority he’s calling on here. Netflix execs? Local, national or perhaps global government? Or maybe it’s rhetorical, and he’s beseeching the Lord God himself how such evil could come into the world.
Beyond this, Stuart seems even less interested in debunking or debating these ‘dangerous ideas’ than McKie was, and far more focused on analysing and ridiculing its (presumed) target audience.
Fortunately, Stuart, with his view unbiased and his mind wide open, has discerned exactly who that is in the first five minutes – because he saw (or thinks he saw) Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson flash up in the pre-show reel.
Joe Rogan appears in one quick interview, which is used in the first episode and the last.
Jordan Peterson does not appear in this documentary at all.
And I’m really not sure why Stuart thought he did. Perhaps he just didn’t watch closely enough to realise this before rushing his five-hundred words off to be published in one of the largest news outlets in the world.
More notably when Heritage later amended the change, he just removed the ‘Jordan Peterson’ reference and neither he nor the editors or sub-eds even bothered to correct the syntax:
“Fortunately, you don’t have to watch for long to find out. In quick succession, during the pre-show sizzle reel, we are treated to a clip of the show’s host Graham Hancock being interviewed by Joe Rogan.”
The laziness is staggering.
Just ‘a different person’. It’s not important who anymore. He’s not on the Guardian’s ‘naughty list.’
Equally strangely, both McKie and Heritage seem to think ‘Ancient Apocalypse’ makes claims of ‘super intelligent beings’ and ‘aliens’, when it simply does not.
Hancock’s argument – whether you accept it or not – is that human beings were more advanced than academia admits. Not robots with flying cars, but more advanced than we currently give them credit for, and he cites evidence for this which both Stuart & Robin ignore in favour of critiquing Hancock for things he does not say.
They cite no sources and debate no actual claims. They use buzzwords and identity politics in place of analysis and between the two of them couldn’t fill one page of A4. It’s as if even they (and their editors) had no faith or interest in what they were doing.
Although Stuart does rather give the game away in his closing statement.
“That’s the danger of a show like this. It whispers to the conspiracy theorist in all of us. And Hancock is such a compelling host that he’s bound to create a few more in his wake. Believing that ultra-intelligent creatures helped to build the pyramids is one thing, but where does it end? Believing that election fraud is real? Believing 9/11 was an inside job? Worse?”
He’s got me stumped there. Because, for the life of me, I literally can’t think of anything worse than ‘believing in election fraud’, which is obviously as fanciful as believing in the Loch Ness Monster. What next? Believing in tax evasion!?
Presumably, he’s referring to the 2020 US election. Because the Guardian has claimed fraud is very real in some elections. Russia, Syria, Bolivia, Brazil, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran and Venezuela to name a few.
And they were pretty darn adamant that it was Russian collusion that got Trump into office in 2016.
Stuart presumably believes election fraud is only a ‘conspiracy theory’ when it happens here, in the UK. Either that or he believes it has literally never happened. Ever. In the whole history of the world.
Or perhaps he’s simply typing up any old nonsense just to get that word count a little higher. Sense and consistency be damned.
Who’s to say?
However, the fragile honesty underlying this is quite telling. He is essentially saying:
“If people become skeptical of one thing, they may become skeptical of another.”
Which is to be expected, but what I can’t understand is how anybody could think this is a bad thing.
People should be skeptical. Skepticism in all things but cynicism in none. People should ask questions, and they should expect answers, especially from those who profess to know them. One should be open-minded and always pursue the truth. And to better decipher what that may be, we need people sharing new ideas, questioning the mainstream view and challenging the established narrative as new evidence presents itself. We need that. Science, progress and discovery all depend on it. Even if the ideas turn out to be false. Prove them false.
In short: No one should be the gatekeepers of our history. Least of all those who laud their certitude in the face of the unknowable.
The mystery is exciting. The evidence is compelling. The series is engaging. Even if none of it turns out to be true, the questions are still worth asking.
These ideas are only ‘dangerous’ if you fear what they question.
Araud condemned US diplomats for insisting that Washington must always be the “leader” of the world, and stressed that the West should work with other countries in the Global South, “on an equal basis,” in order “to find a compromise with our own interests.”He cautioned against making “maximalist” demands, “of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.”
Araud argued that if the international community is serious about creating a “rules-based order,” it must entail “integrating all the major stakeholders into the managing of the world, you know really bringing the Chinese, the Indians, and really other countries, and trying to build with them, on an equal basis, the world of tomorrow.”
France’s ex-US Ambassador Gérard Araud criticized Washington for frequently violating international law and said its so-called “rules-based order” is an unfair “Western order” based on “hegemony.” He condemned the new cold war on China, instead calling for mutual compromises.
France’s former ambassador to the United States, Gérard Araud, has publicly criticized Washington, saying it frequently violates international law and that its so-called “rules-based order” is actually an unfair “Western order.”
The top French diplomat warned that the United States is engaged in “economic warfare” against China and that Europe is concerned about Washington’s “containment policy,” because many European countries do not want to be forced to “choose a camp” in a new cold war.
Araud condemned US diplomats for insisting that Washington must always be the “leader” of the world, and stressed that the West should work with other countries in the Global South, “on an equal basis,” in order “to find a compromise with our own interests.”
He cautioned against making “maximalist” demands, “of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.”
Araud made these remarks in a November 14 panel discussion titled “Is America Ready for a Multipolar World?“, hosted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank in Washington, DC that advocates for a more restrained, less bellicose foreign policy.
Gérard Araud’s credentials could hardly be any more elite. A retired senior French diplomat, he served as the country’s ambassador to the United States from 2014 to 2019. From 2009 to 2014, he was Paris’ representative to the United Nations.
Before that, Araud served as France’s ambassador to Israel, and he previously worked with NATO.
This blue-blooded background makes Araud’s frank comments even more important, as they reflect the feelings of a segment of the French ruling class and European political class, which is uncomfortable with Washington’s unipolar domination and wants power to be more decentralized in the world.
The ‘rules-based order’ is actually just a ‘Western order’
In a shockingly blunt moment in the panel discussion, Gérard Araud explained that the so-called “rules-based order” is actually just a “Western order,” and that the United States and Europe unfairly dominate international organizations like the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF):
To be frank, I’ve always been extremely skeptical about this idea of a ‘rules-based order.’
Personally, for instance, look, I was the permanent representative to the United Nations. We love the United Nations, but the Americans not too much, you know.
And actually when you look at the hierarchy of the United Nations, everybody there is ours. The Secretary General [António Guterres] is Portuguese. He was South Korean [Ban Ki-moon]. But when you look at all the under secretaries general, all of them really are either American, French, British, and so on. When you look at the World Bank, when you look at the IMF, and so on.
So that’s the first element: this order is our order.
And the second element is also that, actually, this order is reflecting the balance of power in 1945. You know, you look at the permanent members of the Security Council.
Really people forget that, if China and Russia are obliged to oppose [with] their veto, it is because frankly the Security Council is most of the time, 95% of the time, has a Western-oriented majority.
So this order frankly – and you can also be sarcastic, because, when the Americans basically want to do whatever they want, including when it’s against international law, as they define it, they do it.
And that’s the vision that the rest of the world has of this order.
You know really, when I was in – the United Nations is a fascinating spot because you have ambassadors of all the countries, and you can have conversations with them, and the vision they project of the world, their vision of the world, is certainly not a ‘rules-based order’; it’s a Western order.
And they accuse us of double standards, hypocrisy, and so on and so on.
So I’m not sure that this question about the ‘rules’ is really the critical question.
I think the first assessment that we should do will be maybe, as we say in French, to put ourselves in the shoes of the other side, to try to understand how they see the world.
Araud argued that if the international community is serious about creating a “rules-based order,” it must entail “integrating all the major stakeholders into the managing of the world, you know really bringing the Chinese, the Indians, and really other countries, and trying to build with them, on an equal basis, the world of tomorrow.”
“That’s the only way,” he added. “We should really ask the Indians, ask the Chinese, the Brazilians, and other countries, really to work with us on an equal basis. And that’s something – it’s not only the Americans, also the Westerners, you know, really trying to get out of our moral high ground, and to understand that they have their own interests, that on some issues we should work together, on other issues we shouldn’t work together.”
“Let’s not try to rebuild the Fortress West,” he implored. “It shouldn’t be the future of our foreign policy.”
French diplomat criticizes US new cold war on China
Gérard Araud revealed that, in Europe, there is “concern” that the United States has a “containment policy” against China.
“I think the international relationship will be largely dominated by the rivalry between China and the United States. And foreign policy I think in the coming years will be to find the modus vivendi … between the two powers,” he said.
He warned that Washington is engaged in “economic warfare” against Beijing, that the US is trying “basically to cut any relationship with China in the field of advanced chips, which is sending a message of, ‘We are going to try to prevent you from becoming an advanced economy.’ It’s really, it’s economic warfare.”
“Really on the American side is the development of economic warfare against China. It’s really cutting, making impossible cooperation in a very important, critical field, for the future of the Chinese economy,” he added.
Araud pointed out that China is not just “emerging”; it is in fact “re-emerging” to a prominent geopolitical position, like it had for hundreds of years, before the rise of European colonialism.
He stressed that many countries in Asia don’t want to be forced to pick a side in this new cold war, and are afraid of becoming a zone of proxy conflicts like Europe was in the first cold war:
Asia doesn’t want to be the Europe of the Cold War. They don’t want to have a bamboo curtain. They don’t want to choose their camp.
Australia has chosen its camp, but it’s a particular case. But Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, they don’t want to choose their camp, and we shouldn’t demand they choose their camp.
So we need to have a flexible policy of talking to the Chinese, because talking is also a way of reassuring them, trying to understand their interests, and also to define our interests not in a maximalist way, of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.
Araud challenged the idea that the United States must be the unipolar “leader” of the world, stating:
The Americans entered the world, in a sense, being already the big boy on the block. In 1945, it was 40% of the world’s GDP.
Which also may explain what is American diplomacy. The word of American diplomats, the word of American diplomacy is ‘leadership.’
Really, it’s always striking for foreigners, as soon as there is a debate about American foreign policy, immediately people say, ‘We have to restore our leadership.’ Leadership. And other countries may say, ‘Why leadership?’
West must ‘try to see the world from Beijing’
Gérard Araud similarly criticized Western media outlets for their cartoonishly negative coverage of China. The top French diplomat called on officials to “try to see the world from Beijing”:
When you look at the European or Western newspapers, you have the impression that China is a sort of a dark monster which is moving forward, never committing a mistake, never really facing any problem, and going to the domination of the world – you know, the Chinese work 20 hours a day, they don’t want a vacation, they don’t care, they want to dominate the world.
Maybe if we will try to see the world from Beijing, really we will consider certainly that all the borders of China are more or less unstable, or threatened, or facing unfriendly countries, and that’s from the Chinese point of view.
Maybe they want to improve their situation. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept it, but maybe to see, to remember, that any defensive measure of one side is always seen as offensive by the other side.
So let’s understand that China has its own interests. You know, even dictatorships have legitimate interests. And so let’s look at these interests, and let’s try to find a compromise with our own interests.
Araud went on to point out that the US government is constantly militarily threatening China, sending warships across the planet to its coasts, but would never for a second tolerate Beijing doing the same to it:
When I was in Washington, just after the [hawkish anti-China] speech of Vice President Pence to the Hudson [Institute] in October 2018, I met a lot of specialists on China in Washington, DC, but when I was trying to tell them, you know, your [US] ships are patrolling at 200 miles from the Chinese coast, at 5000 miles from the American coast, what would be your reaction if Chinese ships were patrolling at 200 miles from your coast?
And obviously, my interlocutors didn’t understand what I meant. And that’s the question, you know, really trying to figure out what are the reasonable interests of the other side.
Araud stressed that China “is not a military threat” to the West.
French diplomat: Western sanctions on Russia are causing us to ‘inflict pain on ourselves
With this new cold war between the United States and China, Gérard Araud explained, “in this context, Russia is a bit like Austria-Hungary with Germany before the First World War, is a bit doomed to be the ‘brilliant second’ of China.”
While Araud harshly denounced Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he also criticized the Western sanctions on Moscow, which he cautioned, “on the European side, it is inflicting to ourselves some pain.”
He warned that Europe is in a “dead end” with Russia, “because as long as the war in Ukraine will go on, and my bet, unfortunately, is that it may go on for a long time, it will be impossible for the Europeans, and the Americans in a sense, but also for the Europeans to end the sanctions on Russia, which means that our relationship with Russia may be frozen for an indefinite future.”
“And I think it’s very difficult to have diplomatic activity [with Russia] in this situation,” he added.
You can watch the full panel discussion hosted by the Quincy Institute below:
*
Featured image: France’s Ambassador to the US Gérard Araud with President Barack Obama in the White House in 2016 (Source: Multipolarista)
Once prosperous civilizations eventually met their demise after years of economic and military decline. The arrogance, corruption, and myopia of their respective elites ushered in an irreversible phase of civilizational decline.
Even the greatest of civilizations has an expiration date.
This happened to the likes of Ancient Greece and Rome, which were the most advanced civilizations of their respective epochs.
Once prosperous civilizations eventually met their demise after years of economic and military decline. The arrogance, corruption, and myopia of their respective elites ushered in an irreversible phase of civilizational decline.
For centuries, historians have studied the causes of these civilizations’ respective declines. Elites of previous centuries did the best they could to understand the lessons of the past, and in turn, attempted to build political structures that would avoid similar fates of decline.
The Founding Fathers of the American Republic made sure to learn the lessons of Greece and Rome and create a system of government that would prevent many of the fatal mistakes these civilizations previously made.
While the American experiment has largely been successful, it is starting to go through a predictable phase of civilizational decay.
The past century has witnessed the American political class pursue policies that go against the very nature of the founding of the American Republic. Namely, the adherence to the principles of limited government.
The excessive domestic and military spending, the out-of-control monetary policy, and the cultural decadence…..
Just some of the hallmarks of a civilization that’s clearly in a stage of decay.
It will take a massive awakening of the American populace to reverse course and prevent the country from falling down the predictable route of civilizational collapse.
The US will be no exception to this trend if things don’t reverse course anytime soon.
In the meantime, make sure to check out George Gammon’s video on how the American Empire could potentially collapse.
—Team Rebel Capitalist
P.S. Check out George Gammon’s private, online investment community (Rebel Capitalist Pro) with Chris MacIntosh, Lyn Alden and many other macro experts for $1!!
Contributor posts published on Zero Hedge do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Zero Hedge, and are not selected, edited or screened by Zero Hedge editors.21,245
As of September 25, 2022, the Canadian state-run Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) News noted that Canada has “committed or delivered $626 million in military aid to Ukraine” since the beginning of Russia’s SMO. It further noted that “Canadian forces have been responsible for delivering four million pounds of cargo since March,”
The Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) is the prime right-wing Ukrainian diaspora group in Canada and has had a significant influence on Canadian policy toward Ukraine for decades.
The UCC is mainly the product of right-wing Ukrainian ex-Nazi battalion members and their families, who were welcomed into Canada after World War II.
The anger against Carley came because he refused to back away from the facts on the true nature of the Ukrainian Maidan regime that came to power in the violent coup of 2014 in Ukraine. He had stated that neo-Nazi militias, including the “Azov Battalion,” were blocking civilian evacuations and that Russia’s SMO involved clearing out the Azovstal factory and both the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics of neo-Nazis.
A highly regarded Russia specialist in Canada, Professor Michael Carley at the University of Montreal, has refused to support the NATO narrative on the Ukraine conflict and has since been subjected to a vicious smear campaign.
Canada’s role in the Ukraine conflict and the power of the right-wing Ukrainian diaspora in Canada may be underestimated, according to the vitriol we have seen directed at Professor Carley. He is among the first in Canada to feel the wrath of the country’s mainstream media, after Russia’s special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine began on February 24, 2022.
To grasp why the gripes of this diaspora have received such attention and consideration from Canadian media, it is first necessary to understand how the right-wing element of Ukrainian-Canadians gained dominance over the diaspora. While the experience is similar in the U.S., Canada has been a haven par excellence for Ukrainian fascists. Thus, the “Carley Affair” can act as a warning of what to expect as the U.S. harbors more Ukrainian refugees.
Canadian Parliament and media united in anti-Russia attitude
Canada’s parliamentarians have been united in condemnation of Russia and support for Ukraine.
This intensified following Russia’s recognition on February 21, 2022, of the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. The next day, the Liberal government imposed “new prohibitions on direct and indirect dealings in Russian sovereign debt” and promised to send “up to an additional 460 personnel” to join Canadian military forces participating in NATO’s Operation Reassurance in Europe.
The government has “authorized approximately 3,400 Canadian Armed Forces personnel across all branches of the service to deploy to the NATO Response Force should they be required by NATO.” After Russia’s SMO began, on the same day, the Liberal government sanctioned additional Russian government officials and further restricted exports to Russia.
On March 15, Canada’s Parliament invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to deliver a speech. It received unanimous applause and complete support.
On April 27, MP Heather McPherson of the New Democratic Party (Canada’s social democratic party, the third largest in Parliament and currently in a governing agreement with the Liberal Party of Canada) succeeded in passing a motion in Parliament with unanimous support declaring that Russia was committing a “genocide” in the midst of its SMO in Ukraine.
International lawyer Chris Black noted in an article for The Canada Files: “McPherson is always ready to assist the Americans in their attempt to dominate the world. She made similar allegations against China regarding the Uighurs based on ‘evidence’ produced by CIA-front, National Endowment for Democracy-funded groups and other U.S. government-funded organizations.”
Black went further, noting the farcical nature of McPherson’s claims and demands:
“There is no point in discussing the examples the Canadian MP referred to in presenting her motion; it was just a litany of false claims, most already disproved, and none of which could amount to genocide under any legal definition. She even (at 2:27 in the clip) admitted this when a reporter for one of the mass media pointed out that the American government has refused to condemn Russia for genocide as there is not sufficient and reliable evidence of such actions and none of the intent which is required to found such a charge. But, she stated, again displaying her motion was meant as a propaganda exercise against Russia, that she knew but that “someone had to take action.” In other words, the Americans know they could not make such a claim and have any credibility, so they got their flunkies in Canada to do it along with their flunkies in Latvia, who soon followed suit.
She then added that Canada should send more money to the International Criminal Court so that the prosecutor there would take action, not seeming to blush at the fact she was really calling for offering a bribe to the ICC prosecutor for his cooperation. But then again, Canada’s government and parliamentarians are used to trying to control prosecutions and trials at tribunals as they did at the ICTY and ICTR, both of which were essentially NATO tribunals designed to fix blame on scapegoats for the crimes of the western nations involved in those wars.”
The Canadian mainstream media joined in the parliamentary obedience, refusing to challenge NATO narratives on Russia’s SMO. This obedience from both Parliament and the mainstream media set the table for the Canadian government to go heavy on sanctions against Russia and the provision of military aid to Ukraine.
The Canadian government drove the coalition-building process necessary to have the West cut Russia off from the SWIFT international banking payment system. Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland personally reached out to the U.S. government on the day Russia’s SMO began, to propose cutting off Russia from foreign reserves worth $640 billion USD. On the same day, Prime Minister Trudeau pitched the idea to other G7 leaders, and the day after to European leaders.
As of September 25, 2022, the Canadian state-run Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) News noted that Canada has “committed or delivered $626 million in military aid to Ukraine” since the beginning of Russia’s SMO. It further noted that “Canadian forces have been responsible for delivering four million pounds of cargo since March,” which includes Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) Turrets, Infantry Mobility Vehicles (IMVs), assault weapons, ammunition and more. Canada is promising to boost its capacity at a Scotland-based shipping hub that was once the site of a CIA rendition way-station, to speed up arms deliveries to Ukraine, to include 39 armored troop carriers.
How did Canada’s far-right Ukrainian diaspora, whose influence on Canadian politics drives coverage by Canadian MSM, form?
The Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) is the prime right-wing Ukrainian diaspora group in Canada and has had a significant influence on Canadian policy toward Ukraine for decades.
The UCC is mainly the product of right-wing Ukrainian ex-Nazi battalion members and their families, who were welcomed into Canada after World War II.
Richard Sanders, founder of the Coalition Against the Arms Trade magazine, has explained that the Canadian government orchestrated the founding of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (originally called Ukrainian Canadian Committee) in 1940. Its purpose was “to rally all anti-Communist Ukrainians into one body in order to squash the then-powerful influence of left-wing Ukrainians whose forebears had come to Canada during earlier waves of migration.”
The UCC’s website reveals that its founding was ensured by the support of Canada’s National War Services body, which Sanders explains “was anxious that young Ukrainians enlist in military services.”
After World War II, in opposition to the UCC, the Association of United Ukrainian Canadians (AUUC), “a progressive organisation which includes social democrats, socialists and communists,” opposed the Canadian government’s desire, supported by the UCC, to allow the immigration into Canada of thousands of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators into Canada.
As Sanders explained, the AUUC was viciously punished due to its left-wing politics: “Tons of books from AUUC libraries were literally burned, its leaders arrested, and its printing presses and Labour Temples (meeting halls) were seized [via the War Measures Act]. In some cases, these were even turned over to ultranationalists associated with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.” In addition to an initial welcoming in 1950 of between 1,200 to 2,000 Ukrainian Waffen SS members in 1950 (the SS was the “elite” guard of Nazi Germany’s military), the Canadian government “had released thousands of Ukrainian SS veterans from UK internment camps by granting them Canadian citizenship.”Over the following decades, the Canadian government would continue to support the Nazi-collaborator sympathizing and -collaborator Ukrainian right in Canada while secretly plotting (via Operation PROFUNC) to round up thousands of left-wing Canadians, including citizens who were active in the AUUC.
Thanks to Canadian government support, the UCC and its member organizations were able to gain hegemony over the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora. With its hegemony, the UCC and right-wing Ukrainian Canadians have been able to ensure that Canadian media coverage of Ukraine-related stories is to its liking.
Carley Under Fire
Michael J. Carley is a professor in the University of Montreal’s Department of History. He is a specialist in the history of the USSR and Russia. Carley’s politics are expressly progressive. He was born in the United States and was involved in protests against the Vietnam war and for the civil rights of Black people during the 1960s before he came to Canada in 1967.
The Canada Files Contributing Editor, Arnold August, explained Carley’s work extensively in a May 2022 article for TCF titled “Ukraine-Russia: Sanctions against a ‘pro-Russian’ professor from the University of Montreal, or freedom of speech?”
August writes,
“Professor Carley is a specialist in international relations in the 20th century and on the history of Russia and the Soviet Union. His research interests focus on the relations of the Soviet Union with Western Europe and the United States between 1917 and 1945. He is the author of three books (two of which have been translated into several languages) and about 100 articles and essays on French intervention in the Russian Civil War (1917-1921), on Soviet relations with the Great Powers between the two world wars, on questions of ‘appeasement,’ on the origins and conduct of the Second World War, and on topical issues. He is the author of over 115 book chapters, and his articles has been the recipient of some 15 awards. His works have been published in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia and elsewhere, and translated into a dozen languages.”
Before Carley came under attack, he was a member of the Centre d’études et de recherches internationales de l’Université de Montréal (CERIUM, the Centre for International Studies and Research at the University of Montreal).
August’s article—whose conclusions were endorsed by Alfred de Zayas and Holocaust survivor Suzanne Weiss,–continued:
“Professor Carley has recently worked on two major book projects. The first deals with the confrontation between Soviet Russia/USSR and the West from 1917 to 1930. This work, entitled Silent Conflict: A Hidden History of Early Soviet-Western Relations, was published in 2014 by the American publisher, Rowman & Littlefield. The French translation, Une guerre sourde : L’émergence de l’Union soviétique et les puissances occidentales was published by PUM (Presses de l’Université de Montréal) in 2016. A Russian translation was published in 2019.
The second project, supported by a major research grant from the Canadian government think tank, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, focuses on the origins and creation of the ‘Grand Alliance’ against Nazi Germany during World War II. The writing of this second work is now complete in three volumes (1930-1941). Vol. 1 of his trilogy has been accepted for publication. The working title of the trilogy is ‘A Near-Run Thing: The Improbable Grand Alliance of World War II.’ He speaks, reads, and writes English and French, and he reads Russian.”
Carley did not come under fire until Russia began its Special Military Operation in Ukraine. The furor against him began via journalist Romain Schué Radio-Canada (RDI), the French language, state-funded CBC radio and television outlet in Canada. Schué’s hit-job article (translated from French here) on Carley was published on March 23.
The anger against Carley came because he refused to back away from the facts on the true nature of the Ukrainian Maidan regime that came to power in the violent coup of 2014 in Ukraine. He had stated that neo-Nazi militias, including the “Azov Battalion,” were blocking civilian evacuations and that Russia’s SMO involved clearing out the Azovstal factory and both the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics of neo-Nazis.
Carley also stated that the Maidan regime is extremely reliant on neo-Nazi militias to maintain control and fight Russia and allows the targeting of dissident Ukrainians by neo-Nazi militias. He says the narrative of a Russian “massacre” in the small city of Bucha in March 2022 was false, since all Russian troops were gone three days before Ukraine claims a massacre of civilians took place.
Facts indicate that the anti-Carley offensive was the result of the collaboration of the state-funded media outlet with the vigorous promoter of the Nazi-infested Ukrainian government, Ukrainian-Canadian University of Montreal student Katia Sviderskaya.
She was favorably quoted in Schué’s original article and has co-sponsored a petition (English version attached here) against Carley based on that same article, and in its turn promoted by Schué in a later update to the article, implicitly suggesting that Carley be removed from CERIUM and be suspended or fired from the university proper.
This entanglement, with a common objective, consists of open collaboration of the state-funded media with a Ukrainian Nazi-promoter in Canada, bringing into question the “journalism” of Schué, and thus the state-funded outlet.
In a Facebook post by Sviderskaya, she exposes herself as a right-wing nationalist and apologist of the Nazi-infested Zelensky regime. She states “Ukraine was, is, and always will be the center of the free world.”
Her petition included another line of attack against Carley: that he is willing to engage with, and share or utilize where valuable, information from Russian media such as Sputnik and RT and Russian government institutions. Comically, Sviderskaya’s petition claims that it does not ask the University of Montreal to take a political position and is in line with the values of academic freedom.
Carley’s lawyer noted that, in Canada, the Cloutier Commission report of 2021 (a commission set up to focus on questions around academic freedom in Quebec) defined “academic freedom as the freedom to teach and discuss, but also as the freedom to express one’s opinion.”
Sviderskaya’s petition and the coordinated efforts with Schué were the perfect excuse for other Canadian mainstream media outlets to join the campaign against Professor Carley (all referenced articles viewable in English). Soon the most important French language daily in Quebec, the onlineLa Presse, would cover this petition, followed by The Globe and Mail(the largest national-circulation newspaper and one of the two main English-language outlets in Canada), the daily Journal de Montreal and then the Montreal Gazette (the city’s English-language print daily). The case would even reach the attention of U.S.-based news outlet Newsweek.
Sviderskaya and all the news outlets that ganged up on Carley had a unified implicit goal: to get him fired from the University of Montreal and ruin his professional career for daring to reject the NATO narrative on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This would serve as a warning for academics in Canada and also in the U.S.
While Carley has managed to fight off any attempts to suspend or fire him, he was removed from CERIUM by its director as a result of the pressure campaign against him. Needless to say, many dozens of Russia “experts” (and not even experts) from Canada and the U.S. are regularly paraded by the Canadian media. They all have in common the promotion of the U.S.-Canada-NATO narrative. On the other hand, we never see one of the real top experts—if not the top one—in Canada and the U.S. that speaks English and French: Professor Carley.
After more then five months of resistance by Carley and his supporters at the university and elsewhere, a significant breakthrough finally took place. On September 7, 2022, the second most important French-language daily in Quebec, Le Devoir, published an op-ed that courageously challenged the NATO/U.S./Canada airtight narrative on Ukraine. Titled “From endless wars to permanent war” (PDF English version here), the authors are Samir Saul (Professor of History, Université de Montréal) and Michel Seymour (Retired Professor of Philosophy, Université de Montréal). It is important to note that Carley has been vocal in writing about the Maidan regime for alternative media outlets such as Strategic Culture Foundation, which has been targeted and intimidated by the U.S. government itself. Canada, and the far-right Ukrainian diaspora here, have a less well-known role in getting the Maidan regime into power.
The far-right Ukrainian diaspora’s role in Canada and Ukraine, from the end of the Cold War onwards
When Mikhail Gorbachev betrayed socialism in the USSR and implemented his “Perestroika” policies seeking peace and accommodation with the rapacious Western powers during the mid-1980s, the right-wing Ukrainian-Canadian organizations took advantage of the opportunity in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to insert spies and Ukrainian nationalists there. They would go on to lead protest movements against the Soviet Union and cheer with joy when the USSR was dissolved.
When an independent Ukraine still retained close trade and relations with the Russian Federation, the right-wing extremists in the UCC chose to collaborate yet again with Canada’s government with a view to getting Viktor Yuschenko elected in the highly contested 2004 Ukrainian election. He was brought to power on the back of the Western-backed and financed “Orange Revolution,” which the Canadian government and the UCC backed. The “Orange” protests sought to block the election of Viktor Yanukovych, who was supported by those opposing the militant, anti-Russia politics of the far right.
A 2007 article from The Globe and Mail revealed the extent of Canadian interference in Ukraine’s 2004 elections. Canada’s ambassador to Ukraine collaborated with 28 other countries for donor coordination sessions. Canada’s embassy raised funds to help veterans of Otpor (Serbia) and Kmara (Georgia), color revolution specialists, to train Ukrainian groups that planned to protest if Yuschenko did not win the upcoming election. Pora, the civic youth organization which was a key organizer of the Orange Revolution, received its first donation of $30,000 USD via Canada’s embassy in Ukraine.
Canadian election observers were also extremely partisan in favor of Yuschenko. An election re-run came after the first round of Ukrainian election results had neither candidate hitting the required 50%-plus-one percentage to win. For that re-run, which culminated on December 26, Canada sent 500 observers to oversee it at a cost of $3 million CAD. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress sent another 500 observers on its own dime. Canadian election observers were openly cheering on the Orange Revolution, and one even spoke at a Yuschenko rally.
In the aforementioned Globe and Mail article, Mychailo Wynnyckyj, who served as an election observer, admitted that “we were told not to arrive wearing orange, but there was no doubt who everybody was supporting. Of the 500 observers supported by the Canadian government, maybe 100 were, in their hearts, truly impartial.” Many observers showed up in Ukraine in orange, the opposition’s signature color.
The Globe and Mail article notes that one election observer, former Canadian MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj, “also invested some of his own fortune, funding election observation missions to Ukraine through the University of Alberta with $250,000 from his family foundation. He opened his spacious apartment in central Kyiv so those sleeping in tents could get an occasional shower.”
Wrzesnewskyj acted as “a conduit between Mr. Martin and Mr. Yushchenko, whom he had introduced in Canada several years earlier, and persuaded the prime minister to read a dramatic statement in the House of Commons” that condemned Russia’s alleged meddling in Ukraine. Election observers such as Wrzesnewskyj would be praised by Prime Minister Paul Martin at the opening of a Ukrainian Canadian Congress office in Winnipeg.
On January 23, 2005, after months in the street, the Orange Revolution won out, and Viktor Yuschenko was declared president of Ukraine. Still, by 2006, the “pro-Russian” politician Viktor Yanukovych’s party got a parliamentary majority, and in 2010 he was elected as president of Ukraine. In 2013, Yanukovych’s government chose to accept a condition-free $15 billion bailout deal from Russia, where Russia cut gas prices by one-third. The EU had offered a far worse deal for further trade integration into the bloc, which would have forced Ukraine to hike prices of fuel and other key goods. The Canadian government and the UCC found this unacceptable.
Then came the U.S.-orchestrated Euromaidan protests in favor of the EU trade deal. These protests, which called for Yanukovych’s resignation, began in November 2013. These protests turned into a violent right-wing coup whose force was mainly provided by neo-Nazi militias, which even tried to assassinate former President Yanukovych. They installed the Maidan regime into power in February 2014.
Ken Stone, treasurer of the Canada-based Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, explained Canada’s open support for the Maidan coup in an article for The Canada Files:
The Canadian government spent $1 billion CAD promoting the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004 and the Maidan coup of 2014. During the Maidan insurrection, the Harper Government strongly supported the Nazi-ridden insurrection in Maidan square:
Stone notes that “Following the coup, successive governments of Canada recognized the junta and proceeded to pour Canadian taxpayers’ dollars, to the tune of at least $700 million. CAD, plus arms, into Ukraine from 2014 to the present. It also sent over 200 trainers for the Ukrainian army, dispatched Canadian special forces to Ukraine, and supported Ukraine with Canadian warships in the Black Sea.”
Though Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president in 2019 on the promise of peace with breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, formerly oblasts (provinces) in eastern Ukraine before the 2014 coup, the authoritarian Maidan regime remained in place and his policy and military decisions soon closely mirrored his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko.
The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has remained steadfast in its support of Zelensky, after he quickly broke his vague election promises of peace. It has lobbied the Canadian government and met with Canadian government officials consistently since 2020 to urge them to increase aid and cooperation with Ukraine.
Danger for the United States
Moss Robeson, an activist and writer who opposes the influence of extreme right-wing Ukrainians, has written extensively about this element of the Ukrainian diaspora in the United States. The difference is that the U.S.-based diaspora does not have as direct an influence on the government in the way that Canada’s right-wing Ukrainian diaspora does.
As uncritical NATO narratives are parroted across the U.S. mainstream media and even some left media bows to the pressure to condemn Russia, this is an opportunity for right-wing Ukrainian diaspora organizations to seek direct connections and funding from the U.S. government.
Grave danger is already faced by the African People’s Socialist Party (APSP) in the U.S. for rejecting the NATO narrative on Ukraine. APSP was targeted by multiple FBI raids on July 29, 2022, with the Biden administration enabling assaults on anti-imperialist organizations in the U.S., a stance condemned by the Black Alliance for Peace. As of September 22, a delegation of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion was visiting the USA.
With entire anti-imperialist organizations under attack, individual academics in the U.S. could very easily face similar waves of attack as Carley did, but even worse because of a xenophobic FBI on the prowl for “Russian interference.”
Carley and resistance to NATO narratives
Professor Michael Carley has faced serious attacks on his reputation and career and was even dropped from the University of Montreal’s research institute (CERIUM) for standing strong on his principles and condemning the Nazi-infested Maidan regime, as even many left writers and organizations bow to the pressure to condemn Russia.
Attacks on Carley come in the context of a right-wing Ukrainian diaspora in Canada that has been backed by the government since its head organization, the UCC, was founded in 1940.
Originally used as a battering ram against communism and left-wing Ukrainians in Canada, the UCC has grown to significantly influence Canadian politics and the two major Canadian political parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, with Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland being a direct UCC connection to the very height of Canadian political power.
There is no guarantee that Carley will not face further attacks. The hysteria that will accompany Ukrainian military failures may get directed against those who reject the NATO narrative on Russia’s Special Military Operation. Carley is among those who can face ire yet again. If Carley isn’t defended, the door swings open for similar campaigns against any North American academic who speaks up.
At a time when there is so much discussion and confusion in North America and elsewhere on the spurious so-called equivalence of “communism and fascism,” supposedly as a result of the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov Non-Aggression Pact, the University of Toronto just announced the publication of Carley’s latest book: “Stalin’s Gamble: The Search for Allies against Hitler, 1930–1936.”
People may justly wonder: What kind of a world are we living in when a Nazi collaborator and a U.S. State Department stenographer such as Schué is allowed to predominate over an expert such as Professor Carley?
All this comes amid a shift toward a multipolar world, regardless of the delusions of NATO countries and their puppets who claim otherwise. Anti-imperialist countries, including China, Russia, Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, the DPRK, Syria, Yemen and more are seeking to de-dollarize and ignore U.S. sanctions that could previously cripple nations.
The ability of maintaining U.S. hegemony, prized by Washington, is slowly slipping away, a clear example being how China ramped up trade with Russia as Western sanctions piled up and succeeded in significantly softening the impact of Western sanctions. Meanwhile, Iran, in 2020, joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, after striking a 25-year, $400 billion economic cooperation deal with China.
The multipolar world is coming; the people in the imperial core such as Professor Michael Carley, who genuinely support this goal for the future, should be firmly supported.
Act now or live in regret later.
*
Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, a socialist, anti-imperialist news site founded in 2019. He has written about Canadian imperialism, federal politics, and left-wing resistance to colonialism across the world. Aidan is a fourth-year Bachelor of Journalism student at Toronto Metropolitan University, who was the Head of Communications and Community Engagement for Etobicoke North (Ontario, Canada) New Democratic Party (NDP) Candidate Naiima Farah in the 2019 Federal Election. He can be reached at aidanjonah.canadafiles@gmail.com.
It’s time for the Global Majority to take their rightful place at the top table
The West will simply lose the opportunity to plunder the rest of the planet and it will have to shrink a bit. They will have to live within their means.
The global meaning of the fight in Ukraine is the return of freedom, dignity, and autonomy to the non-West (and we propose to call it by another name – the Global Majority, which was previously suppressed, robbed, and culturally humiliated). And, of course, a fair share of the world’s wealth.
By Professor Sergey Karaganov, honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and academic supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow
The crisis did not start in 2022, it started in the mid-1990s – just as the Second World War really began with the post-First World War Treaty of Versailles, which was unfair and laid the foundations for what later transpired.
But perhaps the main thrust of the offensive from the perspective of world history, not just Russian history, is the struggle for the final liberation of the planet from the 500-year-old Western yoke, which has suppressed countries and civilizations and imposed unequal terms of engagement on them. First by simply plundering them, through colonialism, then neocolonialism, and later through the globalist imperialism of the last 30 years.
The conflict in Ukraine, like many events of the last decade, is not only about shattering the old world, it is also about creating a new, freer, fairer, more politically and culturally pluralistic, and multi-colored world.
At last week’s Valdai Forum, in Moscow I was invited to speak at a session entitled “The Crumbling World: Lessons for the Future from the Political-Military Crisis of 2022.” The event has become a leader in the international intellectual community in dealing with global affairs of the present and future. But the title of the session gave me doubts, even if I didn’t protest.
The crisis did not start in 2022, it started in the mid-1990s – just as the Second World War really began with the post-First World War Treaty of Versailles, which was unfair and laid the foundations for what later transpired.
Almost three decades ago, the West refused to strike a just arrangement with post-Soviet Russia. Instead, as it seemed to many at the time, it created a new domination system based on so-called “rules.”
Others later referred to it more accurately as global liberal imperialism. But it was built on sand. It contained a World War III landmine that would sooner or later explode. Veterans like me tend to store memories, often misremembered, but I have been on the record since 1996-1997 that a world based on NATO expansion and Western domination would lead to war.
US-led hegemony began to crumble in 1999 when, in a daze of impunity, the bloc violated Yugoslavia. The crumbling went further when, in euphoria, it went into Afghanistan, then into Iraq, and lost, devaluing it’s then military superiority and moral leadership. At the same time, two even more important processes were taking place. Russia became convinced – after Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty – that it was impossible to build a just and lasting peace with the West, and began to restore its military might.
Thus, once again, as Moscow had done in the past, it began to kick at the foundations of Western domination in the global economic, political and cultural spheres, which was based on military superiority. This dominance lasted for 500 years and began to crumble in the 1960s. In the 1990s, because of the fall of the USSR, it seemed to have returned, but now Moscow has started to shake its foundations again.
At the same time, the West missed the rise of China. In parallel, an even more surprising mistake was made. In the late 2000s, it began to restrain both China and Russia simultaneously, pushing them towards a single political-military bloc that combined their core interests.
A manifestation of this was the 2008 economic crisis, which took place against the backdrop of the aforementioned processes and undermined confidence in the West’s moral, economic and intellectual leadership.
Since the late 2000s, the West has been creating the conditions for a Cold War. But there was still a window of opportunity to agree with Russia and China on the terms of the new world. It existed somewhere between 2008 and 2013. But it wasn’t used. Since 2014, the US-led bloc has intensified its active policy of containment of China and Russia, including promoting a coup d’état in Kiev to prepare proxies to try and undermine Moscow.
The West – losing military, political and moral ground, and even its moral core (look at Western Europe’s move away from Christianity) – went on a hysterical counterattack. War was becoming inevitable, the question was where and when.
Covid was used as a substitute for two years. But once its effect had been diluted, a clash here or there became inevitable. Realizing this, Russia decided to strike first.
This operation had several aims: to prevent the West from creating a military offensive bridgehead on Russia’s borders, which was rapidly taking shape, and to prepare the country for the long-term effects of conflict and rapid change. This requires a different model of society and economy – one of mobilisation.
The next goal is to purge the elites of pro-Western and “comprador” elements.
But perhaps the main thrust of the offensive from the perspective of world history, not just Russian history, is the struggle for the final liberation of the planet from the 500-year-old Western yoke, which has suppressed countries and civilizations and imposed unequal terms of engagement on them. First by simply plundering them, through colonialism, then neocolonialism, and later through the globalist imperialism of the last 30 years.
The conflict in Ukraine, like many events of the last decade, is not only about shattering the old world, it is also about creating a new, freer, fairer, more politically and culturally pluralistic, and multi-colored world.
The global meaning of the fight in Ukraine is the return of freedom, dignity, and autonomy to the non-West (and we propose to call it by another name – the Global Majority, which was previously suppressed, robbed, and culturally humiliated). And, of course, a fair share of the world’s wealth.
Russia cannot fail to win this war, although it will be difficult. Many of us had not counted on such a strong willingness on the part of the West to fight militarily, and on such a determination from some Ukrainians – who had been transformed into the likeness of the German Nazis previously set against Moscow – to fight desperately, and at their level of armaments. Probably, given the general global trends and the global balance of power, we should have struck earlier. But I don’t know the level of readiness of our Armed Forces.
I think that in 2014 we definitely should have acted more decisively, abandoning hopes of an agreement.
We are living in a dangerous period, on the brink of a full-fledged third-world war that could end humanity’s existence. But if Russia wins, which is more than likely, and the hostilities do not escalate into a full-blown nuclear conflict, we should not look at the coming decades as a time of dangerous chaos (as most in the West are saying). We have been living in this period for a long time.
It will be, if we choose a world of constructive creation and the attainment of freedom, justice and dignity by peoples and nations.
The old system of institutions and regimes has already collapsed (freedom of trade and respect for private property). Meanwhile, institutions like the WTO, the World Bank the IMF, the OSCE, and the EU are, I am afraid, reaching their last years.
New bodies are beginning to emerge to which the future belongs. They are the SCO, ASEAN+, the Organisation of African Unity, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The Asian Development Bank is already lending many times more than the World Bank. Not all new institutions will survive, and let us hope that a number of them will survive, especially in the UN system, which urgently needs reform to primarily represent the Global Majority in the secretariat, rather than the West.
The main thing is to prevent a losing West from stalling history or derailing it through a world war.
Not only Global Majority countries, but Western countries can live quite happily in this world. The West will simply lose the opportunity to plunder the rest of the planet and it will have to shrink a bit. They will have to live within their means.
I am afraid that this new world taking shape now will be created beyond my intellectual or physical life. But my young colleagues and certainly their children will see it.
But this beautiful vision has to be fought for, first of all by preventing a third world war, because of the attempted revenge of the West. Again, it was in Europe that the first two world wars were unleashed. Russia is now fighting, among other things, to ensure that the prerequisites for a third are not ripe. But conflicts will occur in an era of rapid change. So the struggle for peace should be one of the main themes of our intellectual community and the world at large.
Every year in Lviv, Ukrainians celebrate the creation of the Nazi Waffen SS Galizien division. The division was famous mainly for the genocide of Russians, Poles and Jews. Ukrainians are proud of the work of their ancestors as you can see. pic.twitter.com/QLgbdryxDn
Irish leftist MEP Clare Daly calls out EU and US-sponsored terrorism against Palestine 🇵🇸, Yemen 🇾🇪, Syria 🇸🇾, Iraq 🇮🇶, Cuba 🇨🇺, Nicaragua 🇳🇮, Guatemala 🇬🇹, El Salvador 🇸🇻, Vietnam 🇻🇳, Laos 🇱🇦, Cambodia 🇰🇭, and many more. pic.twitter.com/DBw5w5cFzW
He meant that the U.S. and its allies are doing this and are carrying out a more sophisticated version of Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa” against the Soviet Union — a version of grabbing Russia that uses lying lawfare, instead of (as-of yet) direct military invasion, overt warfare.
The next phase of their plan — using their “lawfare” — is to be outright theft. But this technique has a history; and, a hundred years ago, it had been used against Germany by the U.S. and its allies. So, we can see what the results will be if it succeeds.
What’s going on now is the restoration of the type of massive theft from Germans by the Versailles Treaty that ended WW I on 28 June 1919, which Treaty was declared by John Maynard Keynes to have been imposed as a “Carthaginian peace [by theft that’s propagandized as ‘reparations’]”.
No ‘reparations’ were being imposed against Germany’s enemies in that war, but, in historical retrospect, there is general agreement, among historians, that the Allied side, against Germany and Austria, was perhaps equally to blame for that War, though the Versailles Treaty required ALL of the blame for it to go ONLY to Germany (and, so, only German taxpayers were to pay reparations for it, to the victor-nations — the victors).
There were no reparations by the U.S. and its allies after they raped and destroyed Iraq in 2003 on the basis of lies (which continue). The case for reparations by U.S. taxpayers (and the execution of George W. Bush as an international war-criminal) as restitution to the Government of Iraq, is far stronger than the case for the Versailles Treaty was, but nobody in The West states it (except here).
There were no reparations by the U.S. and its allies after they raped and destroyed Syriaduring 2012-now on the basis of lies (which continue). The U.S. Government refuses ever to restitute Syria, but instead demands Syria’s capitulation (“regime-change”).
However, now, the U.S. and its allies increasingly are demanding reparations by the countries that they still have not yet conquered, such as Russia and others that the U.S.-and-allies impose their illegal sanctions against.
When these sanctions are asset-seizures, they are theft (even more clearly than the Versailles Treaty was), but, in some instances (such as America’s systematic massive ongoing oil-thefts from Syria), they rely upon the cooperation of their ‘news’-media instead, to so suppress that reality so as to enable the continued passivity and inattention from their voters to continue these thefts by their nation against the one (such as, in that case, Syria) that is targeted ultimately for destruction (“regime-change”). The media are part of the regime that carries-out the regime’s policy for “regime-change,” by the U.S. regime, against (for the conquest of) other countries — further expansion of the U.S. empire.
In February 2014, the U.S. Government seized control over Ukraine’s Government by means of a very bloody coup that was hidden behind public anti-corruption demonstrations that the U.S. had been organizing ever since 2011, and promptly turned that previously Russia-friendly country rabidly against its bordering nation of Russia, and tried to ethnically cleanse it of Russians so as for the U.S. ultimately to become, by ‘democratic’ means, through elections, able to post its missiles in Ukraine only about 300 miles (five minutes of missile-flying time) away from blitz-nuking Moscow so as to be able to dictate to The Kremlin the terms of regime-change there. On 17 December 2021, Russia demanded America and its NATO to promise that this now rabidly anti-Russian Ukraine never be admitted into NATO, but on 7 January 2022 NATO said that whether or not Ukraine becomes a member of NATO is none of Russia’s business. So, the only way for Russia to protect itself would be for Russia to invade Ukraine and take enough land there so that Ukraine’s closest border to Moscow would be moved back at least 1,000 miles (instead of 300 miles) from The Kremlin. On 24 February 2022, Russia launched that invasion; and the U.S.-and-allied nations promptly intensified their illegal sanctions against Russia, for this invasion, that the U.S. and its allies had forced.
Selling Russian-owned assets to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction may sound like a logical approach to restitution, but as the Canadian government gains new powers to begin this process, questions remain about how it will work, and whether some issues are headed to court.
C-19, the budget implementation bill, received royal assent last Thursday [The Queen in England authorized the thefts.]. …
Canada’s stepped-up sanctions powers were discussed with U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen during her visit to Toronto last week. [The Queen in America likewise authorized the thefts.]
“We think it’s really important to extend our legal authorities because it’s going to be really, really important to find the money to rebuild Ukraine,” Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told Canadian and American reporters. “I can think of no more appropriate source of that funding than confiscated Russian assets.” …
That sentiment was shared by Ontario Sen. Ratna Omidvar [Indian-Iranian pro-Shah] who proposed her own Senate legislation to enable similar asset seizures two years ago. …
“Kleptocrats must pay for their crimes, not through simply being sanctioned and their assets being frozen, but by their assets being repurposed and confiscated,” said Omidvar. …
“The question no longer is ‘if we should confiscate,’” the senator said. “The question is: ‘How should we repurpose? … This move by Canada — and potentially other G7 countries meeting in Germany this week — is unprecedented. …
“Operationalizing this is going to be a little bit of a challenge,” said fellow senator and former G7 sherpa Peter Boehm. “This is all very, very new.” …
Taxpayers in Canada, the U.S. or other countries don’t want to bear the full cost of this war, [Rachel] Ziemba [an adjunct senior fellow with the Centre for a New American Security who advises companies and countries on sanctions policy] said … as governments embark on asset seizures …
Russia’s central bank is on Canada’s sanctions list. Should these reserves be seized and handed over to Ukraine too?
[U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet] Yellen’s argued against doing this in the U.S., even though it could provide more funds to rebuild Ukraine.
“That might send a message to other countries that are investing in [international currency and bond] markets,” Ziemba said — think of China’s buying power, for example. “That, I think, is why the [U.S.] treasury department and even the [U.S. federal reserve] are wary of these moves.” …
Can Brussels raid the tens of billions of euros in Russian assets frozen by the European Union to pay for Ukraine’s recovery?
This thorny legal question is currently under examination by the EU Commission as the cash-strapped bloc looks for potentially €18 billion ($18 billion) next year to keep Ukraine afloat as it fends off Moscow’s invasion.
Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission’s president, told reporters on Tuesday in Berlin that she had set up a task force to map what assets exist as well as the preconditions that must be met to seize them.
“The will is there, but legally it is not trivial. There is a lot of work still in it to reach that goal,” she said during a press briefing on the sidelines of an international conference of experts for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
“Always to keep in mind we insist on the rule of law, and therefore we abide by the rule of law, and therefore this process has to be legally sound.” …
Ukraine Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said on Tuesday … “It’s the biggest investment project on the European continent ever.” …
While Canada has already enacted legislation to seize Russian assets, EU member states are divided as the issue could have repercussions that extend far beyond its borders and affect the future for a long time to come.
*
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from belfercenter.org
The original source of this article is Global Research
“We are not threatening anyone.… We have made it clear that any further NATO movement to the east is unacceptable. There’s nothing unclear about this. We aren’t deploying our missiles to the border of the United States, but the United States IS deploying its missiles to the porch of our house. Are we asking too much? We’re just asking that they not deploy their attack systems to our home…. What is so hard to understand about that?” Russian President Vladimir Putin,
On February 16—a full 8 days before the Russian invasion—the shelling of the Donbas increased dramatically and steadily intensified for the next week “to over 2,000 per day on February 22.” As we said, these blasts were logged in daily summaries by observers of the OSCE who were on the frontlines. Think about that for a minute. In other words, these are eyewitness accounts by trained professionals who collected documented evidence of the Ukrainian Army’s massive bombardment of areas inhabited by their own people.
What bothers me is that people continue to support the war in Ukraine because they have no idea of what actually happened in the lead-up to the invasion.They know nothing about the relentless bombing of civilians, or the defiant rejection of Minsk or the repeated military attacks on the Donbas, or the plan to retake Crimea through force of arms. or the laws directed against ethnic Russians, or the rise of Nazi fascism in Kiev. They know nothing about any of these things. Their views on Ukraine are entirely shaped by the rubbish they read in the western media or hear on the cable news channels where the deluge of propaganda issues like a mighty river pulling the population inexorably towards another vicious neocon bloodbath.
Important article first published on October 11, 2022
***
“We are not threatening anyone.… We have made it clear that any further NATO movement to the east is unacceptable. There’s nothing unclear about this. We aren’t deploying our missiles to the border of the United States, but the United States IS deploying their missiles to the porch of our house. Are we asking too much? We’re just asking that they not deploy their attack-systems to our home…. What is so hard to understand about that?” Russian President Vladimir Putin,
YouTube, Start at :48 seconds
Imagine if the Mexican army started bombarding American ex-pats living in Mexico with heavy artillery rounds killing thousands and leaving thousands more wounded. What do you think Joe Biden would do?
Would he brush it off like a big nothing-burger and move on or would he threaten the Mexican government with a military invasion that would obliterate the Mexican Army, level their biggest cities, and send the government running for cover?
Which of these two options do you think Biden would choose?
There’s no doubt what Biden would do nor is there any question what the 45 presidents who preceded him would do. No US leader would ever stand by and do nothing while thousands of Americans were savagely slaughtered by a foreign government. That just wouldn’t happen. They’d all respond quickly and forcefully.
But if that’s true, then why isn’t the same standard applied to Russia? Isn’t the situation in Ukraine nearly identical?
It is nearly identical, only the situation in Ukraine is worse, much worse. And if we stretch our analogy a bit, you’ll see why:
Let’s say, the US Intelligence agencies discovered that the Mexican government was not acting alone, but was being directed to kill and maim American ex-pats on orders from the Chinese Communist government in Beijing. Can you imagine that?
And the reason the Chinese government wants to kill Americans in Mexico is because they want to lure the US into a long and costly war that will “weaken” the US and pave way for its ultimate splintering into many pieces that China can control and exploit. Does any of this sound familiar? (Check out the Rand Strategy for weakening Russia here)
So, let’s say, the Chinese are actually the driving force behind the war in Mexico. Let’s say, they toppled the Mexican government years earlier and installed their own puppet regime to do their bidding. Then they armed and trained vast numbers of troops to fight the Americans. They supplied these warriors with cutting-edge weapons and technology, logistical support, satellite and communications assistance, tanks, armored vehicles, anti-ship missiles, and state-of-the-art artillery units all of which were provided with one goal in mind; to crush America in a proxy war that was concocted, controlled and micro-managed from the Chinese Capital of Beijing
Is such a scenario possible?
It is possible, in fact, this very same scenario is playing out right now in Ukraine, only the perpetrator of the hostilities is the United States, not China, and the target of this malign strategy is Russia, not the US. Surprisingly, the Biden administration isn’t even trying to hide what they’re up to anymore. They’re openly arming, training, funding, and directing Ukrainian troops to prosecute a war aimed at killing Russian soldiers and removing Putin from power. That’s the objective and everyone knows it.
And the whole campaign is based on the sketchy claim that Russia is guilty of “unprovoked aggression”. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell. The moral justification for the war rests on the unverified assumption that Russia committed a criminal offense and broke international law by invading Ukraine. But, did they?
Let’s see if that assumption is correct or if it’s just another fake claim by a dissembling media that never stops tweaking the narrative to build the case for war.
First of all, answer this one question related to the analogy above: If the US deployed troops to Mexico to protect American expats from being bombarded by the Mexican army, would you regard that deployment as an ‘unprovoked aggression’ or a rescue mission?
Rescue mission, right? Because the primary intention was to save lives not seize the territory of another sovereign country.
Well, that’s what Putin was doing when he sent his tanks into Ukraine. He was trying stop the killing of civilians living in the Donbas whose only fault was that they were ethnic Russians committed to their own culture and traditions. Is that a crime?
Take a look at this map.
This map is the key to understanding how the war in Ukraine started. It tells us who did the provoking and who was being provoked. It tells us who was dropping the bombs and who was getting bombed. It tells us who was causing the trouble and who was being blamed for the trouble-making. The map tells us everything we need to know.
Can you see the yellow dots? Those dots represent the artillery strikes that were documented in daily summaries by “observers of the Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE), positioned at the frontlines.” The vast majority of the strikes were in the area inhabited by Russian-speaking people who have been under military siege for the last 8 years. (14,000 ethnic Russians have been killed in the fighting since 2014.) The Minsk Agreements were drawn up to resolve the issues between the warring parties and end the hostilities, but the government in Kiev refused to implement the agreement. In fact, the former President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, even admitted that the treaty was just a vehicle for buying time until another full-scale offensive on the Donbas could be launched.
In short, the Ukrainian government never had any intention of reaching a peaceful settlement with the leaders of the Donbas. Their goal was to intensify the conflict in order to provoke Russia and draw them into a protracted war that would exhaust their resources and collapse their economy. The long-range objective was to remove Putin from office and replace him with a Washington-backed stooge that would do as he was told. US officials– including Joe Biden- have even admitted that their plan involved regime change in Moscow. We should take them at their word.
The map provides a visual account of the events leading up to the Russian invasion. It cuts through the lies and identifies the true origins of the war which can be traced back to the heavy artillery strikes launched by the Ukrainian Army more than a week before the Russian invasion. (February 24) The massive shelling was aimed at the Russian-speaking people living in an area in eastern Ukraine. These are the people who were being bombarded by their fellow Ukrainians.
What Really Happened?
On February 16—a full 8 days before the Russian invasion—the shelling of the Donbas increased dramatically and steadily intensified for the next week “to over 2,000 per day on February 22.” As we said, these blasts were logged in daily summaries by observers of the OSCE who were on the frontlines. Think about that for a minute. In other words, these are eyewitness accounts by trained professionals who collected documented evidence of the Ukrainian Army’s massive bombardment of areas inhabited by their own people.
Would this evidence hold up in a court of law if a case against the Ukrainian government was ever presented before an international tribunal trying to assign accountability for the hostilities?
We think it would. We think the evidence is rock-solid. In fact, we have not read or heard of even one analyst who has challenged this vast catalogue of documented evidence.Instead, the media simply pretends the proof doesn’t exist. They have simply swept the evidence under the rug or vanished it from their coverage altogether in order to shape a Washington-centric version of events that completely ignores the historical record. But facts are facts. And the facts don’t change because the media fails to report them. And what the facts suggest is that the war in Ukraine is a Washington-concocted war no different than Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. Once again, Uncle Sam’s bloody fingerprints are all over this sorry affair.
Check out this summary of ceasefire violations posted on podcast host Martyr Made’s twitter account:
Martyr Made @martyrmade
On Feb 15, the OSCE recorded 41 ceasefire violations as Kiev’s forces began shelling Donbas. Feb 16: 76 violations Feb 17: 316 Feb 18: 654 Feb 19: 1,413 Feb 20-21: 2,026 Feb 22: 1,484 …virtually all by the Kiev side. Feb 24: Russian forces intervene
Notice how the shelling of the Donbas increased every day before the invasion?
I’d call that a thoroughly-calculated provocation, wouldn’t you?
Why does this matter?
It matters because the vast majority of people have been hoodwinked into supporting a war for which there is no moral justification. This is not a case of “unprovoked aggression”. Not even close. And Putin is not an out-of-control tyrant bent on reconstituting the Soviet Empire by terrorizing his neighbors and seizing their territory. That is a complete fabrication based on nothing but speculation. In Putin’s own words, he invaded Ukraine because he had no choice. His own people were being ruthlessly exterminated by an army that acts on Washington’s orders alone. He had to invade, there was no other option. Putin felt a moral obligation to defend the ethnic Russians in Ukraine who could not defend themselves. Is that aggression? Here’s a bit more background from an article at The Intercept by James Risen:
Despite staging a massive military buildup on his country’s border with Ukraine for nearly a year, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not make a final decision to invade until just before he launched the attack in February, according to senior current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
In December, the CIA issued classified reports concluding that Putin hadn’t yet committed to an invasion, according to current and former officials. In January, even as the Russian military was starting to take the logistical steps necessary to move its troops into Ukraine, U.S. intelligence again issued classified reporting maintaining that Putin had still not resolved to actually launch an attack, the officials said.
It wasn’t until February that the agency and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community became convinced that Putin would invade, the senior official added. With few other options available at the last minute to try to stop Putin, President Joe Biden took the unusual step of making the intelligence public, in what amounted to a form of information warfare against the Russian leader. He also warned that Putin was planning to try to fabricate a pretext for invasion, including by making false claims that Ukrainian forces had attacked civilians in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, which is controlled by pro-Russian separatists. The preemptive use of intelligence by Biden revealed “a new understanding … that the information space may be among the most consequential terrain Putin is contesting,” observed Jessica Brandt of the Brookings Institution.”
Biden’s warning on February 18 that the invasion would happen within the week turned out to be accurate. In the early hours of February 24, Russian troops moved south into Ukraine from Belarus and across Russia’s borders into Kharkiv, the Donbas region, and Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.” (“U.S. Intelligence Says Putin Made a Last-Minute Decision to Invade Ukraine”, James Risen, The Intercept)
There’s so much baloney in this excerpt, it’s hard to know where to begin. But just review the timeline we provided earlier; a timeline that has been verified by officials from the OSCE. Can you see the discrepancy?
Biden issued his warning on February 18; that’s two days after monitors from the OSCE reported an intensification of the bombing in the Donbas. In other words, Biden already knew that his buddies in the Ukrainian army were bombing the shit out of east Ukraine when he tried to make it look like he was privy to some sensitive, insider information about the upcoming invasion.
Of course, he knew Putin was going to invade! They created the provocation that forced him to invade! They were bombing the hell out of the people Putin is obliged to protect. What else could he do? Any leader worth his salt would have done the same thing.
What bothers me is that people continue to support the war in Ukraine because they have no idea of what actually happened in the lead-up to the invasion.They know nothing about the relentless bombing of civilians, or the defiant rejection of Minsk or the repeated military attacks on the Donbas, or the plan to retake Crimea through force of arms. or the laws directed against ethnic Russians, or the rise of Nazi fascism in Kiev. They know nothing about any of these things. Their views on Ukraine are entirely shaped by the rubbish they read in the western media or hear on the cable news channels where the deluge of propaganda issues like a mighty river pulling the population inexorably towards another vicious neocon bloodbath.
People must know the truth or this war will escalate into something far worse.
*
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image is from The Unz Review
The original source of this article is Global Research
A curious feature of our modern times is the number of secret societies operating in our midst, setting the global agenda behind closed doors
“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”
Long before the fiction writer Dan Brown arrived on the literary scene with his stories of esoterica, people have been intrigued with the idea of secret societies working in the shadows, carrying out evil plots against them. On this score, it would be hard to beat the Freemasons.
Here is a group of characters that has piqued the imaginations of men throughout the centuries. Back in 1798, John Robison, a professor of Natural Philosophy, and Secretary to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, published a book that made a big splash throughout Europe. The publication carried the lengthy title, ‘Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies.’ Had John Robison attempted to publish such a book in our day, he would have been quickly written off as a conspiracy theorist nut job along the lines of Alex Jones. But in 1798, the book was taken quite seriously.
Robison, himself a Mason, attempted to prove that not only the French Revolution, but many other historic events of the day were the result of this secret fraternity’s machinations.
“I have seen this Association exerting itself zealously and systematically, till it has become almost irresistible: And I have seen that the most active leaders in the French Revolution were members of this Association and conducted their first movements according to its principles, and by means of its instructions and assistance, the formerly requested and obtained. And lastly, I have seen that this Association still exists, still works in secret, and that not only several appearances among ourselves show that its emissaries are endeavoring to propagate their detestable doctrines among us…”
Aside from the question of whether Robison was correct in his accusation is an equally important one: if the freemasons are really up to no good, are they continuing with their shenanigans today?
A lot of people believe they are, and many are speaking out with revelations of various levels of believability. Many are dismissed as conspiracy theorists (which, in turn, reinforces the belief of many others in the secret societies’ willingness to ‘throttle the truth’). Former singer-songwriter and winner of The X Factor Australia, Altiyan Childs, for example, shared a five-hour video where he proclaims that nearly every Western institution has been infiltrated by the Freemasons, to the point where it is nearly impossible to rise to high office – from the world of entertainment to politics and everything in between – without the silent nod of this international fraternity. That video has been viewed nearly four million times.
While it may be easy to laugh off such outlandish claims based on the ‘Illuminati’ and other such groups, there are other societies that make no secret about their secrecy and have a much more tangible claim to controlling the world.
If there were a reigning king of secret societies today, the title would undoubtedly go to the World Economic Forum. Founded in 1971 by the German engineer and economist Klaus Schwab, the foundation, which brings together the top 1,000 most powerful corporations in the world, views its mission as “improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas.” Democratic procedure doesn’t seem to have a place in this formula.
As the author and social critic Nick Buxton described the annual confab, held in the mountains of Davos, Switzerland, “this unaccountable invitation-only gathering is increasingly where global decisions are being taken and moreover is becoming the default form of global governance.”
Schwab has gone on record as saying that “the sovereign state has become obsolete,” and that in order to fill the power void there needs to be a “global issue alliance” apparently with himself at the helm.
Not only does Davos serve as an elitist cocktail party for “improving the state of the world” far from the prying eyes of humanity, but it also works to “penetrate” governments around the world with their self-taught protégé.
“So we penetrate the cabinets”.
Here is Klaus Schwab in 2017 discussing how the WEF have penetrated governments with its young global leaders – like Justin Trudeau.pic.twitter.com/07M6LDPHot
“What we are really proud of now is the young generation, like Prime Minister [Justin] Trudeau,” Schwab boasted back in 2017, who make it possible for us to “penetrate the cabinets” of governments around the world.
The Davos leader then provided an example, saying he had “attended a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I saw that half of his cabinet or even more are from the Young Global Leaders program of the World Economic Forum.”
It does not require much imagination for regular folks – never mind the conspiracy theorists – to find something nefarious about the most powerful people on the planet “penetrating” governments with their specially trained representatives. And that’s exactly what happened with the introduction of the Covid-19 pandemic – many people saw it as a fabricated emergency to not only deprive millions of people of their livelihood but to further enrich the very individuals who make up the ranks of the Davos group (the forced lockdowns on people and private businesses caused one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history as only the very largest companies could survive under such conditions).
There were other reasons to be suspicious. In October 2019, the WEF, together with Johns Hopkins University and the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation, held a tabletop seminar entitled Event 201 that described what would happen in the event of a global pandemic. Three months later, everything that the simulation described – from the lockdown of entire countries to businesses being forced to close down – came to pass with the arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Of course, this is not to say that Klaus Schwab and the Davos elite took advantage of a deadly pandemic to enrich themselves, but many people believe just that – or are at least suspicious about a secretive organization pushing for a ‘Great Reset’. Those two words have become the trigger word for many – while the WEF presented them as a benevolent post-Covid economic recovery plan, detractors pointed to a 2016 video released by the Forum as a prediction of the future and featuring the ominous words “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” The plan, they claim, is to enact a new global world order.
In a nondescript building (for a full view of this structure, which is dubbed ‘the Tomb’ – and for good reason – check out the video) on the campus of Yale University is the home of Skull and Bones, a secretive fraternity that first appeared on the scene in 1832 (women were not granted membership into Skull and Bones until 1992).
Skull and Bones, which is also known as The Order, Order 322, or The Brotherhood of Death, is notoriously selective in determining who can become a so-called ‘Bonesman.’ The society selects new members among students every spring as part of its so-called ‘Tap Day’ when just 15 seniors are invited.
Despite its intense exclusivity, many members have ascended after graduation to positions of prominence in the world of intelligence, business, and government. Three of them—William Howard Taft, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush—went on to become U.S. presidents. This was the cause of an awkward moment in the 2004 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, both members of Skull and Bones.
The late NBC journalist Tim Russert confronted both men as to their membership in the organization and ‘what that means for America.’ Bush just chuckled and said, “It’s so secret we can’t talk about it.” Kerry responded almost the same, saying he could not speak about his membership “because it’s a secret.” And with that, the American people were forced to choose between two men from opposite sides of the particular spectrum who shared secrets the voter would never know about.
This group got its name from the Bilderberg Hotel, located in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, where the Bilderbergs had their first meeting in May 1954. But unlike Skull and Bones, Bilderberg is very much global in scope. In fact, it is so global that one of the conspiracy theories it must contend with is that it is trying to create a one-world government.
Denis Healey, one of the original founders of the group, lent credence to that theory when he told a journalist: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”
The invitees tend to hail from a narrow spectrum of occupations – CEOs, finance ministers, and heads of state. For the one or two journalists who receive an invitation, the privilege is largely symbolic since they are not permitted to write about what they see and hear. Bilderberg releases an annual list of those who will attend and the subjects they’ll discuss, but beyond that, little leaves the walls of the hotel.
So here we are left with the question: is there any place for secret societies inside of our democracies, especially when the members of these groups are always working on behalf of their own special interests? The answer seems obvious, but as it stands there are no laws on the books that prevent people – even those who say they represent us – from meeting together in private. As a result, the only option for the common folk is to protest these back-door meetings at every opportunity. And that is all.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone
Tales from the Conspiratum 
