Posts Tagged ‘coup d’tat’

redfox2
After a US supported Neo-Nazi coup d’etat in Ukraine, the US is now threatening to escalate the conflict with Russia if the people of Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine this Sunday.

“There will be a response of some kind to the referendum itself,” Kerry said. “If there is no sign [from Russia] of any capacity to respond to this issue ... there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday.”

John Kerry: Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine

Russia has drawn the line:

Russian Troops Mass at Border With Ukraine

Of course the obvious: that Ukraine has no legitimate government at all right now thanks to a fascist coup covertly sponsored by the West, does not get stated in the US corporate media.

nuland-mccain-Tyahnybok-small

Meanwhile:

US Army to proceed with planned exercise in Ukraine

image

Paratroopers from Attack Company, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) provide security from a vehicle during a tactical control point exercise July 10, 2013, during Exercise Rapid Trident in Yavoriv, Ukraine.
Daniel Cole/U.S. Army

victoria-nuland-chevron-ukraine

 

[Editor’s Note: It all makes sense now.  Condi Rice, Victoria Nuland, $5Bn invested to get US oil and gas companies into the Ukraine and overthrow its government.

See:

]

 

JP SOTTILE FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

“For example, [Rice’s] steadfast belief that Ukraine “should not be a pawn in a great-power conflict but rather an independent nation” might have something to do with Chevron’s 50-year lease to develop Ukraine’s shale gas reserves.”

aukraineUkranian protests in late 2013
(Photo: Wikipedia)


Everybody’s got an opinion about the “showdown” with Russia.

Some say it’s about freedom and the right to self-determination. Some say it’s about standing up to aggression and halting a dictator’s march. Some say it’s about the future of everything—from Syria to North Korea to Iran’s nuclear program—and, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, it all stems from Obama’s failure to kill the people who killed Americans at Benghazi.

But the most-revealing voice in the chorus is Condi Rice.

She penned a tension-filled op-ed on Ukraine for the Washington Post—the newspaper of broken records. Her nostalgic, “Baby, It’s a Cold War Outside” ditty on the “Ukrainian Problem” came just two days after a Teflon-coatedHenry Kissinger opined about the “art of establishing priorities” in his own Ukraine-themed op-ed for the Post.

As the world learned through painful experience, Condi Rice, much like Henry Kissinger, was all about establishing priorities. But now that she’s out of power, why should anyone waste any time considering Ms. Rice’s opinion about anything, much less about the “crisis” in Ukraine?

Why? Because it’s telling.

Like most American Exceptionalists, her bluster and posturing can be reverse-engineered to find the banal truth about U.S. foreign policy. For example, her steadfast belief that Ukraine “should not be a pawn in a great-power conflict but rather an independent nation” might have something to do with Chevron’s 50-year lease to develop Ukraine’s shale gas reserves.

When that lease was signed on November 5, 2013, it stoked Russian fears about losing its influence on, and a major gas market in, a former satellite. It also came on the eve of the much-disputed trade deal with the European Union that, once abandoned due to Russian pressure, led to the toppling of Ukraine’s government. Reuters characterized Ukraine’s “$10 billion shale gas production-sharing agreement with U.S. Chevron” as “another step in a drive for more energy independence from Russia.”

Of course, Ms. Rice knows something about driving for more energy. She sat on Chevron’s board of directors for ten years before resigning to become President Bush’s National Security Adviser in January of 2001. She was such a titanic figure at Chevron and so beloved by their corporate captains that they even named a 129,000-ton oil tanker “Condoleezza Rice.” Do people name tankers after people? People do!

But four months after leaving Chevron, they “quietly renamed” the tanker, apparently sensitive to the implication that she might prioritize their interests in places like Kazakhstan (a de facto dictatorship never targeted by American Exceptionalists) or the Caspian Sea (where Chevron is heavily invested) or Afghanistan (where they’ve long sought a pipeline from the Caspian region to the Indian Ocean).

In the case of Ukraine, Chevron’s deal continues a long tradition of intermarriage between “national” and corporate interests under the guise of national security. As the International Business Times stated immediately after the deal, “Chevron’s agreement with Ukraine was supported by the U.S. as part of its national security strategy to help reduce Russia’s hold on Europe and Kiev.” As quoted in the article, U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt said, “I’m very determined to cooperate with the Ukrainian government in strengthening Ukraine’s energy independence.”

That “cooperation” is couched in the language of “independence,” but it’s actually about shifting to financial interdependence with powerful, American corporate interests. It’s not about freedom or self-determination or human rights.

It’s about the “Open Door.”

Since the U.S. proposed the Open Door Policy in China at the end of the 19thCentury, American “soft imperialism” has exploited resource opportunities for American corporate interests in dozens of “friendly” regimes—their commitment to freedom notwithstanding.

Whether it was oil in Iranbananas in Guatemala or sugar-cane in Cuba, any move to close the door on U.S. business interests has traditionally been met with dire warnings about the dangers of isolationism and specious claims about America’s national interests, which, oddly enough, always seem to be located in another country.

Throughout the Cold War, those “endangered” national interests inspired CIA hijinks around the world. U.S. foreign policymakers supported regime change in places like Chile (calling Dr. Kissinger) and around Central America, and they doled out generous foreign aid packages to a motley crew of anti-communist “strongmen.” If push came to shove, the U.S. military might even get involved.

Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policy has been kicking open doors around the world and particularly around the edges of the former Soviet Union. Expansion of NATO and U.S. involvement in the former “Soviet Stans” around Afghanistan extended a semi-circle of U.S. military might around Russia. And the Ukrainian energy independence trumpeted by Ambassador Pyatt amounted to a declaration of economic warfare on Russia’s oil and gas-based economy. Like Condi Rice before him, Ambassador Pyatt’s well-established priority is to ensure that well-connected businesses get in on the ground floor.

Once on the ground floor, they need insurance—either from local clients or from a neighborhood patrol by U.S. forces. Perhaps that’s why Ms. Rice used her Ukraine op-ed as an opportunity to advocate leaving a permanent military force in Afghanistan. She doesn’t want to hear “talk of withdrawal from Afghanistan whether the security situation warrants it or not.” For her, nothing less than 10,000 troops will do. Otherwise, the U.S. is “not serious about helping to stabilize that country.”

Yet, one wonders if she—like all the professional hand-wringers, truculent think tankers, and once and future policymakers who’ve grandstanded on the showdown with Russia—isn’t quietly more concerned about something more basic than freedom, liberty and justice for all.

Perhaps the former Secretary of State, former Chevron big-wig and former oil tanker is more concerned with the ability of Chevron to realize its Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline dream. Her old cohorts practicing soft imperialism at the U.S. State Department have certainly been doing their part to help Chevron score that lucrative contract.

The banal truth is that America’s long-standing policy is to help people anywhere and everywhere when those people just so happen to be living on or near valuable resources. Unless, of course, it’s BahrainNigeriaKazakhstan or anywhere else repressive and corrupt governments are already interdependent upon U.S. corporate interests.

Follow JP @newsvandal and at newsvandal.com.

 

 

280214nuland

 

The scum always rises.  Victoria Nuland, leading the covert assaults on other nations for Uncle Sam, stands beside Oleh Tyahnybok, the fascist coup leader of the Svoboda Party in Ukraine.

Smile, bitch smile.

MORE

Nuland:

“[D]uring the George W. Bush administration, she was the U.S. ambassador to NATO, and before that the principal deputy foreign policy advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney. (source)

These are the people arranging illegal coups around the world on behalf of the people of the United States.  John McCain from the Rethugs and Victoria Nuland from Obama’s own administration, both of them in bed with FUCKING NAZIS!!!  Is anyone okay with this?  Is this thing on?

 

nuland-mccain-Tyahnybok- copy

 

6

Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders – leaked EU’s Ashton phone tape

Don’t let this slip down the Memory Hole.  This is how modern coups succeed.  They create violence, and the US / corporate media blames the targeted government for said violence (as in Libya, Syria and now Ukraine), when in fact the violence is caused by rogue elements in the anti-government coup itself.  This pattern repeats over and over again, and the US presstitute media covers the story wrongly 100% of the time, never retracting, never setting the record straight.  We now inhabit a fictional geo-politcal reality where our co-citizens have no idea whatsoever what actually went on.

“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” the Estonian FM stressed.

The Estonian FM has described the whole sniper issue as “disturbing” and added, “it already discredits from the very beginning” the new Ukrainian power.

 

ukraine-molotov-reuters-210114_540_362_100

Even Abby Martin and Glenn Greenwald screwed up the Ukraine / Russia story.

There has been no Russian “invasion” of Crimea, at all, just as there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, just as there was no policy of rape in Libya, just as there were no babies thrown out of incubators in 1990, just as the government of Syria launched no gas attacks against its own people.

Paul Craig Roberts sets the record straight:

The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.

…No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington’s coup and established themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.

…In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports: “There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” Paet goes on to report that “all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.”

Propaganda Rules The News

 

TD6Nory

John McCain poses with Ukrainian Neo-Nazi coup leader Tyahnybok.

More:

Watchdogs or Dogs of War? “Journalists” Follow Obama on Ukraine

 

obama-barack-gangster

 

Imperial hypocrisy enters the Bush League:

“Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty… would be deeply destabilizing.”
-Barack Obama (2014)

“Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country. And we will help them rid Iraq of these killers.”
-George W. Bush (2004)

“We’ve invested $5 billion… as we take Ukraine into the future it deserves.”
-Obama’s State Dept. Thug Victoria Nuland

 

 

314_peoc_meeting_2050081722-19364

Washington’s Blog kicks ass:, documents everything

Is This the REAL Reason for the Government Spying On Americans?