NOTE: Youtube has implemented a sliding scale of restrictions on certain publishers who are choosing not to subscribe to the US government narrative on Ukraine. Some channels have been blocked completely while others have viewing restrictions. Some of the sources I’ve provided here have viewing restrictions that prevent me from being able to embed the videos within the article. These videos are still viewable on the Youtube channel so I’ve opted to provide re-direct links instead.
Insight is a wonderful thing and it’s hard to see how any conflict can be resolved or avoided unless we’re prepared to ask questions and try to understand why something is happening in the first place. Such a shame then that western political leaders and the mainstream media have opted not to ask questions but to deploy full-on narrative control. Consequently, trust in politicians and journalists is at an all-time low. I’ve personally found it difficult to stomach the narrative used by western political figures and the western media over recent weeks. The fault, in their eyes, lies squarely at Putin’s door – he chose to invade after all – but what led up to that decision to invade, who are all protagonists and what are their motives and goals? I hope this research helps to answer some of these questions.
Ukraine has an interesting ethnic makeup. It’s population is 77.8% Ukrainian, 17.3% Russian and 4.9% others. Ukraine withdrew from the Soviet Union on 24 August 1991. This was followed by a referendum on the Act of Declaration of Ukrainian Independence on 1 December 1991 and 92.3% of voters voted in favour of independence. The country had a presidential election in 2004, however The Supreme Court of Ukraine would later rule that the election had been rigged in favour of the winning candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. The opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, challenged the result but then suddenly fell seriously ill. A number independent physician groups then declared that Yushchenko had been poisoned by TCDD dioxin which then fuelled a strong belief that Yanukovych and his govt were corrupt.
Surprisingly, despite western efforts to remove him, largely led by the US, Yanukovych was popular and was elected to power 3 times – 2004, then again between 2006-2007 (Ukraine then had a snap election in Sept 2007 when Tymoshenko was elected prime minister). Then, following Ukraine‘s 2008–09 financial crisis when the Ukrainian economy plunged by 15% and disputes with Russia resulted in temporary stops on Russian gas supplies to Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was re-elected President for a 3rd time, in 2010, with 48% of the votes. However, there had been allegation of Russian interference in the election and even some vote rigging so the discontent continued but it’s worth noting that the western backed candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, was married to Kateryna Yushchenko, a former US State Dept official who had worked at the White House under Reagan.
In November 2013, Ukrainians started protesting against the Ukrainian government’s decision to suspend the signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement (this is referred to as the Euromaidan period). The Yanukovych govt had opted instead to build closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. Protesters then started calling for Viktor Yanukovych’s resignation.
After protestors were violently dispersed on 30th November their numbers then started to grow and, in February, riot police clashed with protesters and used live and rubber ammunition at multiple locations in Kyiv. Fierce fighting then ensued (referred to as ‘The Revolution of Dignity’). An agreement on settlement of the political crisis was eventually signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition, under the mediation of the European Union and the Russian Federation. Yanukovych and other high government officials then fled the country. The removal of Yanukovych and the over throw of his government is understood to be the trigger that led to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the ongoing war in Donbas between pro-Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists.
Opposition leaders, Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, were subsequently voted into office, although it’s understood that the ‘Orange Revolution’ (the campaign to get them elected, which included demonstrations and civil unrest) was largely funded and assisted by the west . This apparently included the US State Dept, The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (apparently a non-partisan, non-profit American NGO), the International Republican Institute (yet another American nonprofit, nonpartisan organization), the Freedom House (again, another non-profit NGO but largely funded by the U.S. government) and George Soros’s Open Society Institute. Subsequent riots left 98 dead, about fifteen thousand injured and 100 people missing.
Jimmy Dore recently revealed that there had been some leaked audio which showed that Ukraine had been manipulated by Washington because they were determined to have a hand in who would be elected to power – essentially they had been planning to overthrow a democratically elected government. In this audio, the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, told the US Ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt, that the main opposition leader (also favoured by the UN) should be ‘allowed’ to lead the next Ukrainian government and then ended her sentence with the words “fuck the EU.” According to Dore, the US were backing the new coalition, which included an ultra-nationalistic, fascistic, neo-Nazi component. Reuters had published an article on the subject back in March 2018, in which they described “a growing problem behind the front lines: far-right vigilantes who are willing to use intimidation and even violence to advance their agendas, and who often do so with the tacit approval of law enforcement agencies.” The article goes on to explain that “many of the National Militia’s members come from the Azov movement, one of the 30-odd privately-funded ‘volunteer battalions’ that, in the early days of the war, helped the regular army to defend Ukrainian territory against Russia’s separatist proxies.” Azov, they explain, “uses Nazi-era symbolism and recruits neo-Nazis into its ranks.”
Last year, VICE did a documentary about Ukraine being a training ground for the far right. It describes the events in 2013 and explains how the protest movement evolved into a conflict that would become “a magnate for the extremist far right.. creating a training ground for militant nationalists and neo-Nazis” (Azov’s official logo includes Nazi symbolism). Ukraine, they explain, became the “go-to war zone for white nationalists from around the world.” They explain that after Russia annexed Crimea, volunteer battalions, formed from these militant groups, stepped in to assist the Ukrainian forces fighting the Russian-backed separatists. One of the key groups is the Azov battalion, who are extremely nationalistic and racist, had some success in fighting the separatists so the Ukrainian military decided to work with them, which included providing them with arms and equipment. According to the VICE report, this battalion also includes some foreign right-wing extremists, eager to get some “real life combat experience” that they can then use back home. VICE also explains that there are right wingers on both sides of the Ukraine/Russian conflict and that, in fact, there’s more of a dominant presence of them on the Russian side. However, Azov has actually garnered support from the Ukrainian government and they were even incorporated into Ukrain’s National Guard. This meant they were now on the government payroll. This success has effectively projected them into the limelight and transformed Azov into a global white-nationalist movement. Azov has become so widely accepted in Ukrainian society that they even hold annual Nazi music festivals and some have even developed Azov clothing lines that are sold around the world.
Dore makes a number of claims in his programme, including how Clinton had backed Yeltsin’s decision to rig a Russian election to put Vladimir Putin in power and how a 2016 RAND report revealed that the US had been strategizing about a possible war with China. The report apparently recommended that NATO should build up its presence in Eastern Europe in an effort to “take out Russia, or at least prevent it from assisting China.” At least the first step of increased NATO presence across Europe already seems to be well underway.
Speaking to Dore, Max Blumenthal, Journalist and editor of The Grayzone, also offers a theory that the real reason why the US wants a war with Russia/China is because a war would be highly lucrative for US defence contractors, it would create jobs and boost the US economy. This theory holds a lot of water in a world where we’re all living with a pandemic that has set the cost of living skyrocketing and brought many global economies to the very edge. Plus, it’s also a great way for the current US administration to boost their flagging performance in the polls ahead of the mid-term elections this coming November and it’s shocking just how quickly the UK media dropped the Tory’s partygate scandal and suddenly started to paint a picture of strong UK leadership in the face of Russian aggression.
The Canary recently published an article in which they too challenged the current mainstream narrative on the conflict and suggested that neither NATO nor the Russians should be fully believed or trusted… “In NATO, we have an organisation which today functions as a beard for US imperial ambitions. It comes with a bleak history of supporting fascists in Europe and of the kind of brinkmanship which has brought us to where we are today. It’s also played a direct part in the disastrous wars in – to name just two recent examples – Libya and Afghanistan” and it describes the Russians as no less fascistic than NATO. They go on to explain that NATO countries have “helped arm and train actual, real-life fascists in Ukraine” and describe the Russian regime is “grotesquely corrupt.” The media choosing to side with NATO is really just pushing “propaganda,” in their view, because NATO is an occupation force in its own right. Equally, any claim that the Russian invasion has anything to do with “clearing out Nazis from Ukraine” should not to be trusted.
Russia has invaded the Ukraine but surely we should be asking why and why are they doing this now? Recently, I discovered an edited Facebook video of Putin I find it difficult to trust videos that have been edited because I know how it’s all too easy to edit a video in such a way that it completely changes the message or it’s context. That said, in this video, Putin appears to be answering these very questions and makes some strong and valid points. In fact, it does appear to provide some real insight into Putin’s mindset… which is something that the western media has largely chosen to avoid questioning, presumably in an effort to paint Putin as the only aggressive protagonist in this situation. Here’s the transcript of the video in full…
“Under what pretext did they go into Iraq? It was Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction. They went in, destroyed the country, created a hotbed of international terrorism and then it turned out they’d ‘made a mistake’: “the intelligence failed us”… Wow! They destroyed a country. The intelligence failed – that is all they had to say to justify their actions.
Speaking of US policy, it’s clear that the US has the most aggressive and toughest policy to defend their own interests – at least this is how the American leaders see it and they do it persistently. There are basically no Russian troops abroad while US troops are everywhere. There are US military bases everywhere around the world and they are always involved in the fate of other countries, even though they are thousands of kilometres away from US borders. So it is ironic that our US partners accuse ‘us’ of breaching some of these rules.
It is not us moving towards NATO but NATO moving towards us. Therefore, saying that Russia is behaving aggressively is at odds with common sense. Have ‘we’ approached anyone’s border? No, it is NATO’s infrastructure that has come close to us.
I want to reiterate, I have said this before, but I would really like you to hear me this time and convey this message to your readers, viewers and internet users.. Do you realise that Ukraine joins NATO and decide to take Crimea back through military means, that the European countries will automatically get drawn into military conflict with Russia? Of course NATO’s united potential and that of Russia are incomparable.. we understand that.. but we also understand that Russia is one of the worlds leading nuclear powers and is superior to many of those countries in terms of the number of modern nuclear force components. But there will be no winners and you will find yourself drawn into this conflict against your will. You will be fulfilling paragraph 5 of the Treaty of Rome in a heartbeat, even before you know it. Of course the president does not want to see developments unfold in this way.. I do not want it either. That is why he is here and has been tormenting me for 6hrs now with his questions, guarantees and solutions. I believe this is a lofty mission and I am grateful to him for his lofty efforts. For our part, we will do our best to find compromises that suit everyone.
They speak of security guarantees from us but who will guarantee our security?”
‘Ukraine on Fire’ is an Oliver Stone documentary from 2016 that offers a much deeper insight into the events that have led up to the situation we have today. It explains that NATO has expanded into 13 countries bordering Russia and how “Ukraine is a border land where east meets west” and this has made it a prize conquest for many years because it has been seen as “a pathway for western powers as they attempted to conquer the east,” including during both world wars. Stone describes Ukraine as a divided country and explains that the country was even split over which side to support during the Second World War. Some welcomed the Nazis and “openly collaborated with the Germans… whole divisions and battalions were formed by Ukrainian collaborators.” These battalions were known to be extremely cruel towards the Polish, Jewish and Russian people. Their aim.. “to create an ethnically pure, independent Ukraine” and it’s understood that these Ukrainian militia actually “exterminated from 150,000 to 200,000 Jews”
Stone goes on to explain that recently declassified CIA documents show that the US has had it’s eyes on Ukraine since 1946 and certainly throughout the cold war. Apparently, they’ve been “keeping a close eye on Ukrainian nationalist organisations as a possible source of counter-intelligence against the Soviet Union.” After WWII, the CIA would even relocate Ukrainian Nazi leaders to other parts of Europe where they would then help them hide. Ukrainian Nazi leaders, we’re told, were spared the fate of their German counterparts. They did not have to face the Nuremberg trials because they were immediately re-classified as allies against the Soviet Union. Some were even relocated to the United States. Stone would then explain how, over subsequent decades, the CIA were funding foreign media, NGOs and political operations, for example, in “Iran, the Congo, Indonesia. Guatemala, Cuba, Brazil and Chile.” A new organisation called ‘The National Endowment For Democracy’ was then created in 1983, which effectively continued the work of the CIA overseas. It’s role was to advance US interests by supporting favourable political groups, training activists, and working with local journalists and business groups – even assisting to set up new media platforms and news channels and they would frequently clash with the interests of the host or target government. This was regime change in overdrive.
At one point, Stone explains how following the fall of the Berlin wall, a nationalistic political movement took hold in Ukraine – Norodny Rukh – a movement that would become “an incubator for leaders of Ukrainian neo-Nazism.” Shortly after, one of its members, Oleh Tyahnybok, founded Svoboda – an openly radical nationalistic party that wanted to purge Ukraine of it’s Jews and Russians. Other neo-Nazi groups soon took hold. Another neo-Nazi leader, Dmitri Yarosh, founded Trizub (Trident) in 1994. He then became an assistant to a Ukrainian MP from the opposition party Udar. Shortly after, he rose in the ranks to become leader of ‘The Right Sector’, Ukraine’s most radical Nazi Group. Other Nazi leaders and movements started to take hold and Ukrainian streets would frequently see mass torch marches by neo-Nazi groups.
Stone further notes that when Yushchenko’s govt failed and he realised he wouldn’t get re-elected, he took the opportunity to gift his neo-Nazi supporters a decree to fight for Ukrainian independence and then honoured the notorious Ukrainian anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator, Stepan Bandera, the status of “Hero of Ukraine,” along with the “order of state.” The pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, was re-elected in 2010 and immediately annulled Bandera’s ‘Hero of Ukraine’ title. It’s worth noting here that Ukraine and Israel have had some terse exchanges over the issue of Ukraine honouring Nazi collaborators. The Times of Israel reported , back in January 2020, that Israel was effectively told to mind it’s own business. Incidentally, Stone fails to mention that this isn’t the only time Ukrainian officials have honoured Nazis. In March 2021, Ternopil City Council named the largest stadium in the city of Ternopil after Roman Shukhevych as the Roman Shukhevych Ternopil city stadium. In Oct 2007, Yushchenko had also awarded him the title of “Hero of Ukraine”. Shukhhevych was a Ukrainian nationalist and a commanders of the Nachtigall Battalion, a hauptmann of the German Schutzmannschaft 201 auxiliary police battalion. He was a military leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and one of the organizers of the Galicia-Volhynia massacres of approximately 100,000 Poles.
One of the 3 new Ukrainian News Channels that has been assisted by the US was Hrommadske.TV, founded by Mustafa Nayem (the others were SPILNO.tv and ecnpeco.tv). Nayem, effectively kicked off the protests in Maidan Square in November 2013 by rallying support on Twitter. All three channels were literally established in the same month (November 2013) and their objective seemed to be focused on rallying support for the anti-government protests. The protests initially started off fairly peaceful and there were no clashes with the authorities but there was a radical element in the crowd that would soon start to cause trouble. It started, on 24th November, with an attack on a cabinet minister’s office and the police guard that were protecting the building. Further attacks continued over the following days. Then, on November 30th, the Chief of Staff, Serhiy Lyovochkin, who happens to be a close associate of a number of US politicians and Geoffrey Pyatt (the US Ambassador to Ukraine) gave the order to send in the riot police and gave them permission to use extreme force, which included attacking protestors with clubs. Curiously, all the newly established US backed news channels were present, ready and waiting to capture everything on camera. There was also a new, more sinister, element amongst the peaceful protesters. This new group seemed to turn up at the same time as the riot police but then immediately integrated themselves in amongst peaceful protestors. Closer inspection of the news footage from the evening revealed ‘Right Sector’ banners being waved around. Right Sector is an extreme right-wing group. The neo-Nazi groups kept the violence going over a number of days. They came armed with bats and metal bars and even brought in bulldozers to use against the police who were trying to protect government buildings. To boost the protestors even further, a number of senior US senators would visit Ukraine, speak to the protestors and offer their solidarity. This had the purpose of pouring fuel on the fire.
Stone establishes that there is a neo-Conservative element in the US government that is very much dedicated to, and experienced in, the process of regime change. They establish, and work with, allies within the news media and inside the government of a country in order to completely control the narrative and undermine the leadership. Anyone who dares to challenge that narrative is instantly labelled “an apologist”. Stone further describes and gives examples of completely constructed events and even unrelated events that had been co-opted to provide a political flash point to further incite the protesters. He gives the example of Tetiana Chornovol, a failing journalist with political ambition and a penchant for making stories rather than reporting on them, who was beaten up during a road rage incident but somehow the story that the media chose to push was that she’d been attacked by pro-government forces. She then became a heroic figure and started leading protestors in attacks on government buildings – primarily targeting the offices of Viktor Yanukovych. In one such attack, a 65yr old staff member was killed, however Tatiana’s political career benefitted immensely after this.
By February 2014, the militias were now attacking and killing police officers. They had handguns, shotguns, Molotov cocktails and snipers up high and shooting down from the Conservatory building. 67 police officers were captured and marched away by protestors. These officers were later reported missing. 20 other officers were reported killed and 150 others had been shot and wounded. By the end of Feb, the coup was well underway. An attempt was made at political negotiations but the militias weren’t interested in negotiation, they were after regime change and were prepared to kill to achieve their goal. When Yanukovych left to travel to Kharkov (Ukraine’s 2nd largest city), armed forces took over his home and the government and Yanukovych’s motorcade was fired apon by mercenaries. The aim was to kill, not detain, the President. As it happens, Yanukovych wasn’t with the motorcade because he’d chosen to travel by helicopter that day. Yanukovych was forced to flee the country and was given refuge and assistance in Russia.
Following Yanukovych’s removal, the Ukrainian parliament voted for the new speaker of the assembly, Oleksandr Turchynov, to be interim president. He then called for the immediate formation of an interim government. This process did not follow the constitutional process of impeachment but they impeached Yanukovych anyway with the blessing of both the Constitutional and Supreme Courts. For it to be official it needed ¾ of the parliament to vote in favour. This would require 338 votes but they actually only got 328 votes. However, because the US State Dept chose to recognise it as a legitimate government, it went through anyway. Eastern Ukraine took issue with the decision and chose to resist and Crimea, which is pro-Russian, wanted to break away so decided to have a referendum on the subject of independence. Crimean authorities issued a declaration.. “based on the will of the Crimean’s who elected us, we declare that we will not give Crimea to extremists and neo-Nazis, seeking to seize power in Ukraine at the cost of the blood of the country and its citizens.” Days later, pro-Russian protestors seized the government buildings in Crimea. The Crimean govt was dismissed and a new leader, Sergey Aksionkov, was appointed leader of the autonomous republic of Crimea. A referendum was then called on 16th March, the turnout was high (over 90%) and Crimeans voted unanimously (some polls estimated 96.77%) to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. Curiously, the US news media chose to present this as a Russian invasion of Crimea and even constructed footage in an effort to somehow portray that it had been a sham referendum and that the Crimean people had guns at their backs when they voted.
In an interview with Oliver Stone, Putin asks a simple question.. “What is democracy?” he goes on to explain.. “Democracy is a policy based on the will of the people. How can we find out the will of the people? In the modern world we do it by voting. People came and voted – the turnout was over 90% – and over 90% voted in favour of joining Russia. We should respect people’s choices and not manipulate international law and the principles of democracy everytime, according to your geopolitical interests. We didn’t have warfare there, nobody fired a single shot. Nobody killed anybody”
Stone raises another crucial point in his documentary. Crimea has a massive Russian Naval Base – Sevastopol – manned by Russia’s Black Fleet. It’s been there for over 200yrs, it was the main military port of the Russian Empire on the Black Sea and it was heavily involved in fighting during WWII. It’s also of major strategic importance to the Russians. Just as Cuba was strategically important to the US, being within 1134 miles of Washington DC, so Crimea is just 790 miles from Moscow. Crimea under the control of the US (or its allies) or a NATO base located in Crimea is a very serious threat, just has Russian missiles in Cuba were a serious threat to the US. Putin explains… “Why do we react so vehemently to NATO expansion? We are concerned at the decision making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can’t resist the pressure of USA and soon, anything at all can appear in such country – missile defense systems, new bases or, if necessary, missile strike systems. What should we do? We need to take counter measures, meaning we need to aim our rocket systems at the new facilities which we consider to be threatening to us – if we’re attacked, we would certainly respond.” NATO’s plans to expand into 13 countries bordering Russia is therefore understandably seen as a serious threat – potentially tantamount to war maneuvers. Putin suggests that perhaps this desire of the west to label other countries as an external enemy has more to do with their own desire to “establish discipline in their own so-called Western European Bloc.” Iran, he explains, doesn’t really live up to the image that the west have painted, but people can certainly believe in Russia’s military capabilities so it’s far easier to paint Russia as a serious and credible threat.
Former US Democratic Presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, has an interesting take on why the Biden administration might wish to pursue war with Russia. This is an interview she gave a few weeks ago, shortly before Russia took the decision to invade Ukraine. Gabbard can only conclude that “they actually want Russia to invade Ukraine.. because 1) it gives the Biden administration a clear excuse to go and levy draconian sanctions, which are a modern day siege against Russia and the Russian people and 2) it cements this cold war in place and the military industrial complex is the one that benefits from this”
Spring 2014 saw protests in Lugansk and Donestsk in Eastern Ukraine. Protestors refused to recognise the new government in Kiev, who they saw as ultra-right wing and neo-nationalist. In 2012, the Yanukovych government voted to make ‘Russian’ the 2nd official language in the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine, where the majority of people spoke Russian. Ukrainian ultra-nationalists opposed the move and as soon as the new right-wing government came into power they voted to annul the official status of the Russian language. The decision was ultimately vetoed by the acting president but Eastern Ukrainians had already lost trust in the government. Protestors from both sides would occasionally clash and in one particularly nasty exchange in Donetsk on March 13th, one person died and 50 others were wounded. Then, in April 2014, pro-Russian protestors seized government buildings in Donetsk and proclaimed Donetsk a people’s republic. The Kiev government then sent forces into eastern Ukraine under the guise of “an anti-terrorist operation”, however, the international media were still portraying it as a Russian invasion. Certainly Ukraine never claimed they were in a war-like situation, probably because the IMF doesn’t give money to countries engaged in war and the USA had already invested $5billion in Ukraine. So the money kept flowing into Ukraine and the war in Eastern Ukraine kept escalating.
According to Stone, as the world rushed to welcome the new fledgling democracy of Ukraine and largely ignored the escalating war in Eastern Ukraine, a new anti-maidan movement took hold in Odessa. Odessa is strategically located port city in Southern Ukraine. It’s on the Black Sea and it’s Ukraine’s largest port. The Kiev government were getting increasingly concerned about the situation in Odessa, as this had the potential to open up a new front, outside of what was happening in Eastern Ukraine. They took the decision to quash the Odessa rebellion, so, on 2nd May 2014, thousands of so-called football fans descended on Odessa City to watch a Ukrainian championship match, only a large number of these people were actually members of the Maidan self-defense unit and other radical organisations across Ukraine. These so-called fans started a protest in Odessa, shouting nationalist slogans. Masked and armed the protestors then marched to the anti-Maidan tent-encampments, infront of Trade Union house, where they attacked the unarmed anti-Maidan protestors. The anti-Maidan protestors then ran inside the Trade Union house building, immediately behind them, but then became trapped inside. The Maidan protestors then started hurling Molotov cocktails at the building and set it on fire. Anti-Maidan protestors were burnt alive inside the building and as they tried to escape, while others jumped out of windows attempting to escape the flames. Surprisingly, news of people being burned alive was applauded on a popular political talk show and far right groups, such as the ‘Right Sector’ were lauding it as “a proud moment of national history.” Following a 2yr long investigation, which still hasn’t concluded, so-called Ukrainian investigators claimed that there had been “Putin fighters” present who had provoked the innocent Maidan demonstrators by trying to break up the demonstration.
Odessa had a special new governor by 30th May 2015. Mikheil Saakhashvili, had connections in the US that went right to the top and included a number of US presidents. He’d received a US State Department scholarship and worked for a New York law firm. His firm represented ‘Kmara’, an organisation involved in Ukraine’s colour revolutions. Interestingly, Saakhashvili was himself involved in the ‘Revolution of Roses’ and worked with Kmara to overthrow and elected President of Georgia – Eduard Shevarnadze (1995-2003). Not long after the revolution, Georgia suddenly announced its intention to join NATO and that it would have NATO military bases on it’s soil, again, on Russia’s border. This wasn’t exactly a popular move with Georgia’s citizens so they took to the streets in 2007. Saakhashvili sent in armed riot police and told them to use force. Georgians did eventually manage to vote his party out of office but Saakhashvili tried to argue that the new parliamentary majority should consider him a candidate for its presidency. He then fled the country before the elections in October 2013. In 2014 he was summonsed to give evidence in a number of criminal cases but refused to appear in court. He was later accused of misuse of power and embezzlement, however, his friends in Washington had found a new role for him. Saakhashvili was a vocal supporter of Maidan so his contacts in the US managed to get him a cushy job as the first President’s Counselor and then as the Governer of Odessa. To do this he had to renounce his Georgain citizenship (the country of his birth) and become a Ukrainian citizen. Saakhashvili, gets an annual bonus of $200,000 a year from his friends in Washington. This is almost 3 times what the Governor of Maine gets each year. Saakhashvili is also a close personal friend of Viktor Yushchenko, who also happens to be Godfather to his son.
Some of our readers will remember when a Malaysian Airlines Boeing airplane was shot down over Easterm Ukraine. All 298 passengers were killed. There was meant to be a criminal investigation, however little effort has been made to deduce who was really behind it and the media and western governments haven’t bothered to apply any pressure on the authorities to find the answers. Of course this didn’t stop governments from pointing fingers. Obama announced he’d seen evidence that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile fired by Russian backed separatists. Putin declared “the state over who’s territory this took place, bears responsibility for this awful tragedy.” Stone then reminds us that this has happened once before. In Sept 1983, a Korean Airlines flight 007 was shot down by a missile over USSR territory in the Sea of Japan. It was initially suggested that it was shot down by a Soviet interceptor aircraft, although this was never proven and other viable theories have been put forward since, including . NATO decided to flex it’s muscles and launched ‘Able Archer,’ a 10 day command post simulation exercise that would culminate in a nuclear attack. However, immediately after the simulation, they decided to place nuclear missiles in Europe. In response, the Soviets began manoeuvres of their own. In fact, a recently declassified US intelligence report revealed that we were as close to nuclear war as the Cuban missile crisis. Despite the lack of evidence proving that Russian backed separatists had shot down the Malaysian plane, the US still chose to implement new sanctions on Russia. The 15months later, the Dutch Safety Board published their findings. They announced that the Malaysian plane was taken down by a 9M314M warhead that had been detonated outside the airplane, on the left side of the cockpit. However, they were unable to deduce who had been responsible. They did however deduce that the launch site could have been anywhere within a 320 kilometer wide area. A Russian team from Almaz-Antey, the people who produce the Buk missiles, conducted their own investigations and disputed the Dutch findings. They found that it was a different, older, type of missile that took down the plane. The older missiles were not being used by the Russians but were still being used by Ukrainians. They also deduced that it was launched from an area under the control of the Ukrainian military. Surprisingly, there was little pressure or desire to find the truth and it seemed that, once again, the downing of the Malaysian plane had served a purpose for the US – it had, once again, provided them with grounds to sanction Russia.
In conclusion then, while I have the utmost sympathy for the ordinary people of Ukraine, as they find their country dragged into a war they didn’t ask for and have had to endure so much pain and loss, I can’t help but feel that invasions and crippling sanctions are going to become the new norm.. at least so long as we continue to believe the western media narrative and fail rein in and hold the US military industrial complex responsible. Today it’s Ukraine but where to after that? If the arms industry is dictating US foreign policy then, frankly, no one is safe and I, for one, now have Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland’s shocking words burned on my brain… “fuck the EU”
Spotlight is 100% independent. Our content is free for all to read and share and we also prefer to stay advert free. If you appreciate this content then please consider supporting Spotlight by subscribing or making a one off donation. You can take out a monthly subscription for as little as £1 a month or you can make a one-off donation if you prefer.