Oekraïne, geopolitiek en het moorddadige Westen

[Olive Yao]

.
‘Gods of War’: How the US weaponized Ukraine against Russia

T. J. Coles | The Grayzone 1 april 2022


Since the US-engineered 2013-14 coup in Ukraine, American forces have taught Ukrainians, including neo-Nazi units, how to fight in urban and other civilian areas. Weaponizing Ukraine is part of Washington’s quest for what the Pentagon calls “full spectrum dominance.”

“[I]f you can learn all modalities of war, then you can be the god of war,” so said a Ukrainian artillery commander in 2016 while receiving training from the US Army.

The unnamed commander was quoted by Lt. Claire Vanderberg, a mortar platoon leader training soldiers as part of the Pentagon’s Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine. The training has taken place at the absurdly named International Peacekeeping and Security Center, which sits close to the border with Poland near the Ukrainian town of Yavoriv. Western media reported Russia’s recent cruise missile attack on the base, but chose not to mention what has taken place inside.

The relationship described above is a snapshot of a decades-long US-NATO effort to not only pull Ukraine from Russia’s orbit, but to actively weaponize the country against Moscow.

US national security state acknowledges “Russia is pushing back,” not pushing first

In their internal documents, the Pentagon and other arms of the US national security state reiterate the same arguments the anti-war left does when it explains how Ukraine has been used to provoke Russia into a military escalation. The principal difference is that the Pentagon speaks from an unabashedly imperialist perspective in which such provocations are seen as an important component of US power projection.

Recently, the US Director of National Intelligence’s Annual Threat Assessment reported: “Russia is pushing back against Washington where it can—locally and globally—employing techniques up to and including the use of force.” Note: Russia is “pushing back,” not pushing first.

A report from 2021 by the National Intelligence Council concedes of Russia and China: “Neither has felt secure in an international order designed for and dominated by democratic powers,” with “democratic” meaning the US and friends. Both Russia and China “have promoted a sovereignty-based international order that protects their absolute authority within their borders and geographic areas of influence.”

In October 2017, US Army Field Artillery School Assistant Commandant, Col. Heyward Hutson, who is responsible for training Ukrainians, explained: “Ukraine wants to become a NATO nation, but Russia doesn’t want them to be a NATO nation. Russia wants to have a buffer zone.” He added that another “problem is a lot of Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russia so the civilian population there is divided.” A 2016 US Army War College report reiterated: “Russia’s basic national security strategy is to keep its ‘neighboring belt stable’, NATO weak, China close, and the United States focused elsewhere.”

Another, from 2007, explains that the “pro-reform forces in power since the Orange Revolution” (read: pro-US forces) “would like to move Ukraine squarely into the Euro-Atlantic community with only limited deference to Russia.”

The document goes on to note that, at the time, the “Ukrainian political and military leadership has remained divided over the question of whether Ukraine should pursue a collective security approach or retain its neutral status.” It concluded that, while “[m]ost senior [Ukrainian] commanders have pro-reform credentials… there are still large numbers of senior leaders within the Main Defense Forces who have no or only limited exposure to Western training and operations.”

The US-sponsored coup of 2013-14 enabled Washington to smooth over that contradiction by launching an extensive program to train units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.



NATO is “not an exercise in diplomacy and deterrence as before”

When the Soviet Union collapsed, so too did its military alliance, the Warsaw Pact. But the West not only refused to disband its alliance—the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—it expanded up to Russia’s borders.

NATO’s own records state that in 1992, “Just four months after Ukraine’s declaration of independence” from the USSR, “NATO invited its representative to an extraordinary meeting of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, the body set up to shape cooperation between NATO and the states of the former Warsaw Pact.”

Russia did not propose a similar pact with America’s neighbors.

In 1994, Ukraine joined the so-called Partnership for Peace (PFP). Citing the UN Charter, the PFP states that signatories agree “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, to respect existing borders and to settle disputes by peaceful means.” A US State Department primer reveals that the PFP had an ulterior motive. Its real aim was not neutrality but to move Ukraine and other signatories closer to NATO. “Participation in PFP does not guarantee entry into NATO, but it is the best preparation for states interested in becoming NATO members.”

The primer also lists the 52 actual and planned military exercises in which PFP members initially engaged on or near Russia’s borders.

Bill Clinton-era policymakers explained that “NATO is not merely an exercise in preventive diplomacy and deterrence as before.” NATO expansion had a political agenda. They considered “NATO enlargement [a]s a democratization policy.” As above, “democratization” means pro-US. Citing President Clinton’s 1996 campaign speeches, the report notes that in their minds NATO “will provide the stability needed for greater economic development in Central and Eastern Europe.” In other words, post-USSR NATO was designed, in part, to guarantee US led-“free markets” (which are often neither free nor markets, but monopolies,) in ex-Soviet nations where state-ownership of businesses was the norm.

In 1997, NATO and Ukraine signed the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership. The Charter was a prima facie violation of the PFP in that it compromised Ukraine’s political independence. It proposed several areas of NATO-Ukraine cooperation, “including civil emergency planning, military training and environmental security.” NATO brags: “cooperation between NATO and Ukraine quickly developed” in the form of “retraining for former military officers … and invit[ing] Ukraine to participate in NATO-led exercises.”

Making Ukraine a “military partner of the US”

The US Army says: “Ukraine has been a military partner of the U.S. dating back to the mid 1990s.” In 1998, America’s Special Operations Command Europe hosted a Special Operations Forces (SOF) conference in Stuttgart, Germany. The US Army reports: “This benchmark even brought military personnel from Moldova, Georgia, and the Ukraine together to view U.S. SOF demonstrations and discuss opportunities for future Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) and Joint Contact Team Program (JCTP) events.”

In June 2000, the US Marines reported that the Navy’s amphibious warship, the USS Trenton, had sailed from the Aegean to the Black Sea and had docked in Odessa (Ukraine). The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) “got to experience some of Odessa’s history first hand when they climbed the Prymorsky, or ‘Maritime’, Stairs.” In addition to the pleasantries, “the focus for MEU personnel and USS Trenton crew [was] NATO’s next exercise – Cooperative Partner 2000 (CP00) – of which Ukraine is the host nation.”

In addition to Ukraine’s participation in the US-led NATO training and exercises, Ukrainian soldiers fought in American-led wars. After 9/11, they participated in the occupation of Afghanistan via NATO’s so-called International Security Assistance Force. Ukrainian troops also aided the US-British-occupation of Iraq. In 2008, the Army lauded their comrades: “More than 5,000 Ukrainian troops have served in Iraq during Ukraine’s five years of service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

(...)

[Olive Yao]

.
After backing 2014 coup, US provides “lethal security assistance”

Established in 2014 during the US-backed coup, the Ukraine component of the US State Department and Pentagon’s Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) provides tens of millions of dollars-worth of training and equipment to “develop the tactical, operational, and institutional training capacities of its Ministry of Defense and National Guard.” The State Department says: “The GSCF has also supported Ukrainian Special Operations Forces in developing tactical and institutional capabilities that are compatible with Western models.”

According to one Pentagon-linked journal: “Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs from 2014 to 2021 [, …] enabled the expansion and later integration of paramilitary forces into the National Guard,” including the nazi Azov Battalion.

From 2015, the Pentagon’s European Command oversaw the Joint Multinational Task Force-Ukraine (JMTF-U), in which the US Army and National Guard trains the Ukrainian Armed Forces. In addition, officers were trained in the US through the International Military Education and Training program. The Congressional Research Service reports that, “[s]eparately, U.S. Special Operations Forces have trained and advised Ukrainian special forces.” In addition, the US participates in the annual NATO Partnership for Peace exercise, Rapid Trident.

In November 2015, supposedly at the request of the new pro-US regime, the Obama administration sent two AN/TPQ radar systems to Ukraine. “President Petro Poroshenko had the opportunity to review the equipment, and was briefed by U.S. military personnel on its capabilities.”

The US Army later revealed that the radar system was not purely defensive. A team from US Army Europe, Fort Sill’s Fires Center of Excellence (FCoE), and the Army Security Assistance Training Management Organization (SATMO) “conducted four weeks of operator training.”

Since the initial delivery, “Ukraine received four additional Q-36 radars … and training by U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command with support from the FCoE and USSATMO.” The publication quoted one trainer as saying that “the U.S. team showed their brigade, battalion and platoon commanders how to tactically employ the radar system to support fire and maneuver efforts.”

Since 2016, SATMO’s Doctrine Education Advisory Group (DEAG) “has advised Ukrainian Security Forces at the operational level to revise doctrine, improve professional military education, enhance NATO interoperability and increase combat readiness.” In January this year, DEAG brought the first load of $200m-worth of “lethal security assistance, including ammunition for the frontline defenders of Ukraine.”

US trains Ukrainians to “blend into the local populace” waging warfare in civilian-heavy areas

One of the more immoral US actions in Ukraine has been the training of armed forces to fight in civilian areas, goading Russia to fight in densely-populated locations with the effect of scoring anti-Russia propaganda points when Russians kill Ukrainian civilians.

In 2015, the US Marines implied that American service personnel would travel to Ukraine to fight. “Unofficial travel (leave or liberty) to any country in Africa or the following European countries [including Ukraine and its neighbors] requires command O-6 level approval … The countries are subject to change based on the Foreign Clearance Guide (FCG), Department of State (DOS), Combatant Command, and/or Intelligence threat notifications.” This suggests preparation for “irregular” warfare.

An undated document published by the US Special Operations Center of Excellence (SOCE), apparently from around 2017, states that “the United States should learn from the Chechnya rebels’ reaction” to Russia’s invasion of Chechnya in the ‘90s. It explains that the “rebels” engaged in “decentralized operations,” using social media to “blend into the local populace.” Russia’s enemies used “misinformation” to manipulate Russians into killing the rebels’ enemies.

The SOCE paper goes on to note that the Army Special Operation Forces “are trained to thrive in these environments.” The document explicitly advocates for the US to train irregular forces to provoke Russia: “The United States should form an interagency working group with the Department of State, members of the intelligence community and SOCOM,” the Special Operations Command, which would “serv[e] as the DoD lead/representative.” It suggests that such a working group “understand that SOCOM actions will need to be unconventional and irregular in order to compete with Russian modern warfare tactics.”

By bolstering Ukraine’s armed forces and goading Russia, US elites have openly used Ukrainian civilians as pawns. For many years, Ukrainian forces were trained in urban combat by US personnel: i.e., to fight Russians in densely-populated civilian areas. “Task Force Illini” is comprised of 150 soldiers from the 33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Illinois Army National Guard.

In September 2020, the US Army reported that Armed Forces Ukraine soldiers “honed their urban operations skills as Task Force Illini advisors lent their expertise at Combat Training Center in Yavoriv” – the Western Ukrainian de facto NATO base near Poland’s border.

(...)

[Olive Yao]

.
“Thunderbirds” train Ukrainian in full-scale vehicular combat

The Oklahoma-based “Thunderbirds” have gone through several incarnations over the last century. The army unit was originally known as the 45th Infantry Division and is now the 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. By early-2017, the JMTG-U mission fell under the 7th Army Training Command and US Army Europe, which paired Thunderbirds from the 1st Battalion, 179th Infantry Regiment with soldiers from the Ukrainian 28th Mechanized Brigade and 79th Airborne Brigade. Their goal was to prepare Ukrainians for full-on vehicular combat.

Putin claims that Ukraine is a pawn of NATO. US propaganda rejects the notion, attempting to prove it by publicly ruling out Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance. But in April 2017, the US Army admitted that under the JMTG-U, the Thunderbirds’ mission was “to train the Ukrainian army to NATO standards, develop their noncommissioned officer corps, and help them to establish a combat training center, so that in the future, they can continue to train themselves.” So, if the Ukrainian military is trained to NATO standards and is overseen by a US puppet president, it might as well be part of NATO, minus the US obligation to come to its defense.

The proposed center became the Yavoriv Combat Training Center. The US Army reported that in October 2017, “a new grenade range was opened. Maj. Montana Dugger said: “We’ve helped them build long-range maintenance plans so they’ll be able to use these facilities for the next 20, 30-plus years.”

Seemingly ignorant of the comical doublespeak, the US Army also explained that Ukrainian’s Combat Training Center “is being established at the International Peacekeeping and Security Center near Yavoriv.” Also ironic is that while the Thunderbirds train a military incorporating neo-Nazi units to fight Russians in Ukraine, its pre-1930s insignia was a swastika, which its Oklahoma-based museum describes as “an Ancient American Indian symbol of good luck.”



CIA covert operations’ goal: “kill Russians”

In addition to the overt but under- or non-reported events outlined above, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has run a covert, eight-year training program. Why the need for covert ops in the face of extensive overt projects? The CIA specializes in assassination, proxy warfare, psychological operations, and false flags. This suggests that their efforts include tactics prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

Yahoo! News reported that in 2014, under a doctrine called “covert action funding,” “a small, select group of veteran CIA paramilitaries made their first secret trips to the frontlines to meet with Ukrainian counterparts.” The training was conducted by the CIA’s Special Activities Center, which suggests that even if the officers were “ex-CIA” and Special Forces, they were given access to Langley at high-levels, making it a de facto official mission.

One operative is quoted as saying that the officers attempted to Talibanize the Ukrainian paramilitaries in the sense that the Afghan Taliban had no sophisticated hardware that was vulnerable to enemy blinding. Ergo, basic, non-tech warfare training was required. The report says that the trainers:

“taught their Ukrainian counterparts sniper techniques; how to operate U.S.-supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles and other equipment; how to evade digital tracking the Russians used to pinpoint the location of Ukrainian troops, which had left them vulnerable to attacks by artillery; how to use covert communications tools; and how to remain undetected in the war zone while also drawing out Russian and insurgent forces from their positions, among other skills, according to former officials.”

In addition, one former senior source said (paraphrased by the reporter): “The agency needed to determine the ‘backbone’ of the Ukrainians … The question was, ‘Are they going to get rolled, or are going to stand up and fight?”

So who tends to have “backbone,” i.e., a ruthless and psychopathic fighting spirit? Fascists and ultra-nationalists. Indeed, it has been widely reported by even US corporate media that the Ukrainian Armed Forces and paramilitary units were infested with Nazis. Today, the same media refer to the Nazis as mere nationalists.

Beginning 2015, the CIA’s Ground Department arranged for Ukrainians to be trained in the US south. The operations continue to the present and have been expanded under the Biden administration. “The multiweek, U.S.-based CIA program has included training in firearms, camouflage techniques, land navigation, tactics like ‘cover and move,’ intelligence and other areas.” One senior officer is quoted as saying: “The United States is training an insurgency … to kill Russians.”

In February this year, shortly before the Russian invasion, it was reported that the CIA had been “preparing Ukrainians to mount an insurgency against a Russian occupation.” Against an occupation? Or an insurgency to provoke an occupation?

In addition to the CIA, the US military has its own covert operations. Under the Resistance Operating Concept started in 2018, the Pentagon appears to have been training territorial defense units comprised of Ukrainian civilians. This seems to have led to the creation by Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces creating a National Resistance Center that teaches civilians guerrilla tactics.

Ukraine military build-up brings the world to the brink

After Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, pro-Russian eastern protests erupted in Donetsk and Luhansk. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted: “The government in Kyiv responded with military force and employed local militias to help push back the separatists.” The CRS added that the US leads Britain, Canada, and Lithuania in the Multinational Joint Commission on Defense Reform and Security Cooperation. The Pentagon’s European Command had a European Reassurance Initiative at the time, which is now called the European Deterrence Initiative. Under this program, dozens of Ukrainians were trained in Huntsville, Alabama, in RQ-11B, hand-launched Raven drone operations. Seventy-two drones were sent to Ukraine in 2016.

A January 2016 UK House of Commons Library research briefing states: “Fighting between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatists has killed more than 9,000 people since April 2014 and injured more than 20,000.” The briefing goes on to note that after the UN Security Council-backed Minsk II agreement, which called for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of frontline forces on both sides, the Ukrainian parliament granted special status and enhanced autonomy to parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

The Royal United Services Institute is a UK Ministry of Defense-linked think-tank. One of its reports concedes that Russia had a largely “defensive policy” when it came to Ukraine. It says: “Russian officials have become alarmed by expanding and overlapping Western alliances from an enlarged NATO and EU, to AUKUS and the Coalition of Democracies promoted by both the US and the UK.”

Part of Russia’s strategy has its roots in the US-led destruction of Libya in 2011, the report explains. The NATO bombing of Libya and overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi “underscored how strong Western alliances were able to bypass or manipulate the [UN Security Council] UNSC, essentially circumventing a forum where Russian interests could be protected.”

Indeed, on February 27th, 2022, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2623, which states: “the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at the 8979th meeting has prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

The absence of international diplomacy, the weakness of a domestic anti-war movement in the US, and the cheerleading for war by many leftists and liberals under the doctrine that Putin is an evil villain has pushed the world as close to terminal nuclear disaster as it has been since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; perhaps even closer. Many Russians have taken to the streets to clamor for a ceasefire. After looking the other way as their leaders spent the past 8 years weaponizing Ukraine against Russia, Western publics have yet to demand the same.

[Olive Yao]

.
Hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists march in honor of Nazi collaborator

Times of Israel 1 januari 2022




Activists of various nationalist parties carry torches during a rally in Kyiv, Ukraine, on January 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)

KYIV, Ukraine — Hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists held a torchlight march in the capital of Kyiv to mark the birthday of Stepan Bandera, the leader of a rebel militia that fought alongside Nazi soldiers in World War II.

The Sunday march came amid persistently high concerns over Russia’s massing of troops near the Ukrainian border, which many believe could be a prelude to an invasion. A large sector of eastern Ukraine has been under the control of Russia-backed separatist rebels since 2014.

“Today, when there is a war with the occupier at the front, and the struggle against the ‘fifth column’ continues in the rear, we remember and honor the memory of Stepan Bandera,” said Andriy Tarasenko, leader of the nationalist party Right Sector.

During World War II, Bandera led the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, whose men killed thousands of Jews and Poles, including women and children, while fighting alongside Nazi Germany against the Red Army and communists.

Bandera’s supporters claim that they sided with the Nazis against the Soviet army in the belief that Adolf Hitler would grant independence to Ukraine.

Expressions of admiration for Bandera and other collaborators have increased in scope and status following the 2014 revolution in Ukraine, which toppled the regime of Viktor Yanukovych amid claims that he is a Russian stooge, and triggered an armed conflict with Russia.



Activists of various nationalist parties carry torches and a portrait of Stepan Bandera during a rally in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Saturday, January 1, 2022 (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)

The veneration of Nazi collaborators, including killers of Jews, is a growing phenomenon in Eastern Europe, where many consider such individuals as heroes because they resisted Soviet Communism.

* * * *

Much like in Latin America, where US-backed death-squads kill left-wing politicians, socialists, and labor organizers, these Ukrainian fascist battalions were deployed to lead the offensive against the militias of Donetsk and Luhansk, killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

Ukrainian leftist criticizes Western war drive with Russia

[Revisor]

.
onderwerpen: oekraïnse neo-nazi’s; centrum van internationaal netwerk

About

The transnational network that nobody is talking about

Soufan Centre | 22 maart 2019


● There are possible links between the recent New Zealand mosque shooter and a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist white supremacist paramilitary organization called the Azov Battalion.

● The Azov Battalion is emerging as a critical node in the transnational right-wing violent extremist (RWE) movement.

● Recruits from the U.S., Norway, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Sweden, and Australia, among others, have reportedly traveled to train with the Azov Battalion.

● The global nature of these groups is just one of several similarities between RWEs and Salafi-jihadists.

In the wake of the New Zealand mosque attacks, links have emerged between the shooter, Brenton Tarrant, and a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist, white supremacist paramilitary organization called the Azov Battalion. Tarrant’s manifesto alleges that he visited the country during his many travels abroad, and the flak jacket that Tarrant wore during the assault featured a symbol commonly used by the Azov Battalion. Tarrant’s transnational ties go beyond Ukraine, however. Tarrant claimed that he was in touch with Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist, and he took trips throughout Europe, including the Balkans, visiting sites that symbolized historical battles between Christians and Muslims. During the video of his attack he could be heard listening to a song that glorified Bosnian-Serb war criminal Radovan Karadzic, and his gun featured racial messages and names of white supremacists from around the world.

The Azov Battalion is emerging as a critical node in the transnational right-wing violent extremist (RWE) network. This group maintains its own ‘Western Outreach Office' to help recruit and attract foreign fighters that travel to train and connect with people from like-minded violent organizations from across the globe. Operatives from the outreach office travel around Europe to promote the organization and proselytize its mission of white supremacy. In July 2018, German-language fliers were distributed among the visitors at a right-wing rock festival in Thuringia, inviting them to be part of the Azov battalion: ‘join the ranks of the best' to ‘save Europe from extinction.' It has also established youth camps, sporting recreation centers, lecture halls, and far-right education programs, including some that teach children as young as 9 years old military tactics and far-right ideology. This aggressive approach to networking serves one of the Azov Battalion’s overarching objectives to transform areas under its control in Ukraine into the primary hub for transnational white supremacy.

Too often, the focus on foreign fighters has been relegated to Sunni jihadists, but in a globalized world, the foreign fighter phenomenon has deep roots across ideologies, from foreign fighters assisting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, to Shi'a militants traveling from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Lebanon to join with Iranian-backed foreign fighter networks operating in Syria. It is now evident that RWE networks are also highly active in recruiting fighters worldwide to its cause, with the Azov Battalion and other ultra-nationalist organizations playing a significant role in the globalization of RWE violence. Indeed, the Azov Battalion is forging links with RWE groups, hosting visits from ultra-nationalist organizations such as members of the Rise Above Movement (R.A.M.) from the U.S. and the British National Action from the U.K., among other white supremacists from around the world. In the United States, several R.A.M. members (all American citizens) who spent time in Ukraine training with the Azov Battalion were recently indicted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) for their role in violently attacking counter-protestors during the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville, VA in August 2017.

Ironically, there are similarities in ideology, strategy and recruitment tactics between Salafi-Jihadist organizations, such as al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State, and RWE groups. Both types of violent groups seek to implement their own versions of what they consider to be a ‘pure’ society. There are striking resemblances between al-Qaeda's Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) and the Azov Battalion's 'Western Outreach Office,' both of which had the responsibility for promoting the cause and helping recruits reach the battlefield. Just as Afghanistan served as a sanctuary for jihadist organizations like Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the 1980s, so too are parts of Ukraine becoming a safe haven for an array of right-wing violent extremist groups to congregate, train, and radicalize. And just like the path of jihadist groups, the goal of many of these members is to return to their countries of origin (or third-party countries) to wreak havoc and use acts of violence as a means to recruit new members to their cause. Unlike jihadis who are attempting to strike Western targets, though, radicalized white supremacists have the added advantage of being able to blend in seamlessly in the West, just as Tarrant was able to do.

The Christchurch shooter was not simply a lone actor, but the product of a broader network of right-wing violent extremists. If the evidence ultimately proves that Tarrant went to Ukraine to train with like-minded individuals, then the attack in New Zealand was possibly the first example of an act of terrorism committed by a white supremacist foreign fighter. And unless the international community recognizes the danger posed by these transnational networks, the New Zealand attack is unlikely to be the last.

...

(Extreem-) rechts en nationalisten worden meestal door de Amerikaanse geheime dienst gebruikt als voorhoede en stoottroepen om de linkse/socialistische/communistische bewegingen etc.. aan te pakken.

In de islamitische landen gebruiken ze meestal conservatieve islamitische groeperingen en/of jihadisten. In Turkije als seculier land hebben ze de rechtse grijze wolven gebruikt.


https://www.maroc.nl/forums/wie-schr...ml#post5706892

[Olive Yao]

.

...

(Extreem-) rechts en nationalisten worden meestal door de Amerikaanse geheime dienst gebruikt als voorhoede en stoottroepen om de linkse/socialistische/communistische bewegingen etc.. aan te pakken.

In de islamitische landen gebruiken ze meestal conservatieve islamitische groeperingen en/of jihadisten. In Turkije als seculier land hebben ze de rechtse grijze wolven gebruikt.

https://www.maroc.nl/forums/wie-schr...ml#post5706892

Amerikaanse websites laten vaak de rol van het VS regime uit beeld.

Freedom House bijvoorbeeld.

Het rapport A new eurasian far right rising bevat nuttige feitelijke informatie. Maar in de twee hoofdstukken daarna verzwijgt de auteur de rol van het VS regime – waarmee het een ideologisch geladen verhaal wordt.

Onder ‘The invasion of Ukraine’ verspreidt Freedom House de standaard Washington propaganda hierover.


Uitgebreidere post staat in de topic Flat Earth News, post #36.

[Revisor]

check:

Oekraïens nationalisme: van de OUN in 1929 tot Euromaidan in 2014

[Revisor]

Check:

Oekraïne: het fascisme in een nieuw jasje door Joesjtsjenko in ere hersteld

[Olive Yao]

.
onderwerp: National Endowment for Democracy

Kristin Christman – Paradigm for peace applied to Russia, Ukraine and the US: Proposal for a peaceful Pathway forward
Countercurrents 13 - 30 may 2022

Dit lange essay, nu 40 bladzijden, wordt in delen op de website Countercurrents gezet. Het vijfde deel gaat over NED. Dit eindigt met

“In the next part of this essay, we’ll talk a bit about the backgrounds of the social and business circles supporting NED, and we’ll carefully scrutinize the assumptions and leaps of logic within statements made by NED leaders with regard to Russia.”

Dat volgende deel wacht ik nog even af. Dan post ik ze bij elkaar.

Hier alvast een andere publicatie over NED

Max Blumenthal and Thomas Hedges – Inside America’s meddling machine: NED, the US-funded org interfering in elections around the globe.

The Grayzone 20 aug. 2018

Dit stuk begint weinig interessant (vind ik), wordt allengs interessanter.

(...) these opening words in a May 7, 2022 report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: “The United States has long used democracy as a tool and a weapon to undermine democracy in the name of democracy, to incite division and confrontation, and to meddle in other countries’ international* affairs, causing catastrophic consequences.” NED “has subverted lawful governments and cultivated pro-US puppet forces around the world under the pretext of promoting democracy. Its disgraceful record has aroused strong discontent in the international community.”

(...) deze openingswoorden in een verslag van 7 mei 2022 van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken van de Volksrepubliek China: “De Verenigde Staten hebben de democratie lange tijd gebruikt als een instrument en een wapen om democratie in naam van democratie te ondermijnen, om verdeeldheid te zaaien en tot confrontatie aan te zetten, en om zich te bemoeien met de internationale* aangelegenheden van andere landen, met catastrofale gevolgen.” NED “heeft wettige regeringen ondermijnd en pro-Amerikaanse marionettenmachten over de hele wereld gecultiveerd onder het mom van het bevorderen van democratie. Zijn schandelijke staat van dienst heeft geleid tot grote onvrede in de internationale gemeenschap.”

Geciteerd door Kirstin Christman.
* correctie: internal / interne

Dat verslag van 7 mei 2022 is:



Fact Sheet on the National Endowment for Democracy

[Revisor]

Paul Wolfowitz. Foto: Defense.gov

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Other News, DeWereldMorgen vertaaldesk

Oekraïne is de nieuwste neoconservatieve ramp

De oorlog in Oekraïne is het hoogtepunt van een 30 jaar durend project van de Amerikaanse neoconservatieve beweging. De regering-Biden zit vol met dezelfde neocons die voorstander waren van de Amerikaanse oorlogen in Servië (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Irak (2003), Syrië (2011), Libië (2011), en die tot het uiterste zijn gegaan om de Russische invasie in Oekraïne uit te lokken. De staat van dienst van de neocon is er een van regelrechte rampen. Toch heeft Biden ervoor gekozen zijn team te bemannen met net deze neocons. Als gevolg daarvan stuurt Biden Oekraïne, de VS en de Europese Unie richting het zoveelste geopolitieke debacle. Als Europa enig inzicht heeft, zal het zich losmaken van deze Amerikaanse debacles inzake buitenlands beleid.

woensdag 6 juli 2022 11:20

De neoconbeweging ontstond in de jaren zeventig rond een groep publieke intellectuelen, die beïnvloed werden door de politicoloog Leo Strauss van de Universiteit van Chicago en de classicus Donald Kagan van de Universiteit van Yale.

Tot de neocon leiders behoorden Norman Podhoretz (schrijver en conservatief politiek commentator), Irving Kristol (Amerikaans publicist), Paul Wolfowitz (minister van Defensie onder George W. Bush en één van de architecten van de Irak oorlog), Robert Kagan (zoon van Donald), Frederick Kagan (zoon van Donald), Victoria Nuland (echtgenote van Robert), Elliott Cohen (politicoloog), Elliott Abrams (politicus en advocaat, actief bij Reagan, Bush en Trump), en Kimberley Allen Kagan (echtgenote van Frederick).

De belangrijkste boodschap van de neocons is dat de VS in elke regio ter wereld de overhand moeten hebben op militair gebied, en het hoofd moeten bieden aan opkomende regionale machten die op een dag de mondiale of regionale dominantie van de VS zouden kunnen betwisten, in de eerste plaats Rusland en China.

De militaire macht van de VS moet daarom vooraf worden verdeeld over honderden militaire bases over de hele wereld en de VS moeten voorbereid zijn om, indien nodig, bepaalde oorlogen te leiden. De VS moeten de Verenigde Naties enkel gebruiken als dat nuttig is om hun doelen te bereiken.

De belangrijkste boodschap van de neocons is dat de VS in elke regio ter wereld de overhand moeten hebben op militair gebied.

Deze benadering werd voor het eerst uiteengezet door Paul Wolfowitz in zijn ontwerp Defense Policy Guidance (DPG), geschreven voor het ministerie van Defensie in 2002.

Het ontwerp riep op tot uitbreiding van het door de VS geleide veiligheidsnetwerk naar Centraal- en Oost-Europa, ondanks de expliciete belofte van de Duitse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Hans-Dietrich Genscher in 1990 dat de Duitse eenwording niet zou worden gevolgd door een uitbreiding van de NAVO naar het oosten.

Wolfowitz pleitte ook voor Amerikaanse oorlogen naar keuze, waarbij hij het recht van Amerika verdedigde om onafhankelijk, zelfs alleen, op te treden als reactie op crises die de VS zorgen baren. Volgens generaal Wesley Clark verduidelijkte Wolfowitz hem al in mei 1991 dat de VS een leidende rol zou opnemen in regimewisselingen in Irak, Syrië en andere voormalige Sovjet-bondgenoten.

De neocons waren voorstander van uitbreiding van de NAVO met Oekraïne, zelfs voordat dit in 2008 onder George W. Bush, Jr. officieel VS-beleid werd. Zij beschouwden het Oekraïense NAVO-lidmaatschap als de sleutel tot de regionale en wereldwijde dominantie van de VS. Robert Kagan beschreef de neocon argumenten voor NAVO uitbreiding in april 2006:

“De Russen en Chinezen zien niets natuurlijks in [de “kleurenrevoluties” van de voormalige Sovjet-Unie], alleen door het Westen gesteunde staatsgrepen, ontworpen om de Westerse invloed in strategisch vitale delen van de wereld te vergroten. Hebben zij het zo mis? Zou de succesvolle liberalisering van Oekraïne, aangespoord en gesteund door de Westerse democratieën, niet de aanloop kunnen zijn naar de opname van dat land in de NAVO en de Europese Unie – kortom, de uitbreiding van de Westerse liberale hegemonie?” (Robert Kagan)

Kagan erkent de trieste implicaties van de uitbreiding van de NAVO. Hij citeert een deskundige die zei: “Het Kremlin maakt zich in alle ernst op voor de ‘slag om Oekraïne’.” De neocons zochten deze strijd. Na de val van de Sovjet-Unie hadden zowel de VS als Rusland moeten streven naar een neutraal Oekraïne, als een veilige buffer.

In plaats daarvan wilden de neocons de “hegemonie” van de VS, terwijl de Russen de strijd deels uit verdediging en deels ook uit eigen imperiale pretenties aangingen. Het doet denken aan de Krimoorlog (1853-6), toen Groot-Brittannië en Frankrijk in de Zwarte Zee probeerden Rusland te verzwakken na Russische druk op het Ottomaanse rijk.

Kagan schreef het artikel als burger terwijl zijn vrouw Victoria Nuland Amerikaans ambassadeur bij de NAVO was onder George W. Bush, Jr. Nuland is de neocon pion bij uitstek. Nuland was niet alleen Bush’ ambassadeur bij de NAVO, maar ook Barack Obama’s assistent-staatssecretaris voor Europese en Euraziatische Zaken van 2013 tot 17.

Aldus was ze deel van de operatie waarbij de pro-Russische president van Oekraïne, Viktor Janoekovits, werd omvergeworpen. Nu dient ze als Biden’s onderminister van Buitenlandse Zaken en stuurt ze zo het Amerikaans beleid ten aanzien van de oorlog in Oekraïne.

De visie van de neocons is gebaseerd op de volgende onjuiste premisse, namelijk dat de militaire, financiële, technologische en economische superioriteit van de VS haar in staat stelt de voorwaarden te dicteren in alle regio’s ter wereld. Het is een standpunt dat zowel opmerkelijke hoogmoed als een opvallende minachting voor bewijzen illustreert.

Sinds de jaren vijftig van de vorige eeuw zijn de VS in zowat elk regionaal conflict waaraan zij hebben deelgenomen, gedwarsboomd of verslagen. Maar in de “strijd om Oekraïne” waren de neocons bereid een militaire confrontatie met Rusland uit te lokken door de NAVO uit te breiden ondanks de hevige bezwaren van Rusland. Dit vanuit de vurige overtuiging dat de financiële sancties van de VS en het wapentuig van de NAVO de ondergang van Rusland zullen betekenen.

In de “strijd om Oekraïne” waren de neocons bereid een militaire confrontatie met Rusland uit te lokken door de NAVO uit te breiden ondanks de hevige bezwaren van Rusland.

Het Institute for the Study of War (ISW), een neocon denktank onder leiding van Kimberley Allen Kagan (en gesteund door een aantal grote afnemers van defensie-contracten zoals General Dynamics en Raytheon), blijft een Oekraïense overwinning beloven.

Over de Russische opmars gaf de ISW een typisch commentaar: “Ongeacht welke partij de stad [Severodonetsk] in handen heeft, zal het Russische offensief op operationeel en strategisch niveau waarschijnlijk zijn afgesloten, wat Oekraïne de kans geeft om zijn tegenoffensieven op operationeel niveau te hervatten om de Russische troepen terug te dringen.

De feiten ter plaatse doen echter anders vermoeden. De economische sancties van het Westen hebben weinig negatieve gevolgen gehad voor Rusland, terwijl hun “boemerangeffect” op de rest van de wereld groot is.

Bovendien wordt het vermogen van de VS om Oekraïne van munitie en wapentuig te voorzien, ernstig belemmerd door de beperkte Amerikaanse productiecapaciteit en de gebrekkige bevoorradingsketens. De industriële capaciteit van Rusland is natuurlijk veel groter dan die van Oekraïne. Het BBP van Rusland was ruwweg 10X dat van Oekraïne vóór de oorlog, en Oekraïne is in de oorlog een groot deel van zijn industriële capaciteit verloren.

De meest waarschijnlijke uitkomst van de huidige gevechten is dat Rusland een groot deel van Oekraïne zal veroveren, waardoor Oekraïne misschien geheel of bijna volledig door land zal zijn omsloten. In Europa en de VS zal de frustratie toenemen over de militaire verliezen en de stagflatoire (situatie van lage economische groei en hoge werkloosheid) gevolgen van de oorlog en de sancties.

De domino-effecten kunnen verwoestend zijn, als een rechtse demagoog in de VS aan de macht komt (of in het geval van Trump terugkeert naar de macht) en belooft de Amerikaanse vergane militaire glorie te herstellen door gevaarlijke escalatie.

De echte oplossing bestaat erin een einde te maken aan de neoconfantasieën van de afgelopen 30 jaar en Oekraïne en Rusland terug aan de onderhandelingstafel te brengen.

In plaats van deze ramp te riskeren, bestaat de echte oplossing erin een einde te maken aan de neoconfantasieën van de afgelopen 30 jaar en Oekraïne en Rusland terug aan de onderhandelingstafel te brengen.

De NAVO moet er zich daarbij toe verbinden haar oostwaartse uitbreiding naar Oekraïne en Georgië te beëindigen in ruil voor een levensvatbare vrede die de soevereiniteit en de territoriale integriteit van Oekraïne eerbiedigt en beschermt.

Jeffrey Sachs is Professor aan de Columbia University, directeur van het Centrum voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling aan de Columbia University en voorzitter van het VN-netwerk voor oplossingen voor duurzame ontwikkeling. Hij is adviseur geweest van drie VN-secretarissen-generaal en is momenteel SDG-pleitbezorger van VN-secretaris-generaal António Guterres.

Deze tekst verscheen op Other News. Vertaling Ann Dejaeghere.


https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artike...rvatieve-ramp/