Tuesday, September 30, 2014

US global geopolitical dominance, the decline of a world superpower.

De-Dollarization: Europe and China Start Direct Trading In Euros and Renminbi

Region: ,

De-dollarization has been an ongoing theme hidden just below the surface of the mainstream media for more than a year as Russia and China slowly but surely attempt to “isolate” the US Dollar. Until very recently, direct trade agreements with China (in other words, bypassing the US Dollar exchange in bilateral trade) had been with smaller trade partners.
On the heels of Western pressure, Russia and China were forced closer together and de-dollarization accelerated from Turkey to Argentina as an increasing number of countries around the world realize the importance of this chart.
However, things are about to get even more dramatic. As Bloomberg reports, China will start direct trading between the yuan and the euro tomorrow as the world’s second-largest economy seeks to spur global use of its currency in a “fresh step forward in China’s yuan internationalization.” With civil unrest growing on every continent and wars (proxy or other) at tipping points, perhaps, just perhaps, the US really does want rid of the weight of the USD as a reserve currency after all (as championed here by Obama’s former right hand economist)… now that would be an intriguing ‘strategy’.
As Bloomberg reports, China will start direct trading between the yuan and the euro tomorrow as the world’s second-largest economy seeks to spur global use of its currency…
The euro will become the sixth major currency to be exchangeable directly for yuan in Shanghai, joining the U.S., Australian and New Zealand dollars, the British pound and the Japanese yen. The yuan ranked seventh for global payments in August and more than one-third of the world’s financial institutions have used it for transfers to China and Hong Kong, the Society for Worldwide International Financial Telecommunications said last week.
“It’s a fresh step forward in China’s yuan internationalization,” said Liu Dongliang, an analyst with China Merchants Bank Co. in Shenzhen.
The move will lower transaction costs and so make yuan and euros more attractive to conduct bilateral trade and investment, the People’s Bank of China said today in a statement on its website. HSBC Holdings Plc said separately it has received regulatory approval to be one of the first market makers when trading begins in China’s domestic market.

China’s trade with European Union nations grew 12 percent from a year earlier to $404 billion in the first eight months of 2014, according to data from the Asian nation’s customs department. That compares with just $354 billion with the U.S. during the period.
French and German companies lead among countries outside of greater China in the use of the yuan, according to a July report by HSBC that was based on a survey of 1,304 businesses in 11 major economies that have ties with mainland China. Some 26 percent of French corporates and 23 percent of German companies were using the currency to settle trade, the highest proportions apart from mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

“Given the appointments of renminbi clearing banks in Frankfurt and Paris, today’s announcement is largely expected,” Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.’s economists led by Liu Li-gang wrote in a research note today. The agreement marks a “significant milestone” in yuan internationalization as the euro is the only G3 currency that has not had direct conversion with the yuan, Liu said.
The chart below suggests the increasing push for de-dollarization across the ‘rest of the isolated world’ may be a smart bet…

The internationalization of the Yuan (or implicit de-dollarization by the rest of the world) appears to go unnoticed by the administration (and mainstream media)… which makes one wonder – is this the strategy after all? As Obama’s former chief economist noted:
what was once a privilege is now a burden, undermining job growth, pumping up budget and trade deficits and inflating financial bubbles.
To get the American economy on track, the government needs to drop its commitment to maintaining the dollar’s reserve-currency status.
As Deutsche Bank previously concluded:
Given this analysis it strikes us that today we are in the midst of an extremely rare historical event – the relative decline of a world superpower. US global geopolitical dominance is on the wane – driven on the one hand by the historic rise of China from its disproportionate lows and on the other to a host of internal US issues, from a crisis of American confidence in the core of the US economic model to general war weariness.
This is not to say that America’s position in the global system is on the brink of collapse. Far from it. The US will remain the greater of just two great powers for the foreseeable future as its “geopolitical multiplier”, boosted by its deeply embedded soft power and continuing commitment to the “free world” order, allows it to outperform its relative economic power. As America’s current Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, said earlier this year, “We (the USA) do not engage in the world because we are a great nation. Rather, we are a great nation because we engage in the world.”
Nevertheless the US is losing its place as the sole dominant geopolitical superpower and history suggests that during such shifts geopolitical tensions structurally increase. If this analysis is correct then the rise in the past five years, and most notably in the past year, of global geopolitical tensions may well prove not temporary but structural to the current world system and the world may continue to experience more frequent, longer lasting and more far reaching geopolitical stresses than it has in at least two decades. If this is indeed the case then markets might have to price in a higher degree of geopolitical risk in the years ahead.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Ukraine Government Officially Introduces Slavery, with Vague Terms By Eric Zuesse

Ukraine Government Officially Introduces Slavery, with Vague Terms

By Eric Zuesse

Eric Zuesse

On 23 September 2014, the Ukrainian Ministry of Social Policy announced official civilian slavery, via an obscure press release, headlined "The Government has extended the list of community service under martial law"; and they announced it there, in bureaucratic phrases, that seemed crafted so as to be ignored:

In connection with the situation in the east of the country, the Cabinet meeting today amended the procedures for the involvement of able-bodied people in community service under martial law. This was disclosed by Minister for Social Policy Lyudmila Denisova.
The Minister said that the existing arrangement was approved in 2011. However, today the document needs to be improved, to meet the current socio-political challenges and necessity of liquidating consequences of possible military aggression.

Lyudmila Denisova said that, in particular, the Procedure now defines the term "labor service" to mean that the people [will be] involved without mandatory consent, subject to enforcement operations, [in work that is of a] defensive nature, as well as man-made [i.e., war-related] disaster management, natural and military nature, during mobilization and wartime. [The tortured phrasing here might be due to these drafters' desire to avoid amplifying upon that phrase 'without mandatory consent,' which refers to the key new legal feature, the legal application of slavery to regular Ukrainian civilians, to be selected according to vague criteria, which might apply to most of the civilian population.]

The Minister said that the category of persons who may be involved to perform such work, covers all individuals who are self-employed.
In addition, the list of community service performed in wartime, will include types of work that are aimed at ensuring the defense of the state (including repair work conducted at state borders, airfields, and fortifications). Also covered will be other work related to emergencies of an industrial, natural or military nature, as the need arises during the period of martial law (analysis of debris, roads, etc., and work performed in connection with the provisioning of supplies to the Armed Forces and other military formations).

Community service involves working age population, including persons who are not subject to conscription, who have no age and health restrictions preventing them from work under martial law (in addition to able-bodied persons involved in work in the defense sector and for the sustenance of the population, and enterprises booked for the period of mobilization and wartime to carry out work of a defensive nature), namely:
- Unemployed and other unemployed persons [that's what it says: 'unemployed and other unemployed'];
- Workers operating under martial law in firms that are not involved in the implementation of mobilization assignments (orders) and not enrolled in abnormal (non-military) civil protection units - in order to transfer such workers in an amount that will not lead to a complete stop [of private industrial] production;
- Persons engaged in subsistence agriculture [i.e., small farmers];
- Students in higher education, and students of vocational schools;
- Everyone who is self-employed.
Each of these categories of persons [will be] entered into fixed-term employment agreement.

The official announcement says nothing about pay, nor about labor negotiations of any sort, but only that these people will be "entered into fixed-term employment agreement ... without mandatory consent," and "subject to enforcement operations." The mystery as to how there can be 'agreement' without 'mandatory consent' (a beautiful oxymoron, for morons) is not answered, especially since it is "subject to enforcement." So, the underlying presumption here seems to be that 'consent' is not 'mandatory' in order for there to be 'agreement,' and that the Government has the right to "enforce" that 'agreement'. This seems Orwellian, but that's the way it is. America calls itself a 'democracy', and yet now imposes this type of government, and condemns Russia as being not 'democratic'. So, perhaps the Obama team has been teaching its Ukrainian stooges how to be Orwellian. 

Stalin might get a belly-laugh. Today's Russia, however, has improved considerably since Stalin, and even more after it ended communism and became just Russia without the Soviet Union and their economically crippling Marxist ideology. By contrast, the U.S. has recently been heading into fascism, and outdid itself by having installed in Ukraine a regime that's outright nazi. The U.S. now calls that 'democratic', as it spreads 'democracy' elsewhere too, such as in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

Then, on September 25th, the world's great newspaper, the German Economic News, (or Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachtrichten) headlined "On the way into the authoritarian State: Ukraine introduces forced labor," and reported:

"The new rules announced by the Minister for social policy of labor service would mean the introduction of forced labor, which violates the European Convention on human rights" as[serted] Andrej Hunko, Member of the Bundestag and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. ... "Yatsenyuk's attempt to set forced labour now legally, is a further step towards an authoritarian society and must be stopped. This is the exact opposite of the supposed democratic development of Ukraine, as it is written by the Maidan movement."

The German newspaper said that this is being done "to absorb the consequences of the civil war." (Here's that war.)
Another news bulletin, this one undated, came from the Latvian site http://newstwenty4seven.com/en/news/ukraintsev-zastavjat-ryt-okopy. It's headlined "Ukrainians Forced to Dig Trenches"; and it opens, actually, with a photo of workers digging a ditch, perhaps for more war, or else for mass-burial (or maybe some other use). This report says:

The Ukrainian government has introduced the citizens' obligation to work, obliging them to perform tasks of a defensive nature in wartime conditions. This is reported by the press service of the Ministry of social policy of Ukraine, with reference to the head of Department Lyudmyla Denysova.
The government, according to Denisova, made changes in the recruitment of able-bodied persons to "socially useful work in conditions of martial law". In particular, they defined the term "labor service", which involves citizens in forced execution of jobs of a defensive nature, and emergencies in time of war, without their required consent.
"Socially useful work" refers to work at the state border, airfields and military fortifications, as well as [clearing] rubble, "the performance of work-related needs of the armed forces and other military formations".
To forced labor, it is planned to bring, in particular, the unemployed, students, farmers and individual entrepreneurs. 

That news-source linked to the official Ukrainian announcement.
The background of this Ukrainian Government decision is that Ukraine is now bankrupt. It was so, even before the civil war, but the additional $17 billion that was recently lent to that Government by the IMF, in order to enable them to pay their soldiers and buy weapons and bullets to slaughter the people in the regions that didn't accept the legitimacy of the coup-imposed government, has only placed the Government even deeper into hock.

The cost to Ukraine in order to achieve 'democratic' electoral stability by mass-murdering the population in the regions of the country that oppose the Obama-installed group and that had voted overwhelmingly for the man Obama overthrew, has turned out to be too high for it to be continued. Perhaps that's part of the reason why slavery is now being resorted to -- to cut costs, so that the Ukrainian Government can repay at least a portion of the money they were loaned by the IMF, U.S. and EU.

So, that's why the civil war that was started by Obama's February 2014 overthrow of Ukraine's President, toppling a man who was democratically elected in Ukraine's final nationwide vote, produced a new Government that is now collapsing. Since the West won't continue lending it money, the Government there will, it seems, now be enslaving some of its own citizens, in order to get done what the appointed rulers want to be done, such as to continue killing people who won't vote for them. If the enslavement of their own civilian population becomes too big and widespread to ignore, then perhaps The New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc., will report about it, because they'll then be forced to. 

What's particularly interesting at the present early stage is that the people whom the Obama team placed in charge of Ukraine, want to do this, and that they think that by using such tortured vague language, very few people in the U.S. and EU will get to know that they're doing this. But already it's news on a German site, and also on a Latvian site. Perhaps the American public will be the last to find out, except for the few individuals that read about it here. At this news site, it's part of the "News That's Fit To Print," regardless of whether Big Brother feels that way about it, or maybe even because Big Brother doesn't feel that way about it.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Igor Gunmen: Traitors around Putin put New Russia to the brink of military defeat

Igor Gunmen: Traitors around Putin put New Russia to the brink of military defeat

"Revolution from above", launched Vladimir Putin, does not leave liberals chances for political survival: they have only to raise a mutiny

September 25, 2014, 09:00 AM

West and the "fifth column" virtually no secret of their plans for the overthrow of President Putin and the subsequent dismantling of the total Russian

Full text of the speech of the former Minister of Defense of the People's Republic of Donetsk Igor Strelkov at a closed briefing in Moscow on September 11, 2014

Took place exactly one month from the time when I had to leave the post of Minister of Defense and Commander of the host of the DNI. Not to say that the decision was easy for me. Not just had and the circumstances in which it was made. Donetsk and the whole group of the armed forces of the DNI is online environment and with great difficulty repulsed the incessant attacks from all sides punitive. And only a few in the leadership of the republic knew that within the next few days should significant changes occur, and the enemy will be inflicted a decisive defeat. I was one of those few, but could not even hint to his subordinates that soon we will start to attack and win the captured enemy positions.

Before our eyes, in the case once again intervened those forces which previously had almost consumed "Russian Spring" and since then has not left the attempts to destroy the national liberation movement of the Russian people of New Russia.
Even harder was aware that the release of lead left (including - according to my orders in person) cities and towns of Donbass will no longer me. Morally, it was hard to leave his comrades, so to speak, in the "early hours" when the death of many of our business seemed inevitable.
Stay on the circumstances that forced me to retirement, I will not. Let me just say that the decision has paid off, allowing the eve of the offensive combine leadership of the armed forces of the DNI in one hand and avoid many conflicts, like leprosy corrodes the republic, as well as to ensure a reliable supply of our units and all necessary.
Over the past few weeks, the situation on the fronts Novrossii changed dramatically. In most areas of punishers discarded, suffered huge losses and went on the defensive. And the prerequisites for the complete liberation of Donbas punitive troops and troops of the Kiev authorities. Under the blows of the enemy army DNR, snapping, backed away to the west, and the leadership of his troops panicked. But what happened next?

Before our eyes, in the case once again intervened those forces which previously had almost consumed "Russian Spring" and since then has not left the attempts to destroy the national liberation movement of the Russian people of New Russia. There is no such meanness, which is not ready to go, these forces have repeatedly proven themselves in the modern history of the country in the most sinister quality. They, directed from abroad, played a crucial role in the destruction of the Soviet Union in 1991, and then all the 90s openly mocked the peoples of Russia, having arranged an orgy of looting huge Soviet economic and cultural heritage. They put over the remains of our homeland monstrous consequences for liberal experiments, not caring about the consequences for the country, which is called (and still continue to call) with a contemptuous epithet "this." Bacchanalia collapse accompanied provoked their bloody wars, wild rampant crime, immorality, moral decline, the most vile propaganda of all evils, which you can think of, the destruction of economic independence and foreign policy sovereignty.

Even after failing in an attempt to finally finish off Russia in the early 2000s, these forces have not gone away and secretly continued their destructive work in the hope that their time will come again, and at the time they complete the job. However, when dawn broke on the horizon, "Russian Spring", and our country is barely beginning, not in words, but in reality to rise from his knees, trying to rethink the results of Gorbachev's surrender and return of old belonging to her right and territories to achieve real independence as a "fifth column" immediately mobilized all available forces.

The return of the Crimea to Russia not only caused her shock and revolt in New Russia - a real panic, but also made manifest again its true face. "Alerted" and thrown into battle all the numerous agents, successfully for many years in the clothing ryadivshayasya "patriots" and "statesmen" and under this cover has penetrated the highest echelons of power, and even in the environment of the President of Russia. Speaking on the case against the interests of the country and the people, these traitors, however, continue to boldly assert that they are "friends" of the President and his openly subversive and sabotage activities to give out for the only true measures to strengthen Russian statehood.

Where, you ask such arrogance and confidence in their own invulnerability? The explanation is extremely simple: all that is of value to representatives of the "fifth column" - that is, money and other tangible assets, as well as the family and the offspring - a long time ago exported abroad, and save them depends entirely on the mercy of foreign owners.

For five months of fighting Russian people Novorossia fully felt the "fruits" of this kind of subversive activities. At that time, when the Russian military assistance was vital in fact unarmed militia, and when she could almost bloodless lead to the release of all Russian-speaking regions, agents of influence in unison howled about the impossibility of direct and non-military aid to the rebels. Punishers burned people in Odessa, shot with heavy artillery and Slovyansk urgently formed strong army, and penetrated into the Russian leadership facilitators not only sabotaged any military and political assistance to the rebels, but also, in full understanding with PoroshenkoTurchynov , Akhmetov , Taruta and other representatives of the Ukrainian oligarchs, to split the ranks of the militia leadership, prevented the creation of a unified command, and working together to send to the President of Russia placed their traps.

Persistence and dedication of volunteers did not allow punitive quell the uprising until the real help from Russia still has reached the addressee. The militia took the offensive. But here, proved to be traitors to the fullest. On the verge of total defeat punitive army they immediately extending a "helping hand" by arranging a truce and tried in the negotiations "surrender" virtually all the gains of the rebels, giving them at the mercy of the Kiev junta. More shameful agreements than those that are currently being discussed in Minsk, to come up with is simply impossible. And in the meantime, Kiev hastily adds, dovooruzhaet and trains its army is ready to continue the genocide of Russian New Russia.

As a result, we have an even score the same situation, at the very beginning of our movement, but in a much more difficult starting positions. If in April-May in Kiev there was no effective army or support of the population, now punishers mobilized and armed "to the teeth", and the population of Ukraine came under the influence of a massive propaganda widely used methods of neuro-linguistic programming, largely zombie and ceased to distinguish truth from falsehood. During these same months against Russia introduced several packages of economic sanctions, and from the mouth of senior military and diplomats in the West sounded half-forgotten already claim regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia, overt threats and hear from controlled America Islamist militants. With Russia ready to fight long and seriously.

West and the "fifth column" virtually no secret of their plans for the overthrow of President Putin and the subsequent complete dismantling of Russia, and their "agents of influence" by all means convince the country's leadership that reconciliation is not only possible, but the only need. The fact that nothing but total surrender, Russia's enemies are not satisfied, carefully hidden from the public and, I suppose, even from the President.

Thus, all exceptionally favorable conditions available to the Russian spring, remained unfulfilled, and, on the contrary, we are in the face of continuously increasing military threat. The merit of a "fifth column" in achieving this result is undeniable.

Why so implacably and perhaps even suicidal made ​​our liberals against the president and his course? Why they are so emboldened that challenge him and his policies? In my opinion, there are two main factors, the first of them is that the "fifth column", too, there is no other way but to revolt - yet hidden, but it is just yet. "Revolution from above", launched by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin , leaves them no chance for political survival, and just leave the country in the "earned by overwork" overseas possessions they do not allow foreign hosts.

How critical is not concerned I would have to many onetime domestic policy decisions of the President, in a war waged consider it necessary to speak in support of it as the only legitimate Commander.
The second factor is even more obvious: having a strong presence in the power and considerable financial resources, traitors seriously expect to seize power themselves to continue with gusto on the new stage of the process of cutting the remnants of a once great country and "disposal" of the peoples inhabiting it. But for this they need to plan to spend a lot more preliminaries. In the first place - to deprive President Putin of the widest popular support, which he deservedly received as a result of foreign and domestic stocks in recent years. And what could be more advantageous in this respect than the "drain" of Russian New Russia, followed by the laying on of the President himself of all responsibility for it? After all, the representatives themselves "fifth column", like hyenas, carefully kept in his shadow, while avoiding any publicity.

A path that has already scheduled enemies, quite clear to us clearly. Maximum prolongation of the war, accompanied by as much loss of life and hardships of the Russian population on both sides of the border - that's their problem. Do not give militia even chances to win, on the borders of Russia to create more and more bleeding "ulcer", where it will be, drop by drop, to pour resources and where, as a result of the policy of "step forward - two steps back," will not be achieved decisive success. Simultaneously, the Russian Federation will be assigned an increasing burden of the first of hundreds of thousands and then millions of refugees, and Western sanctions gradually would undermine the financial and economic health of the country, especially as homegrown oligarchs try to shift costs from them is the general population.

The result is that traitors are hoping to bring the situation before the conclusion of the most shameful and humiliating peace, accompanied by a betrayal of the Russian population of Ukraine, to cause more outrage in Russia itself. And then - in full compliance with the waste in the early XX century technologies - Moscow "maidan" in which a supposedly fair indignation merge right and left, the Patriots and the Liberals. Proven scenario in 1905 and 1917 on a "humiliating defeat - the economic crisis - to discredit the authorities - civil unrest - a palace coup" in action again.

In this context, the protection of New Russia and support of its population, are critical to the conservation of Great Russia, the frustration of a "fifth column." If we manage to win there - save Russia. Lose - respectively, lose the remnants of the Fatherland. In this struggle can not be compromised, and the one who will convince her otherwise, consciously or not, bringing grist to the mill of the enemy. "Or - or": - or Russia will restore the real sovereignty in full, or it will be destroyed by a coalition of internal and external oligarchic clans.

Assessing their own place in the fight against the plans of subversive forces, I want to say that made my choice.The main front of the struggle for Russia is being held here. I hope that it is in Russia can do the most good. At the same time emphasize once again that those who hoped or hopes to use myself or my name for destructive purposes, will be sorely disappointed. How critical is not concerned I would have to many, many onetime domestic policy decisions of the President, in a war waged against us certainly consider it necessary to speak in support of it as the only legitimate Commander-in-chief guarantor of freedom and independence. In my opinion, really protect expose the Nazi genocide Novorossia necessary in the first place by exposing and the removal of those of its "well-wishers" who have brought us to the brink of military defeat.

Those who diligently started modeling in the media image of "Colonel Strelkova - the leader of popular protest," to announce that even do not expect that they will be able to buy me a fake praise and promises. The essence of duty officer - to serve his country and his people. To exchange if often thankless, but faithful service to the false fame and popularity in favor of the enemies of the Fatherland - for me the top of the dishonor. Let understand, finally, that there are still people in Russia (and I'm not talking to myself one) who puts duty and decency above their own benefit and vanity. And these people, as the events in the New Russia, a lot more! And we will not allow re-break and ruin Russia as well as destroyed in 1917, the Russian Empire, and in 1991 - the USSR.

Igor Gunmen  

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Zionist Facebook deleted our publication about fascist Ukrainian doctor who killed 2 POW by injection.

Zionist Facebook deleted our publication about fascist Ukrainian doctor who killed 2 POW by injection.

This morning, 10 hours ago was published story about Elena Krasutskaya, Kiev junta doctor who proudly admitted in murder of POW in social network. Now I receive notification of Facebook that this publication "doesn't follow Facebook Community Standards" and was deleted. Also one of my accounts which I used for publication don't able to publish anything during 24 hours. This way Facebook support Kiev junta.

I want to remind that many pages of Syrian and Libyan "rebels", proudly published videos of executions. This is maybe good for Facebook Community Standards, because these videos weren't deleted. 

This publication was deleted, so I ask to share it again, F*ck off Zukerberb:
"Ukrainian fascist - doctor killed two prisoners from Novorossia by injection.

More than week ago, at 9th September Elena Krasutskaya, doctor in hospital of town Belya Tserkov, near city Kiev wrote about murder in social network. She admitted to her friend in some forum in the social network "Odnoklassniki" that she killed fighter of Novorossia. She wrote: I today as doctor damaged health of captive kazap [Russian] - fighter. And he painfully dying because of used [injected] medicines. And dick [noone] be able to prove [murder]. Pathologists are with us.
And this [death] will be to every [ fighter of Novorossia].

This information was checked by Ukrainian blogger -antifascist and his friends. They got information, that recently in days then in hospital worked doctor Elena Krasutskaya died 2 fighters of Novorossia. So, she admitted in real murder and she killed at least 2 people.

I want to remind that fighters of Novorossia and civilians from Novorossia came to Ukrainian hospitals only after tortures of SBU. Part of them back to SBU to new tortures, SBU - intelligence service of Kiev junta taking from prisoners confessions by tortures.

Kiev junta prisoners who come to hands of such new Mengele, as Elena Krasutskaya could have painful times of their lives and even died.

Ukrainian blogger who made interrogation uploaded video with results to his own channel in Youtube. You can to see there photos of Elena Krasutskaya, her husband and son. Whole family are fascists...


I want to remind that during "Arab spring" doctors in Libya and Syria who choose side of "revolutionaries" became murderers too.

In the Libya, in the cities Benghazi, Misrata and others cities and towns doctors - "revolutionaries" killed black skinned people because "revolution" had racist elements.

Monday, September 22, 2014

NATO is Escalating Tensions with Russia Without Evidence to Support its Sardonic Accusations.

Putin, not Ukraine, is Vexing America

Published: Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Sept 5, 2014

Forget about alleged Russian aggression and land grabbing in Ukraine – the real problem for the United States is Vladimir Putin. To be more precise, the real problem is a strong, independent Russia under the leadership of President Putin, a Russia that stands up for its national rights, respect for international norms and which is not prepared to simply roll over to placate American hegemonic selfish interests, like propping up its bankrupt dollar.

As the American-led NATO military alliance meets in Wales this week, it is obvious that Washington and its European minions are thrashing around trying to find a new purpose for an organization that was formed 65 years ago during the Cold War. The summit in the Welsh city of Newport is being billed as «the most important meeting of NATO since the end of the Cold War» – might we wonder why? – more than two decades ago.

US President Barack Obama is in attendance with 60 world leaders, including those of the 28 NATO member states. Shamelessly, there is much high-flown rhetoric about «defending Europe from Russian aggression». NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen even had the gall to state, at the opening of the conference, that «Russia is attacking Ukraine». «So we continue to call on Russia to pull back its troops from Ukrainian borders, and stop the flow of weapons and fighters into Ukraine», said Rasmussen without a modicum of evidence, or even a semblance of citing evidence.

The day before the NATO summit opened, Barack Obama, speaking in Estonia, used the very same kind of provocative rhetoric, accusing Russia of aggression in Ukraine and violating international law. The American president rolled off slanderous words about «Russian-financed, Russian-armed, Russian-trained, Russian-supported and often Russian-directed separatists in Ukraine». 

As Russia’s envoy to NATO, Alexandr Grushko, said of such accusations mouthed by Western leaders, «they are not facts, they are forgeries». Grushko said that NATO was escalating tensions with Russia without any evidence to support its reckless conduct. «There have been no troop build-ups or movements of military hardware», he added.

It is astounding that all the militarist hype surrounding the NATO conference, along with bombastic declarations of collective security and vows to protection «our members in Eastern Europe», has been invoked with absolutely no credible proof, such as satellite images of Russian troop and tank movements, missile launches or aircraft incursions of Ukrainian territory. It’s like policy is being made on the basis of fantasy and preconceptions.


However, that’s not to say that there aren’t real concerns at play. There most certainly are. But the Western powers and their dutiful so-called news media are in full propaganda mode to conceal what those underlying concerns are. 

What Obama and other senior US figures have been emphasizing over the past six months has been the need for European members of NATO to «step up to the plate» in terms of financing NATO. For most of its 65-year existence, the US has largely funded the workings of NATO, being by far the largest member. There is good reason for this historical American largesse.

 NATO has served as the US vehicle to exert a dominant military, political and economic presence over Europe. Without NATO, Washington would have significantly reduced influence over its European «allies». In particular, Washington might have to witness a natural historical tendency for closer political and economic ties between Europe and Russia, if it were not for NATO’s grip on the continent. 

It is significant that over the past two decades since the end of the Cold War – and hence arguably the end of NATO’s purpose – European funding of the organization fell from over 30 per cent down to nearly 20 per cent. In other words, that suggests that European states were losing interest in NATO as having any relevance in the post-Cold War era. It seems that what Washington is hell-bent on doing is to revive the relevance of NATO by talking up the threat to European security from Russia.

A revived NATO means a revived US presence in Europe, which is essential for American global hegemony. This would give the real meaning for why Washington has taken the lead over past year in escalating tensions with Russia over Ukraine. This has in turn led to a growing chasm between Moscow and Europe, where up to recently there were cordial diplomatic relations based on substantial economic and trade partnerships. 
Of course in this political endeavour Washington has found willing European accomplices to accentuate tensions. The British government has played a trusted lackey role for the American agenda, as has the US handpicked junta in Kiev led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, as well as the pro-Western regimes in Poland and the Baltic states. 

This underlying agenda of American geopolitical hegemony – not alleged Russian aggression – was betrayed earlier this week during the joint speeches of Barack Obama and his Estonian counterpart Toomas Hendrik Ilves. When both leaders were asked about their views on the 1997 Founding Act between NATO and Russia, they said that the commitment to non-expansion by NATO was now redundant because the «landscape had changed».

The American-educated Estonian leader said: «That was the security environment of 1997, when Boris Yeltsin was [Russian] President, and there had been no violations of either the UN Charter or the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1990 Paris Charter».

Note that Ilves reiterates groundless assertions that Russia has committed violations of the UN Charter and other treaties. But what is telling is his reference to former Russian leader Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin was acceptable to American and Europeans because he was seen as a weak, pliable figure that allowed Western capital free rein in the newly opened Russian territory following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yelstin’s era was also a time of rampant corruption by Russian oligarchs who were closely associated with Western capital. That corrosive culture came to a halt with the election of Vladimir Putin twice as president between 2000-2008, and again in 2012.

In his speech, Obama concurred that «much has changed» since the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, making the latter non-applicable. But Obama’s words gave more away about the deeper political concerns. He said of Russia: «I’ve said consistently our preference is a strong, productive, cooperative Russia. But the way to achieve that is by abiding to international norms, to improving the economy, to focusing on how they can actually produce goods and services that other people want and give opportunity to their people and educate them. 

That’s not the path that they’ve been pursuing over the last several years. It’s certainly not in evidence when it comes to their strategy in Ukraine». So what Obama, that is, Washington, is concerned about is not Ukraine or alleged Russian aggression, but rather issues of «economic production and cooperation» – that is cooperation with Western capital. What’s more, «that’s not the path that they’ve [Russian government] been pursuing over the last several years». In other words, that’s not what Russia is permitting the West under the tenure of President Vladimir Putin; and this predates the recent crisis in Ukraine. 

These real, underlying American concerns about Putin’s Russia not playing American ball were spelled out in an opinion column in the New York Times earlier this year, on March 23, by the former US ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. 

Notwithstanding false claims about annexing Crimea, McFaul writes: «The decision by President Vladimir V Putin of Russia to annex Crimea ended the post-Cold War era in Europe. Since the late Gorbachev-Reagan years, the era was defined by zigzags of cooperation and disputes between Russia and the West, but always with an underlying sense that Russia was gradually joining the international order. No more».

The former American ambassador goes on to lament «the collapse of the Soviet order did not lead smoothly to a transition to democracy and markets inside Russia, or Russia’s integration into the West». In other words, Russia did not make a smooth transition that suited American interests.

McFaul lays the blame for this lack of Russian «integration into the West» on President Putin, accusing him of being «an autocrat» and of harking back to the days of the old Soviet Union. McFaul’s invective against Putin is just slander, but what it barely conceals is that Washington is acutely disgruntled with how it perceives Putin’s Russia as not acting like a vassal state, as it was intended to be under Yeltsin at the time of signing the Founding Act between NATO and Russia.

That is why Washington now wants to scrap the Founding Act, and to push NATO expansion around Russia’s borders. McFaul ended his NY Times column by calling for isolation and punitive sanctions on Russia, a policy that has become ever more pointed in subsequent months.

And it is more than a coincidence that America’s rulers have stepped up their aggression towards Russia since President Putin has embarked on a raft of regional trade and development alliances with Eurasian countries, Iran, China, and other BRICS nations, as well as Latin America. 

Putin’s declared moves to replace the US dollar with bilateral currencies for transactions in energy trade has also marked him out as a threat to US hegemonic interests. Putin’s Russia has also stood by its Syrian Arab ally over the past three years rather than relenting to the US-NATO criminal agenda of regime change in that country.

This is the context for why Washington is corralling NATO with the «crisis in Ukraine». It is not about Russian aggression. It is about Putin being an independent world leader who is not bowing down to American imperial dictate.

U.S. insider's view of the Russian President Putin's incorruptible character and his amazing country's transformation By: Sharon Tennison

Is Putin incorruptible? U.S. insider's view of the Russian president's character and his country's transformation

U can't touch this incorruptible Leader

Friends and colleagues,

As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both.

Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, "What about Putin?"

It's time to share my thoughts which follow:

Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man. He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him since he became Russia's second president.

I've stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s - - I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article. Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I've tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a "Putin apologist". If one is even neutral about him, they are considered "soft on Putin" by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

I don't pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia for the past 30 years. But during this time, I've have had far more direct, on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington's officials. I've been in country long enough to ponder Russian history and culture deeply, to study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our political relations with their leaders. As with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia halfway.

In addition to my personal experience with Putin, I've had discussions with numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of experience working with him - - I believe it is safe to say that none would describe him as "brutal" or "thuggish", or the other slanderous adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.

I met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander started, I've become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think I've read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his annual hours-long telephone "talk-ins" with Russian citizens). I've been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a role he never anticipated - - and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances. If the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his performance over the past 14 years. It's not by accident that Forbes declared him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.

The year was 1992...

Sharon Tennison
It was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg. For years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an appointment was made. My friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit. He inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the next relevant question. I became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans' requests. CCI stood on the principle that we would never, never give bribes. This bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door. Out on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, "Volodya, this is the first time we have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn't ask us for a trip to the US or something valuable!" I remember looking at his business card in the sunlight - - it read Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.


Putin as Deputy Mayor of St. Petersburg in the early 90s.
U.S. Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had 14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate help. I scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador. I was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the "good news" about CCI's programs that were showing fine results. In the next 24 hours Jack and I also set up "home" meetings in a dozen Russian entrepreneurs' small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before - - but Jack overruled). Only later in 2000, did I learn of Jack's former three-year experience with Vladimir Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak. More on this further down.

December 31, 1999
With no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin. On hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered - - he could never lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo. Yes, it was the same Putin I'd met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling friends, "This is a disaster for Russia, I've spent time with this guy, he is too introverted and too intelligent - - he will never be able to relate to Russia's masses." Further, I lamented: "For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen: 1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin, and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their fiefdoms across Russia's 89 regions". It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts or guts to tackle Russia's overriding twin challenges.

February 2000

Almost immediately Putin began putting Russia's oligarchs on edge. In February a question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his answer: "What should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop." This was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made the West's capitalists nervous. After all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen - - good capitalists, never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their profits in offshore banks.

Four months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal: They could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they would not be nationalized .... IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they personally stayed out of politics. This was the first of Putin's "elegant solutions" to the near impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The latter became highly political, didn't pay taxes, and prior to being apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of Russia's largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and remains so up to today).

March 2000

I arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for our usual visit. My first question was, "Lena what do you think about your new president?" She laughed and retorted, "Volodya! I went to school with him!" She began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education). He went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this, because Lena said, "Sharon in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career. My next question was, "What do you think he will do with Yeltsin's criminals in the Kremlin?" Putting on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied, "If left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is watching. If they don't respond, he will address them personally, then if the behaviors don't change - - some will be in prison in a couple of years." I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.

Throughout the 2000s

St.Petersburg's many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked, "So what do you think of your new president?" None responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia's bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, "Putin registered my business a few years ago". Next question, "So, how much did it cost you?" To a person they replied, "Putin didn't charge anything". One said, "We went to Putin's desk because the others providing registrations at the Marienskii were getting 'rich on their seats.'"

Late 2000

Into Putin's first year as Russia's president, US officials seemed to me to be suspect that he would be antithetical to America's interests - - his every move was called into question in American media. I couldn't understand why and was chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.

Year 2001

Jack Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St.Petersburg. The two of them worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous and helpful. When Putin's wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn't accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital. She did - - although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.

A senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media. Matter of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I guessed his comments wouldn't be acceptable if others were listening.

Another former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but respectable behaviors and helpfulness.

I had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:

At the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get answered: "When did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why? Without hesitating the answer came back: "'The knives were drawn' when it was announced that Putin would be the next president." I questioned WHY? The answer: "I could never find out why - - maybe because he was KGB." I offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was, "That would have made no difference, he was our guy."

The second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, "You might be interested to know that I've collected experiences of Putin from numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes". He firmly replied, "No one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin."

From 2001 up to today, I've watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin .... even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler. No one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During this time, I've traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin's watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food. Alcohol challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent country - - certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving incrementally for the first time in their memories.

My 2013/14 Trips to Russia

Modern Russia, thriving
In addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled between cities via autos and rail - - the fields and forests look healthy, small towns sport new paint and construction. Today's Russians look like Americans (we get the same clothing from China). Old concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels and great restaurants are now common place - - and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far from Moscow. We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations looks like those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have appeared. It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia's presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly.

So why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???

Like Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?

Psychologists tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don't want to face in themselves. Others carry our "shadow" when we refuse to own it. We confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in ourselves.

Could this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?

Could it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?

Could it be that we condemn Russia's corruption, acting like the corruption within our corporate world doesn't exist?

Could it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact that we haven't solved our own?

Could it be that we accuse Russia of "reconstituting the USSR" - - because of what we do to remain the world's "hegemon"?

Could it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we have become and we don't want to face it?

Could it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done over the past several administrations?

Some of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro and con .... confidentiality will be assured. It's important to develop a composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight. I'm quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters. This is how our nation gets its "news", such as it is.

There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?

It seems to me that if our nation's leaders would commit to using these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better conditions than they do today.

As always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report to as many friends and colleagues as possible.

Sharon Tennison About the author

Sharon Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American foundations, USAID and Department of State, designing new programs and refining old ones, and evaluating Russian delegates' U.S. experiences for over 20 years. Tennison adapted the Marshall Plan Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production Enhancement Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large programs concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared shortly after the 2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs an orphanage program in Russia, is President and Founder, Center for Citizen Initiatives, a member of Rotary Club of Palo Alto, California, and author of
The Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens' Extraordinary Efforts to Avert International Crises. The author can be contacted at sharon@ccisf.org

Sunday, September 21, 2014

THE MARCH OF TRAITORS the fifth column "Peace March" in Moscow.


Participants of the fifth column "Peace March" in Moscow came upon an unexpected surprise once they reached Pushkin Square. Marchers faced a massive "March of the Traitors" banner courtesy of the art collective "Initiative Group of Moscow students."

Valery Petukhov, one of the members of the art group, commented: "Our campaign poster depicts familiar faces known to all lovers of the junta and frequenters of every march: Andrey Makarevich, Boris Nemtsov, Dmitry Bykov, Tatyana Ulitskaya, Eugenia Chirikova and Lev Ponomarev.
Into each of their heads runs a drainpipe coming directly from Washington DC & the brain icon is crossed out.


This is not surprising. Consciously or not, by blaming Russia for all the problems in Ukraine including the killing of residents in Donbass, this group acts in the interests of the United States.
(US State Department spokesperson Jen) Psaki & Makarevich-Nemtsov are one and the same anti-Russian nonsense."

via Хоакин Флореc (Joaquin Flores)

Saturday, September 20, 2014


HIS FATHER’s SURNAME is “Valtzman,” a Jew, yet Petro Poroshenko uses his mother’s maiden name, “Poroshenko,” reportedly also a Jew. Regardless of Poroshenko’s Jewish background, (or because of it), he is being pushed by all the Jewish-controlled main stream media venues throughout the Jewish-ruled West.
But what the Jew-owned press won’t tell you is that Poroshenko is a proven criminal who will still need Oligarch Jew Igor Kolomoisky:
The coup-regime-appointed Governor of Jew-intensive Dnepropetrovsk in East Ukraine where the violent Right Sector set up their new headquarters; boss of the Ukrainian mafia; his Privatbank “quasi-military forces;” his privately-funded death squads; his bounty-hunters from his allies of ultra-nationalist extremists; his gangs of hired thugs and soccer “ultras”…ALL to cement his rule as Ukraine’s unconstitutional president.
The Kolomoisky-backed Right Sector/Svoboda militants will wield power as dominant members of Poroshenko’s regime or behind the scenes.
They currently are the majority guerillas of Kiev’s newly-formed “National Guard” enjoying access to Ukraine’s military warehouses.
This “National Guard” is murdering civilians and army “deserters” in Eastern Ukraine.
Right Sector thugs holding top posts include:
* Secretary of National Security - Andriy Parubiy, founder of the Svoboda party/commandant of Maidan defense squads.
* Deputy Secretary of National Security - Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector bloc.
* Deputy Prime Minister - Oleksandr Sych, member of Svoboda.
* Prosecutor General - Oleh Makhnitsky, member of Svoboda.
WITH THE GROWING entrenchment of the Right Sector in Kiev’s infrastructure, Poroshenko has little choice but to allow it a major measure of power.
Poroshenko’s underpinning expands from:
White-House-connected President of the United Jewish Community of Ukraine, Igor Kolomoisky, who was behind the Odessa massacre; to Right Sector leader Dmitry Yarosh—with his early alliance with the Ambassador of Israel in Kiev— stretching to former Vinnitsa mayor, Vladimir Groisman, a major funder of the Maidan protests.
Surely, it’s the strangest mix of bedfellows only the Jews (and Jewmerica) could cook up.
The prospect for consensus in Ukraine’s racial and linguistic spheres thus looks grim.
The Right Sector bloc controls Kiev’s press which propagandizes ‘unity’ based on hatred for Russians. This bodes ill for Ukraine’s territorial cohesiveness since much of Eastern Ukraine’s population is made up of Russian-speaking residents.
Chocolate king Poroshenko has another big problem. Ukraine’s economy is in ruins.
What will he do to fix the economy? Will he ask the IMF for another loan? But this will enslave Ukraine to Jewish bankers forever.
How about him signing the EU Association Agreement which he promises to do?
But by doing so, Ukraine will lose its military manufacturing trade with Russia.
Putin recently warned that by signing the EU Association Agreement—which will impede Ukraine’s manufacturing trade—it will sink the last nail into what remains of Ukraine’s dying economy. View Video and Transcript Here.
Putin also promised he will “work” with the next president—now Poroshenko—albeit he’s at odds with his unconstitutional status.
“Where’s the money?” will be first on the list of Things To Do.
That “money” is $3 billion Kiev owes Gazprom.
Looks like Putin is gonna BITE the tummy of Ukraine’s kosher chocolate king.