Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Politics

Real revolution is the only thing that can save Ukraine

Ravaged by the forces promoting conflict, a real change of government in Kiev is the only salvation for this long-suffering country

Published

on

0 Views

(New Eastern Outlook) – The junta currently in control of Ukraine is delighted U.S. President Donald Trump has become history’s most dangerous loose cannon. The oligarch controlled media in Kiev began churning out the propaganda right after Trump approved a plan to provide lethal defensive weapons to the regime. The key weapons system involved, the Javelin anti-tank missiles caused a kind-of “new toy” delight from Ukraine’s reporters. My country appears today as the international “pusher man” for an arms trade that resembles the Columbia cocaine cartels. More importantly for the people of Ukraine is whether, or not, the liberal world cartel can be beaten back. Here’s some thoughts on this.

Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton recently called the “US-Russian proxy war in eastern Ukraine, a seminal event of the 21st century.” The distinguished expert went on to describe the magnitude of this geo-political mess as a “toxic and dangerous”, and a catastrophe that will affect international relations for a generation. Professor Cohen is absolutely correct, but is too dignified to simply spell out the fact that the people of Ukraine (and many of the rest of us) are now royally screwed for decades. Cohen’s story appeared on The Nation, but his analysis rides the proverbial fence revealing the fact the U.S. supported liberal world order sanctioned this catastrophe for profit. I discussed their Ukraine/Eastern Europe strategy briefly in this piece on NEO the other day. The nitty gritty of the war on the Donbass is not that complicated. The guns, guts, and blood spilt on both sides of this implanted conflict are a new (perhaps) diabolical form of total war that includes psychological, tactical, and economic strategies to destroy and enemy. And that enemy is Russia.

My earlier reports have framed elements of the economic warfare levied on Ukraine and Russia, and how bankers like the Rothschilds, the Soros types, and corporations like Monsanto, Cargill, and DuPont have swooped in to pick at the bones of a shattered country. However, I am no soothsayer in all this. Anyone who studies the regime change in Ukraine knows this well. The big question that remains paramount is; “Can Ukrainians be rescued from the skullduggery and carnage?” If we are honest, the diagnosis for saving Ukraine is dismal. And when I say Ukraine I mean pro-Russia bastion that is Novorossiya in the east too. While scholars like professor Cohen do help people to understand conflicts like Ukraine, Libya, and Syria, their analyses their efforts at impartiality drown in the backwash of corporate propaganda in the west. Cohen and a few scholarly others end up beating around the bush on a geopolitical situation that is black & white. This is one reason the news (fake news) coming out of key situations is so one sided in America. When the bodies pile just so high, blue collar workers and geo-political gurus must take a side. Cohen and these others will have to sooner or later stand on either side of the fence. What’s needed is a surgical, clinical, and calculating assessment of what was and is a systematic dismantling of the traditional order of things. Such an assessment in Ukraine may well reveal the motives, methods, and potential outcomes, and most assuredly who the real perpetrators are.

We already know Ukraine is being raped by the eastern and western oligarchs now. This report via The National Interest talks about the IMF’s role in saddling Ukraine with incomprehensible debt forever. So, I won’t delve into this aspect here. We also know the country will never be out from under the piling debts the Poroshenko regime is rubber stamping. The economic onslaught the liberal order has launched everywhere Russian interests lie, it’s an easily definable narrative and mission. Let’s just call this “sanction warfare.” But, what about expert risk assessments on the potential for a military cataclysm? For this I defer to my friend and colleague, the now legendary former NATO military analyst, The Saker (pseudonym).

“You show me a capitalist, and I’ll show you a bloodsucker” ― Malcolm X

Last month he published a full-fledged analysis entitled; “2018 – War or No War?” The study is extensive, but essentially points to the liberal world order’s recuperation from the Hillary Clinton bust, and frames the probable strategies for renewed U.S. aggression worldwide. For the purposes of my editorial, a focus on only Ukraine and the embattled Donbass is necessary. In his analysis The Saker puts a heave focus on the Neocons, which are for me just one component of the liberal world order cartel of families and banker henchmen. These “Neocons”, and their London banker comrades are already engaged in the raping and pillage Ukraine with unheard of fearlessness. The Saker aptly describes their aggressive and now overt actions because of their belief that:

  1. They can buy anybody
  2. Those they cannot buy, they can bully
  3. Those that cannot be bullied, can be killed
  4. And that ultimately nothing can happen to them since they are immune.

As I write this, the sound of “cooing” and dancing in Kiev and the U.S. Senate echoes in the background. So, with this dastardly ambiance setting the tone, let’s put some of this gargantuan mess in perspective.

First and foremost, we must address the question of whether or not there will be renewed war on the Donbass. For a first clue let’s consider that even the American magazine Popular Mechanics is blushing over the effectiveness of President Trump’s new toys for Ukrop Nazis. A few days ago, PM wrote that Trump’s move was “an audacious geopolitical step”, characterizing the new anti-tank missile:

“The Javelin is one of the deadliest anti-tank missiles ever designed and will bolster Ukraine’s defenses in its military showdown with Russia. The sale is aimed squarely at Russia’s large and powerful tank fleet.”

From a media analyst’s standpoint, try and imagine what it means for a technology and scientific magazine to glow in admiration at the mobility and concealability of such a weapon system, and the fact the systems will offset Russia’s tank advantage! What kind of Hollywood madness is it when the dawn of the 21st century reverts to the nuclear madness of the 1950s? Setting aside juvenile missile coolness and the funny Armageddon, the analysis we have from The Saker and other expert analysts suggests a U.S. backed offensive against the Donbass may be imminent. But before we launch into these assessments let’s consider that since Ancient Egypt the javelin has been considered an offensive weapon, and not defensive. And the Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin FGM-148 Javelin is highly effective as an offensive weapon against either tanks or fortified positions as part of a “lightning strike” ahead of all out assault. You see, the problem with journalists covering these tactical situations is that almost all have next to no experience in real-world warfare. The average geo-political or news writer figures a military offensive is just big tanks, supported by air cover, rolling over an enemy. But at the level of an Anti-Armor Platoon, Weapons Company, or Infantry Battalion, the boots take the territory and eliminate threats via “platforms”, be they air or armored, etc. I won’t get into anti-armor techniques such as the HAW- MAW-LAW referred to in this U.S. Marine Corps manual, but eliminating Donbass (for instance) armor or fortified positions at the maximum range of the Javelin might be part of a preemptive blitz assault on the Novorossiya lines. And one with minimal risk compared with the defeats the Ukraine Nazis faced before. Give The Saker’s risk assessment that a Russian intervention over a U.S. backed offensive against Novorossiya, and the desirability of the win-win the Neocon/LWO psychopaths perceive as an outcome – I’d say the odds are good for scorched Earth on a broader Ukraine front. As The Saker puts it, if Russia intervenes to save the Donbass heroes from elimination – “A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again: decades of Cold War v2 in Europe.”

“A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past.” – Fidel Castro

Returning to the media home front, we discover the once venerable Washington Post effecting part of the psychological warfare on the public. The Jeff Bezos run paper proclaims President Trump’s new weapons for Ukraine policy is “a worthy application of the ‘peace through strength’ principle of President Ronald Reagan.” So, all the geometrical warfare units are in place, with Donald Trump ready to destroy the “evil empire” instead of Ronald Reagan. And in the meanwhile, on the other side of the shaky Minsk II ceasefire, Novorossiya’s frontline trenches get hammered with almost continual bombardment from the Kiev junta. On this line, I spoke with independent journalist Patrick Lancaster from the trenches while finalizing the draft of this story. This video of Lancaster with pro-Russian forces confirms there is no real ceasefire. When I asked Patrick about the caliber of the mortar or artillery fire, he told me; “I was told when the fighting slowed, that these were 120-millimeter artillery rounds after the range and trajectories were calculated.” If Lancaster’s position was shelled with 120 mm artillery, then the Minsk ceasefire was certainly breached by the Kiev side on this night. And while the shells fall outside Donetsk, the organization charged with oversight for Minsk, the OSCE busies itself counting how many cars and trucks cross the border to Novorossiya.

In conclusion, all we need assess really is where all the “pressure” is being exerted from, in order to determine who the real aggressor in Ukraine is. And any genuine evaluation shows that the overwhelming pressure in this situation is from west of the Donbass and Russia via the aforementioned psychological, tactical, and economic elements. Russia’s role was and is reactionary and defensive at every level. This can be proven actually, and if you read the headlines from Google News, you’ll always find Russia accused of meddling in elections in Mexico, or Vladimir Putin being responsible for some other catasrophe. RussiaGate simply will not go away, the pressure is full on, and anybody who cannot see this is blind as a bat. In a world where any Russian military maneuver is deemed some kind of “full scale war simulation,” and any NATO operation a standing defense of democracy and the American Way, the writing is literally on the wall. Reading this week that Europe is now a “victim” of Russia’s new oil strategy, even though the U.S. and allies exert every influence to ensure Russian gas does not flow west, I think of Nero fiddling as Rome burned. What apathy and insanity must have plagued great Rome for the world’s greatest empire to collapse from within?

With all the set pieces of strategy in place, and with the western publics fully indoctrinated via propaganda tools and societal distractions, the “pusher man” set the stage for the economic onslaught on Russia. Then, practice runs at tactical strategic operations were turned up after Iraq and Afghanistan. Libya and Syria, then Ukraine were met with innate apathy by society. Today, the volume and intensity is being turned up in the face of only a modicum of resistance, at least in the view of the “order” bent on complete domination. So, in my humble estimation, a seared Ukraine seems unavoidable. That is, unless Russia’s Putin can pull out another defensive miracle. It seems to me the only thing that can save Ukraine is the people of this ravaged country.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – JFK

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Russian Hierarch explains Ukrainian issue in detail (VIDEO)

A Russian Orthodox Hierarch explores the incursion of earthly politics into the life, pastoral activity and needs of the Orthodox Church.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

RT’s “Worlds Apart” interview program recently interviewed Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), a hierarch who heads the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Duran has covered the crisis in Ukraine surrounding the activity of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, of Constantinople, intended to create a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This effort falls completely outside the normal and authorized operating procedures of the Orthodox Church, but to the lay listener it is difficult to understand what the fuss really is all about.

Metropolitan Hilarion and Oksana Boyko do an excellent job with both the answers, but more importantly, the questions, since Ms. Boyko asks the questions that someone who knows nothing about the Church might ask. This situation is completely about politics and not about the true work of the Church, and Met. Hilarion answers these questions very completely and thoroughly.

One of the really interesting points that Met. Hilarion makes is the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch seeks to bring about the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church from these four groups:

  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which is canonical and which has not requested self-rule, called autocephaly
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church “Kyiv Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko, which is a completely schismatic group. This group, and Filaret, are leading the charge.
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church – another schismatic group that is not in communion with Filaret’s church
  • The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine – and this is truly interesting, because this group is not even Orthodox, but is an Eastern Rite group under the Pope of Rome, and is in fact Roman Catholic.

The notion of bringing together such a disparity of groups is stunning to the Metropolitan, and yet he understands the motives of the men driving this idea, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew, and Filaret Denisenko.

While the United States is not mentioned in this interview in any prominent sense, it should be noted that this move also does have strong US support as the American political leadership has been advocating for the Poroshenko government in an effort to continue to surround and isolate Russia. As we have noted elsewhere, this series of moves may well create more problems for Russia, by design.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Putin Keeps Cool and Averts WWIII as Israeli-French Gamble in Syria Backfires Spectacularly

Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


By initiating an attack on the Syrian province of Latakia, home to the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, Israel, France and the United States certainly understood they were flirting with disaster. Yet they went ahead with the operation anyways.

On the pretext that Iran was preparing to deliver a shipment of weapon production systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli F-16s, backed by French missile launches in the Mediterranean, destroyed what is alleged to have been a Syrian Army ammunition depot.

What happened next is already well established: a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft, which the Israeli fighter jets had reportedly used for cover, was shot down by an S-200 surface-to-air missile system operated by the Syrian Army. Fifteen Russian servicemen perished in the incident, which could have been avoided had Israel provided more than just one-minute warning before the attack. As a result, chaos ensued.

Whether or not there is any truth to the claim that Iran was preparing to deliver weapon-making systems to Hezbollah in Lebanon is practically a moot point based on flawed logic. Conducting an attack against an ammunition depot in Syria – in the vicinity of Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base – to protect Israel doesn’t make much sense when the consequence of such “protective measures” could have been a conflagration on the scale of World War III. That would have been an unacceptable price to achieve such a limited objective, which could have been better accomplished with the assistance of Russia, as opposed to NATO-member France, for example. In any case, there is a so-called “de-confliction system” in place between Israel and Russia designed to prevent exactly this sort of episode from occurring.

And then there is the matter of the timing of the French-Israeli incursion.

Just hours before Israeli jets pounded the suspect Syrian ammunition storehouse, Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan were in Sochi hammering out the details on a plan to reduce civilian casualties as Russian and Syrian forces plan to retake Idlib province, the last remaining terrorist stronghold in the country. The plan envisioned the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone between government and rebel forces, with observatory units to enforce the agreement. In other words, it is designed to prevent exactly what Western observers have been fretting about, and that is unnecessary ‘collateral damage.’

So what do France and Israel do after a relative peace is declared, and an effective measure for reducing casualties? The cynically attack Syria, thus exposing those same Syrian civilians to the dangers of military conflict that Western capitals proclaim to be worried about.

Israel moves to ‘damage control’

Although Israel has taken the rare move of acknowledging its involvement in the Syrian attack, even expressing “sorrow” for the loss of Russian life, it insists that Damascus should be held responsible for the tragedy. That is a highly debatable argument.

By virtue of the fact that the French and Israeli forces were teaming up to attack the territory of a sovereign nation, thus forcing Syria to respond in self-defense, it is rather obvious where ultimate blame for the downed Russian plane lies.

“The blame for the downing of the Russian plane and the deaths of its crew members lies squarely on the Israeli side,” Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said. “The actions of the Israeli military were not in keeping with the spirit of the Russian-Israeli partnership, so we reserve the right to respond.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, took admirable efforts to prevent the blame game from reaching the boiling point, telling reporters that the downing of the Russian aircraft was the result of “a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn’t shoot down our jet.”

Nevertheless, following this extremely tempered and reserved remark, Putin vowed that Russia would take extra precautions to protect its troops in Syria, saying these will be “the steps that everyone will notice.”

Now there is much consternation in Israel that the IDF will soon find its freedom to conduct operations against targets in Syria greatly impaired. That’s because Russia, having just suffered a ‘friendly-fire’ incident from its own antiquated S-200 system, may now be more open to the idea of providing Syria with the more advanced S-300 air-defense system.

Earlier this year, Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement that prevented those advanced defensive weapons from being employed in the Syrian theater. That deal is now in serious jeopardy. In addition to other defensive measures, Russia could effectively create the conditions for a veritable no-fly zone across Western Syria in that it would simply become too risky for foreign aircraft to venture into the zone.

The entire situation, which certainly did not go off as planned, has forced Israel into damage control as they attempt to prevent their Russian counterparts from effectively shutting down Syria’s western border.

On Thursday, Israeli Major-General Amikam Norkin and Brigadier General Erez Maisel, as well as officers of the Intelligence and Operations directorates of the Israeli air force will pay an official visit to Moscow where they are expected to repeat their concerns of “continuous Iranian attempts to transfer strategic weapons to the Hezbollah terror organization and to establish an Iranian military presence in Syria.”

Moscow will certainly be asking their Israeli partners if it is justifiable to subject Russian servicemen to unacceptable levels of danger, up to and including death, in order to defend Israeli interests. It remains to be seen if the two sides can find, through the fog of war, an honest method for bringing an end to the Syria conflict, which would go far at relieving Israel’s concerns of Iranian influence in the region.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending