Saturday, May 17, 2014

Conflict in the Ukraine continues

A very disturbing article in the Vancouver Province the other day about the violence in the Ukraine. I still have to find the actual article but in essence it said that the government of Ukraine had boasted of a victory as it attacked two cities in eastern Ukraine. I find such a bold claim to be very disturbing indeed.

The current "government" of Ukraine was the result of a military coup and was not the result of a democratic election. They are the insurgents. For them to launch an "anti terror campaign" in Eastern Ukraine is a act of war. NATO supporting a coup in opposition to a democratically elected president is astounding. Yet we know that was done before in Iran. The west supported a coup in Operation Ajax to gain control of Iran's oil. has a pretty toxic article about the conflict but raises one good point. The unelected coup in western Ukraine is being supported by NATO. It quotes a German newspaper that claims "dozens" of advisors from the FBI and CIA have flooded into Ukraine. Other German dailies are reporting the entry of some 400 U.S. mercenaries with the company formerly known as Blackwater. That is believable and is somewhat concerning. Blackwater are mercenaries and would explain the false flag mission handing out those ridiculous anti Jewish flyers in the East.

The article is written by a socialist and long time trade union activist which is in my opinion an onymoron. Communism has absolutely nothing to do with the worker's revolution. I say the article is toxic because it is dripping with workers revolution rhetoric which as we saw from Lenin ordering the machine guns to open fire on trade unionists that objected to his highjacking of the movement to be very hypocritical indeed.

Fascism is no better and despite the fact that Fascists and Communists hate each other so much, I submit that there is no real difference between the two. Both are dictators that end up in the same spot despite the fact that they arrived at that destination from two different roads. The German papers refers to the "Ukrainian transitional government" in Kiev. Also known as a coup.

The article states that during an official visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama said "We're united in our support for Ukraine," which isn't entirely true. They are supporting the western coup in Ukraine despite the democratic will of the east. My question is what on earth is the German chancellor doing in this? That is totally inappropriate because it brings back past history when Germany invaded the Ukraine. Now we realize that Germany is no longer Fascist but Russia is no longer Communist either. Why turn this into a conflict of two old extremes? The East wants to be part of Russia, the West does not. It really is that simple.

Here is Finian's Peace Plan for the Ukraine: The military coup in the West of Ukraine need to get their sh*t together. They need to hold a democratic election before they do anything. They have absolutely no right to do anything in the East of Ukraine. Likewise now that Eastern Ukraine has held a referendum and declared their independence, they have no business in Western Ukraine. They may defend themselves in Eastern Ukraine against the western coup and their NATO support but they may not invade or attack Kiev or other cities in the West of Ukraine. It really is that simple and we in the West have to stop supporting the CIA who are nothing but a criminal organization and a bigger threat to our own sovereignty than Russian.


  1. "Dozens of advisors from the FBI and CIA have flooded into Ukraine".

    Not really a surprise....But I think there's a difference between the picture being drawn of them "flooding into" Ukraine vs. working in Kiev helping to set up/organize the government in the capital far from the contested areas. There are also advisers/observers from Germany there as well, and a lot closer to the action, which is how they got captured.

    Do I believe there are PMC personnel there? While it wouldn't surprise me to find that they are, doing protective details for high ranking members of the Ukrainian government and such, I also have $100 says they are not there doing combat operations against Russian SF pretending to be "pro-Russian militiamen". Putin denies that any such personnel exist, but then he said that about Georgia in 2008, then later admitted that it had been true.

    PSD (personal security detail) work is a different creature completely, if attacked the goal is to run away as quickly and efficiently as possible, not to hang around and get the person or persons you are protecting killed, the chance of which increases greatly for each second you stay "on the x".

    Can you think of a bigger PR disaster than for former US military working as contractors being proved to be engaging in combat operations against Russian troops with or without unit insignia? I can't, and I just can't see Obama thinking that's a good idea. Does it surprise me that there are people claiming, on the basis of nothing other than crowds chanting it :rolleyes: that it's happening? Not at all. Everyone knows large mobs of people with an agenda always have truth as their first priority, especially in or anywhere near Russia.....the "Chekists" were doing "disinformatzia" ops back when the US still believed that "gentlemen didn't read each others mail".

    In theory the difference between Fascism ("National Socialism") and Communism (Marxist-Leninist Socialism) is that under the former all property belongs to the state while under the latter all property belongs to the proletariat/workers & peasants, etc. but as you correctly observe, in practice they are the same. I highly recommend "Hitler was a Socialist" as a one stop resource for self education on this matter. Especially interesting is a picture of a Russian Army shoulder patch from the early 1920's with a swastika on it. Most of those shoulder patches were destroyed when it became clear that Germany and Russia were becoming enemies
    and it was necessary to paint them as opposites, pretending that they had never had the cozy relationship that they had in the 1920's.

  2. If the CIA is working in Kiev helping to set up/organize the government and that government performs military strikes in Eastern Ukraine then the CIA are aiding and abetting those attacks. The whole concern is what on earth is the CIA doing helping a non elected coup?

    1. "The whole concern is what on earth is the CIA doing helping a non elected coup?" really? my whole concern is the safety and well-being of every ukranian in harms way and you seem more concerned with blaming the cia and nato for their support of the coup, your article appears misguided and biased as you seem to lay the blame at the feet of anyone except russia.

    2. Well let's see. Russia isn't to blame for the coup that took over the Ukrainian government without an election. Russia didn't do that. When you talk about the safety of the people of Ukraine you have to talk about both sides, the east and the west.

      Collectively, the people of the Ukraine voted for a president who was pro Russia. Without eastern Ukraine, the people in the west of Ukraine finally have enough votes to elect a president that is pro EC not pro Russia. They should be happy with that and protect the people in the west from an invasion from the people in the east. They should not be attacking and invading the people in the east without a democratic election.

      Unlike you I am very concerned with democracy and I do care about protecting the safety of the people on both sides. That is why I submit a fair an simple compromise to end the violence. The CIA is however a criminal organization. Their drug trafficking and investment fraud is only part of the problem. Russia wasn't responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty either.

    3. i agree, russia is not to blame!..for the two specific examples you mentioned, however they are to blame for instigating and provoking violence, at least as much as the cia! iam not going to get sucked into debating the merits of the coup, the subsequent russian invasion of crimea or u.s/nato support with you because there wouldn't be a point, you are dogmatic in your views.

    4. As are you. NATO has every right to defend western Ukraine from an invasion by pro Russian forces. If Russia invaded the west of the Ukraine I would enlist myself to oppose them. However, if an unelected coup asks me for my help to invade eastern Ukraine and overturn the democratic will of those people my response is no. I will not support that.

    5. i am not dogmatic, i am opinionated and arrogant but i am open-minded, i will always consider other peoples views and opinions and will change mine accordingly when convinced(which happens frequently). you on the other hand act like your perspective is the only truth there is, hypocrisies and all. i watch whats happening in the ukraine as a neutral observer, you've picked sides. i know every nation directly involved in the crisis shares some blame for provocation and instigation of civil unrest, you know it's all nato/cia's fault. you want to talk about blaming the cia and invasions, i tried to talk about the ukranians suffering in harms way.. and thats ALL ukranians, unlike you i don't see eastern or western ukranians, i just see people.

    6. The people (voters) in the east don't want to be a part of the EU. The people in the west do. It's that simple. Anything other than that is fraud.

    7. the reality is the only real answer that will work is for ukraine to elect a pro-russian government, any other solution will still result in russia using their gas supply to ruin the ukraine economically.

    8. I think the answer is pretty obvious and we've flogged this issue to death.

  3. I guess it comes down to whether you take the view that the pro-Russian PM of Ukraine, (who had ignored a vote in parliament that Ukraine wanted an economic agreement with the EU and was basically in Putin''s pocket) was deposed in a populace based overthrow of the government that was illegal, or whether Ukrainians who have long suffered under Moscow's rule (why do you think all those Ukrainians immigrated to Canada years ago?) rose up and ensured their own freedom in the face of Russian hegemony.

    Whether a country is entitled to defend it's borders appears to be an issue, along with the consideration of a portion of a country voting to secceed being legal or not. Ireland is a different country than England. Ukraine is a different country than Russia. The southern states of the USA were not a different country, but did they have the right to leave the Union if they wanted to? Let's pretend for a moment that slavery didn't exist and wouldn't have been part of it, in that case would Lincoln have been justified in holding the Union together by force?

    A lot more questions than answers at this point I think. I do know i don't trust Putin and the Russians, if they told me the sky was blue I'd look out the window to check. Russia and Russians in general have never been about anything remotely resembling freedom. Someone once observed that a Russian is not happy unless the boot of a tyrant is on his neck, and certainly that is the bulk of their history. Look how many of them parade in the streets to this day with pictures of kindly old Uncle Joe Stalin, who butchered and starved more of his own people before WW2 got started than Hitler did during.

    The CIA helping an unelected coup would actually be an improvement over the past, where they just manufactured the whole thing themselves, right? :D Just kidding....

    At the end of the day I think we might be able to agree there's not much of a tradition of freedom or democracy in that part of the world. I'm concerned that we might again be backing the wrong horse as we have so often (OK, almost always) in the past, but I also wonder if there is even a "right" horse in the race?

    1. It would be wrong for the democratically elected president of the Ukraine to ignore the concerns of the people in the west of Ukraine who didn't want to join with Russia. However, one could rightly argue that the majority of people in the Ukraine elected a pro Russian prime minister therefore having the entire country join with Russia would indeed be democratic since the majority wanted that even if the minority didn't. Creating a split seems to be the most peaceful and most democratic solution possible.

      The west doesn't want to join with Russia but the east does. It really is that simple. The CIA helping to over run the democratic will of the people in the east which is the majority over all is no different from their opposition to the democratic will of the people in Iran during Operation Ajax. It is not good. It is not right. Neither is our supporting it.

    2. I think you're probably right in that we may see a partition of the Ukraine. While it seems to be the only thing to do at the moment that has a chance of toning things down a bit, I think there's ample room to be pessimistic about this. Partition has almost always been a breeding ground for further conflict......and if history is any guide, all that will have been achieved is for the "day of reckoning" to have been put off a bit. Sooner or later someone (and I know who I'm betting on) will start some trouble with the objective of "reunifying the country"......On the other hand, perhaps this will keep Russia tied up a bit closer to home than they might be without it. Not that this will benefit the Ukrainians much.

      One must remember that a lot of the Russian Ukrainians came to the Ukraine during it's occupation by Russia. They're not ethnic Ukrainians. The Russians knew well the value of "settlers" moving into captured territory. Unlike the Baltic republics of Lithuania. Latvia, and Estonia, who made Russian carpetbaggers feel unwelcome enough that most left or were driven out after they regained their country/freedom, the Ukraine did not, and quite frankly the Russians wouldn't have allowed that back in 1990 any more than they have now. The land and the people have intermingled to a degree that makes that difficult, as we are now seeing.

    3. That's another valid concern. Are the Russian residents in the Ukraine planted there during the occupation like the plantation in northern Ireland. However, even if the Protestants in northern Ireland were planted there by England, the fact is they are there and have been for a few generations. We can't really at this point say they don't get a vote and all have to leave. That wouldn't be fair either.

  4. Well, if I understand this correctly, nobody was splitting anything until the democratically elected parliament of Ukraine voted to align economically with the EU. At that point the democratically elected President of Ukraine showed who really held his leash (Putin) and announced that the Ukraine was instead going to go against the will of the people and have closer ties with Russia. F**k the will of the people.That is what started this all, as I understand it. I believe the original democratically elected president is still in hiding or in Russia or something, after the police or whoever started beating/killing protesters, the mob wanted his ass and he GTFO'd.

    So, the question of whether the Ukraine should spit up remains. Is that always the answer? Should the south be allowed to secceed from the Union now if they wanted? Although the freedom to do so was guaranteed to each state at the point when it joined the Union, good luck with that. Should the pockets of Loyalists in Northern Ireland be allowed sovereignity in their area's? We'd be talking about splitting up Ireland even further.....isn't Ireland/Northern Ireland enough of that?

    The best example of what happens when we get crazy with this stuff is the Balkans, where of course allowing all the different folks their own little plot has resulted in that area being one of the most peaceful on the planet....not. None of those people let out a fucking peep under Tito, they started beaking off about their particular brand of nationalism and he got rid of them. Until he died, there was peace in that part of the word.

    At the end of the day I feel the reason to try and maintain Ukraine with the borders it had a year ago is to contain Russian expansion. It's not a secret that many long for the old Soviet Empire, or at least a new version of it. Right. That worked so very well the first time. We might want to check with the Eastern half of Europe about how their lives were under the benevolence of Moscow from 1945-1998.

    The Crimea would seem to be a done deal. The truth is that it WAS part of Russia historically, until Khruschev "gifted" it to the Ukraine (his wife was Ukrainian) in the 1950's as an apology for historic Russian oppression of the Ukraine. (Recall that the Ukrainians greeted the German Army as liberators in 1941. They soon discovered their error.....)

    Quite frankly I'm hard pressed to point to anything Russia ever did to to further peace, freedom, or democracy. It's a "gangster nation". To me, that alone justifies going out of our way to thwart them whenever we can.

    The motives of those doing the thwarting is, as you correctly observe, not as easy to define, and we probably need to keep an eye on them as well, as we should anyone who seeks power. No one seems to be able to resist the temptations inherent to that corrosive substance, not even "the good guys".

  5. If the parliament of Ukraine decided to align with the EC then that would have been a huge concern to the east and the majority of voters who elected a pro Russia Prime Minister. The inherit problem is the fact that the current government wasn't elected it is an interim government that resulted from a coup. Idealistically, everyone in the Ukraine should have an equal vote but since the coup and the declaration of independence from the east, I don't see that as happening.

    Fortunately there was a fair and democratic election in 2010 where Canada helped observe which gives us a clear breakdown of where the majority of voters in each region stand.

    In Ireland the majority of people in the south wanted to be free and independent of England but the majority of people in the north didn’t. The country was then split in two thus the song a Nation Once Again dreaming of the time when Ireland will no longer be a province but be a nation once again.

    In Northern Ireland just over 50% of the people want to be with England while just under 50% don’t. It is very problematic because the breakdown of those voters aren’t divided geographically like they are in the Ukraine. Those voters are scattered across the country. As you say, making the Falls and the Shankle their own countries and each different burrow their own country would be a mess.

    If the south really wanted to secede from the union why stop them? Just like Quebec. If Quebec really wants to leave that bad let them. They take their share of the debt and we stop subsidizing things. They had a vote and just over 50% decided to stay. I remember it well. We sent friendship cards to Quebec saying we hope you vote to stay because we like you and we would be diminished culturally as a nation without you. Yet their vote wasn’t nation wide, it was a vote among Quebecers only. Just like in Eastern Ukraine.

  6. seeing how the parl of uk voted to have ties with the EU and the president didnt...then he killed protesters. and the consp theorists continue about the coupe? no credible news source has confirmed it...only the shady media internet sources that you use.

    1. The head of the Ukrainian coup is not the elected president. In the United States the President has something called a veto. No one in the free world sees that as undemocratic because he is the elected president. People vote for the president in elections. Not so much the MPs or Members of the House of Representatives. There is no way the majority of the voters in the Ukraine wanted to join with the EU because they elected a pro Russian President.

      One blog reader was convinced the shooting of demonstrators was done by Galdio Agents. I'm not convinced but I agree it is a distinct possibility. I'd say it's 50 50 either way. Both side has a history of oppressing the freedom of speech. The bottom line is that Blackwater is evil and we should under no circumstances be supporting them or the CIA's drug trafficking network.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.