It was still the same country, same passport. Lenin had put the parts of the Ukraine that are now trying to separate, the east and southern parts, Lenin had added those to Ukraine and I think this was-- these were largely administrative reasons because of how the locations of these territories were.
So, the whole point of the coup that Washington organized in Ukraine-- it used its NGOs that it had financed with five billion dollars over the last ten years, just as Victoria Nuland said in her December speech in Washington, used that to groom politicians who would serve Washington to create organizations, among students and others, always hidden under the guise of teaching democracy or human rights or women's rights or education, but these were all essentially Washington fifth columns that they could put into operation behind a cause.
R.K.: Quickly, you just said these were essentially Washington fifth columns?
PCR: Yeah. That Washington organizes in other countries. They use them in Georgia, when you see the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, they had a revolution but it failed to deliver the country so Washington redoubled its efforts and dumped another five billion dollars over the next ten years into Ukraine and then pulled off the coup against the elected government last fall and stuck in their guy.
They pulled off a similar revolution in Georgia. They tried it in Iran with the Green Revolution. It didn't work. These are-you have to have people on the ground and these are the people recruited by the NGOs with the money. And a lot of the people are sincere and think they're actually fighting for women's rights, or human rights and don't realize how they're being used.
So, when the president in Ukraine turned down the offer to join the EU, Washington put these NGOs in the streets and, of course, once that started the right wing elements took over the protests, introduced violence and the mixture... it may... I don't know if Washington was aware of these right wing elements or was relying on them, I don't know. I have not ever been able to figure that out.
But the result was a democratically elected government that was overthrown by a coup. Now, this is not a good precedent for having democracy because elections were coming up in a few months. When you overthrow a new democracy, and Ukraine had been a democracy for what, twenty years, and it was having its troubles because of the various oligarchs and because of the differences within the Ukrainian population because so much of it is not Ukrainian, it's Russian and even a few Tartars. So when Washington overthrew that government, it created the precedent, well, look, we don't have to change things in the ballot box, we just do it in the streets. So that's a big setback for Ukrainian democracy. I don't know that it will ever recover. It might. But when something like that happens so early in a transition, it's a bad precedent. So that's where that came from.
So what does Washington want to do with Ukraine? Well , mainly they want to bring all kinds of problems to Russia that will distract Russia from Washington's dealings in Syria and Iran. So, if Russia has got troubles in its backyard, a former part of Russia itself-- you know, a lot of these Ukrainians, they're in America. They've got Russian relatives, Russians have Ukrainian relatives. They were part of the same country for centuries.
So, it's a real, terrible situation for Russia because Russians, any Russian, has a right to Russian citizenship and if you've got a whole bunch of former Russian provinces saying we want to rejoin Russia and the Russian government says, no, then the Russian government loses support at home with it's own people-- you're not sticking up for Russians. If Russia says, okay, you can join like they did to the Crimea, then the United States says, oh, they invaded and stole the country, stole Crimea.
They're going to invade and steal the eastern provinces. So, the Russian government is kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't because Washington is using this crisis to bust up the economic relationships between Europeans and Russians. Washington is concerned that the European dependence on Russian energy, which is dramatic-- for example, German industry would be shut down without it and the growing economic relationships between German and French companies with Russia, they're now extensive; that Washington would lose its hold over its NATO puppet states.
So, it's trying to break up those relationships by demonizing Russia, by creating the notion that Russia is a great threat to Europe. We have to build up all the bases along the Eastern European Russian border, sending planes to Poland, troops to the Baltics, conducting war games continually as we're doing right now on Russia's borders.
And this makes it hard for the European leaders to tell Washington, look, we have a lot of interest in dealings with Russia, we don't want to be part of your controversy with Russia. There's too much at risk for us. So, in other words, the demonization of Russia is used to make European leaders accept the American delivery of a major strategic threat to Russia in Ukraine.
R.K.: But that demonization of Russia is not really working very well, is it?
PCR: Well, it is actually. It is and it isn't. The southern and eastern Ukraine, they're in revolt. Several of these territories have already voted in their independence and they've asked Russia to please reunite them with the mother country because that's what they are, they're part of Russia, and Putin hasn't done it. And so inside Russia now he's coming under criticism from the nationalists, the people who are particularly nationalistic, that he's not supporting Russians.
And it's not doing him any good on the propaganda front because Washington keeps lying through its teeth and they keep saying he's got troops on the border and he's supporting the revolts on the border, and it's all Russia's fault, it's Russia's fault. It's all he hears and so by not acting, by not accepting them, he's not avoiding being demonized. He's just as demonized as if he simply said, okay, they're part of Russia again. Now, if the Ukrainian right wing militias keep attacking them, they're attacking Russia and we're going to wipe them out.
So he's losing both ways. He's losing at home because he doesn't support them, and he's losing internationally because the fact that he doesn't support them is kept out of the news by the Washington propaganda that he is the cause of the whole problem. So it is working for Washington. Now, on the other hand, the way it's not working. You have the Europeans, not so much the leaders, who I think are just simply bought off with money, but the business interests in Germany. They're very much opposed to this worsening of relations with Russia because there are six thousand German firms making profits doing business in Russia. There are three hundred thousand German workers whose jobs are directly related to trade with Russia and of course they are desperately dependent on the energy sources from Russia that, at the moment, have to go through Ukraine and can be disrupted by the Ukrainians simply on Washington's orders. So, they're not happy about that.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
