Ukraine's Feb14 US/CIA/EU coup d'etat, its NATO v Russia

[TonyGosling]

On Ukraine, Biden’s State of the Union address was just ‘good vs. evil’
The US president talked of a feel-good struggle against an “autocratic oppressor” while, in truth, he abandoned it to its fate
Scott Ritter
https://www.rt.com/news/551141-ukraine-biden-talk-congress/

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of 'SCORPION KING: America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.

@RealScottRitter
On Ukraine, Biden’s State of the Union address was just ‘good vs. evil’
President Joe Biden delivers his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress at the Capitol, Tuesday, March 1, 2022. © Julia Nikhinson/Pool via AP
Biden’s simplistic “good versus evil” pronouncements on the Russian-Ukraine conflict did little to prepare America for the consequences of declaring economic warfare against the Russian state.

It wasn’t surprising that Russia’s ongoing military incursion into Ukraine topped the list of issues addressed by US President Joe Biden in his first State of the Union (SOTU) address, delivered on March 1, 2022, to a joint session of Congress.

Biden pitched the Ukraine crisis as a defining moment in modern history, a problem that could only be resolved with American leadership, both at home and abroad. His job during his address was to convince both domestic and foreign viewers alike that he was the man for the job.

He repeated the time-tested mantra that held that Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, constituted a threat to democratic principles at home and abroad. This was especially true, he said, when it came to Ukraine.

There was nothing new in what Biden told his audience – the same words and themes had been deployed many times over in the past week. He pushed the same buttons – Putin as the personification of “autocratic oppression,” leading a Russia addicted to power, hell-bent on forcefully absorbing the nation of Ukraine into the Russian orbit.

Biden warns Putin ‘must pay a price’
Read more Biden warns Putin ‘must pay a price’
He likewise pulled at the heartstrings of America, talking about Ukraine’s embattled leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, and the heroic resistance of his people in the face of overwhelming Russian power. The United States stood fully behind them, Biden said. This sentiment was shared by many in the audience as the president spoke. They held small Ukrainian flags or wore the nation’s blue-and-yellow colors. But this support, he said, had its limits – the US, he declared, would not send a single soldier to Ukraine to fight for its cause.

The fact was, Biden was abandoning it to its fate. While praising the courage and leadership of the Ukrainian president, he said, “Let me be clear, our forces are not engaged and will not engage in conflict with Russian forces in Ukraine. Our forces are not going to Europe to fight in Ukraine, but to defend our NATO allies in the event that Putin decides to keep moving west.”

There is no evidence that Russia intends to “keep moving west.” And while Biden spoke of the important leadership role played by the US in Europe, the fact remains that Europe is a veritable prisoner to the whims of any US president, whose pronouncements take on the weight of law whenever they are uttered.

Neither Europe nor the United States, it seemed, would be intervening on behalf of Ukraine against Russia. Zelensky and Ukraine were on their own, their only choice for national relevance being to commit suicide on the international stage while the West, from the safety of their homes and offices, cheered them on like bloodthirsty Romans watching gladiators do battle in the Colosseum.

US announces sanctions on Russian defense firms
Read more US announces sanctions on Russian defense firms
The major takeaway from Biden’s SOTU address? Ukraine will lose this war, and the West will do nothing to stop that fact.

While Biden lionized Ukraine and its beleaguered president, he failed to explain to the American people why there was a war, beyond the sophomoric argument that “Putin did it.” No talk of America’s role in the Maidan back in 2014, no discussion of the role played by Ukrainian right-wing ultra-nationalists in oppressing the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, no mention of the shelling of the breakaway Donbass region, no discussion of the role that NATO expansion played in creating an untenable security situation for the Russian state.

Simplistic jingoism plays well in atmospheres such as televised political addresses, where a captive audience is compelled to rise and applaud made-for-TV pronouncements lest they be singled out for public criticism by a fawning, vindictive corporate media. The cheer-fest the SOTU has become would give any Brezhnev-era meeting of the Presidium a run for its money when it comes to mindless standing ovations.

But it was here, in the orgy of self-congratulation that is the interplay between president and Congress where America’s weakness in its conflict with Russia was exposed. As united as everyone seemed to be about sacrificing Ukraine on the altar of Russia-bashing, it was clear Congress was deeply divided from Joe Biden on issues of domestic policy, especially when it came to the economy of the US. While the US president may not want to engage Russia in a shooting war in Europe, he has embarked on a great global crusade to destroy it economically. And the tepid response the political opposition gave to his pronouncements underscores the reality that the US is not prepared for the consequences of his declaration of open economic war with Russia.

Let there be no doubt: Russia will win the shooting war in Ukraine. This outcome is inevitable, given the reality that Ukraine has been abandoned by its erstwhile partners in the West. Yet the conflict between Russia and the West won’t end when the last bomb explodes on Ukrainian soil, but when, in the mindset of the US and its European partners, the Russian economy is destroyed and Putin is humiliated and diminished as a political force, domestically, regionally, and globally.

US-based former Russian FM calls on diplomats to resign
Read more US-based former Russian FM calls on diplomats to resign
Here, the US president did the American people a great disservice, selling them a feel-good struggle in which Ukraine is promoted as the glorified martyr and Russia demoted as the evil oppressor. A bloodless conflict – from the US perspective, at least – that will be won simply by shutting down the Russian economy by remote control. It won’t be that simple.

Russia has yet to respond to the US-led economic war being waged against it. When it does, rest assured that these sanctions Congress so enthusiastically applauded will prove to be a double-edged sword – one that will cut into a US economy still reeling from the consequences of the Covid pandemic. When that time comes, President Biden could find that many of those politicians who rose to their feet to cheer on the sacrifice of Ukraine will turn on him.

War, it is said, is but an extension of politics by other means. Given the deep partisan political divide that exists in the US when it comes to the economy, it is clear neither Biden nor the American public is ready for what is about to happen when the consequences of their anti-Russian hysteria finally comes home to roost.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

German TV 10.4.14 Who were the Maidan snipers Ukraine

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew9NPPtYScY
A German TV investigation disproves the West's claim that Yanukovych was responsible for killing of dozens of Ukrainian protestors, making this President Obama's WMD moment

What makes you think Biden is in charge now?

Link

[TonyGosling]

The "Snipers' Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266855828_The_Snipers%27_Mass acre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine

September 2015

Conference: Annual Meeting of American Political Science AssociationAt: San Francisco

Project: Conflict in Ukraine

Authors:
Ivan Katchanovski

University of Ottawa

The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars. The Ukrainian government investigation identified members of the special company of Berkut as responsible for killings of the absolute majority of the protesters, but did not release any evidence in support, with the exception of videos of the massacre. The question is which side organized the “snipers’ massacre.” This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre. The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protestors. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts from mass media and social media in different countries (some 150 Gigabytes) , news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings. This study also employs field research on site of the massacre, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, statements by both former and current government officials, estimates of approximate ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used, and types of wounds among both protesters and the police. This study establishes a precise timeline for various events of the massacre, the locations of both the shooters and the government snipers, and the specific timeline and locations of nearly 50 protesters’ deaths. It also briefly analyzes other major cases of violence during and after the “Euromaidan.” This study includes two video appendixes. This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.


A quantitative research of mass protest actions found that Svoboda party was the most active organization in pro-Maidan protests, while the Right Sector was the most active organization in violent events in Ukraine during the "Euromaidan" (Ishchenko, 2016). Other studies concluded that the far right played a key role in the attacks of the parliament in January and on February 18, 2014 and in seizures of regional administrations in Western and Central Ukraine during the "Euromaidan" (Katchanovski, 2015c, Kudelia, 2016. A comprehensive study found that the far right organizations, such as the Right Sector and Svoboda, were involved in the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police and that this was a successful false flag operation conducted covertly by along with oligarchic elements of the Maidan opposition in order to overthrow the Yanukovych government and seize power in an asymmetric armed conflict (Katchanovski, 2015c(Katchanovski, , 2016b. ...
... Other studies concluded that the far right played a key role in the attacks of the parliament in January and on February 18, 2014 and in seizures of regional administrations in Western and Central Ukraine during the "Euromaidan" (Katchanovski, 2015c, Kudelia, 2016. A comprehensive study found that the far right organizations, such as the Right Sector and Svoboda, were involved in the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police and that this was a successful false flag operation conducted covertly by along with oligarchic elements of the Maidan opposition in order to overthrow the Yanukovych government and seize power in an asymmetric armed conflict (Katchanovski, 2015c(Katchanovski, , 2016b. Katchanovski (2016a) concluded that the far right played a key role in the start of the civil war in Donbas. ...
... Such seemingly irrational behavior become rational from a rational choice or an instrumental rationality perspectives, if Svoboda deputies were at least aware that these snipers in the Hotel Ukraina were from the Maidan side. (Katchanovski, 2015c). For example, a French TV video shows a Maidan protester shouting to the head of Svoboda in Khmelnytsky Oblast and journalists near the main entrance to the Hotel Ukraina about snipers at the top of the hotel soon after the massacre of the protesters, including protesters from Svoboda company from Khmelnytsky Region, started near the hotel. ...
The Far Right in Ukraine During the “Euromaidan” and the War in Donbas
Conference Paper
Full-text available

Sep 2016

Ivan Katchanovski

View
... e the Maidan and the Maidan Self-Defence and Right Sector headquarters at the occupied Trade Union building in Kyiv City were stopped by use of live ammunition from elements of the Maidan opposition, including the Right Sector, and by their burning down of that building, Yanukovych agreed to negotiations with opposition leaders on February 19, 2014. (Katchanovski, 2015b). A truce deal was negotiated between Yanukovych and the opposition leaders. However, shortly after midnight on February 20, the leader of the Right Sector stated that his organization did not accept this truce, and threatened to use force to oust the government. A study of the publicly available evidence suggests that the government of ...
... (Katchanovski, 2015bKatchanovski, , 2016). If Yanukovych had implemented initial plans to use force, including live ammunition and military units to suppress the " Euromaidan, " this would likely have resulted in a large number of casualties among the protesters, and a full-fledged uprising in the opposition stronghold in Western Ukraine, and likely civil war. ...
The Separatist War in Donbas: A Violent Break-Up of Ukraine?
Chapter
Full-text available

May 2017

Ivan Katchanovski

View
... Studies at Uppsala University in 2018 (Katchanovski, 2018a(Katchanovski, , 2018b. It also supplements previous studies of the Maidan massacre by the author (Katchanovski, 2015(Katchanovski, , 2016(Katchanovski, , 2017. ...