dinsdag 20 mei 2014

De Mainstream Pers 217


De voorpagina van de Volkskrant van maandag 19 mei 2014 opende met de kop:

Het is lang niet altijd de schuld van Brussel.

De nrc.next opende op maandag 19 mei 2014 over de gehele breedte van de voorpagina met de kop:

Hallo Brussel, hoor je mij? 

Donderdag kunnen we stemmen voor het Europees Parlement. Is Brussel een onneembare bastion? Nee hoor, als burger kun je elke dag invloed hebben.

'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel, geen Brussel zonder Jorwert'
Geert Mak. Abel Herzberg-lezing. 22 september 2013

De propaganda van de 'vrije pers' is al geruime tijd goed op stoom gekomen. De gevestigde orde moet worden verdedigd en de spreekbuizen van de neoliberale elite schuwen geen enkele leugen om de belangen van de economische en politieke macht te beschermen. Wat de propagandisten verzuimen te vermelden is dat de EU tevens de Europese Unie van de NAVO is, onder aanvoering van de macht in Washington en op Wall street. Vandaar dat Geert Mak op bevrijdingsdag, 5 mei 2014, op de Nederlandse televisie meedeelde dat 'Europa' wordt bedreigd door 'meneer Poetin' en dat die 'meneer' het Europa van de NAVO 'dwingt om meer aan defensie uit te geven,' waarmee  'De Chroniqueur van Europa' de onjuiste bewering van de interviewer bevestigde dat 'De meeste Europese landen véél te weinig [besteden] aan hun defensie-uitgaven.' 

Aangezien ook dit een leugen is, in het leven geholpen door het westers militair-industrieel complex, wordt het interessant te weten waarover de Makkianen nog meer onjuistheden verspreiden, maar vooral ook wat ze allemaal verzwijgen. Onder andere het volgende feit:



Enhanced capabilities and bigger defence budget required
By Nigel Chamberlain, NATO Watch

Opening remarks by Secretary General Rasmussen at his monthly press conference on 19 May 2014

Over the past few weeks I have visited many of our Allies in Central and Eastern Europe which are marking significant anniversaries of their accession to NATO. Russia's aggression against Ukraine has posed a challenge to a fundamental principle: the right of sovereign states to choose their own path. On 25 May Ukraine will hold presidential elections, an important opportunity to find a peaceful way forward for a united Ukraine. The new security situation in Europe is less predictable and more dangerous and this has implications for NATO, so forward land, sea and air deployments have been reinforced.

Right now, around 6,000 troops from across NATO are taking part in exercise Steadfast Javelin in Estonia. This is a significant exercise, aiming to test our ability to repel an attack against an Ally. It includes infantry, fighter jets and also a cyber security team. In early June, NATO defence ministers will meet in Brussels to pave the way for our Wales Summit in September. We will discuss further steps to reinforce our collective defence.

And we are considering how we can build on our Connected Forces Initiative to make our exercises more frequent and more demanding. To maintain credible defence and deterrence, we need credible capabilities which will cost money. We are seeing encouraging efforts to start reversing the trend in declining defence budgets, and we see greater multinational cooperation.

There follows an edited version of the Q & A session:

Q1. Peter Spiegel, The Financial Times: We've heard President Putin again today declare that he wants forces that have been arrayed along the Ukrainian border to return to base. NATO and the US have previously provided satellite imagery and other intelligence to show this hasn't happened. Do you have any evidence today that this has happened yet? And should we still believe Vladimir Putin when he makes these declarations? The Ukrainians have repeatedly requested military assistance in the form of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry. Do you have a view as to whether it's advisable for NATO members to provide that assistance?

A1. Secretary General: We haven't seen any evidence at all that the Russians have started withdrawal of troops from the Ukrainian borders. I strongly regret that because a withdrawal of Russian troops would be a first important contribution to de-escalating the crisis. It is for individual Allies to decide whether they will deliver military equipment to any country. I don't think nations need recommendations from my side in that respect.

Q2. Wall Street Journal: I was wondering if there's any sort of consideration being given to the shipping of ground (inaudible)… permanent basing for temporary deployment aside from exercises. Is there any movement or thought in that direction?

A2. Secretary General: These are indeed questions that are under consideration for the time being. I think the NATO summit in Wales should adopt a readiness action plan to take account of the dramatically changed security situation in Europe, including updating of existing defence plans, development of new defence plans, enhanced exercises and also appropriate deployment.

Q3. NPR/CBS: Have you reached out to the Russians at all? Have you tried to make any contact with Russian officials? And what do you think, at this point, the prospects are for any kind of resumption of cooperation within the NRC? There are some, including the Deputy Secretary General, who said maybe lessons should be drawn from having gone back to business as usual after Georgia a little bit too soon.

A3. Secretary General: We have taken a two-track decision. On the one hand, we have suspended all practical cooperation with Russia. On the other hand, we have also decided to keep open the channel for political and diplomatic dialogue within the NATO-Russia Council. We had a meeting in the NATO-Russia Council on the 5th of March, after the crisis started. And we have suggested another meeting next week. But so far we haven't heard from the Russians. So we are open to a political dialogue.

Q4. Georgian Public Broadcaster: Two days ago I read in the Romanian press your interview which states that you have no doubt that Russia will increase pressure on Moldova as well as possibly on Georgia. The signing of this association agreement is coming. This topic is crucial for us. Can you specify for us what do you mean? The Georgian Defence Minister has asked NATO to install air defences and other military systems in Georgia. You said in Bratislava that it would be a matter of negotiation with individual countries. But still, what is your position about it?

A4. Secretary General: We have seen Russia put a lot of pressure on countries in their near neighbourhood as they are approaching the EU for progress on the association agreement. I expect that we will see the same as Moldova and Georgia are going to finalize these agreements with the EU. NATO works with Georgia within the NATO-Georgia Commission on practical, military-to-military cooperation. When it comes to more concrete delivery or establishment of military capabilities, it is for individual Allies to make those decisions and engage with Georgia.

Q5. Nawab Khan (ph) from the Kuwait News Agency: The situation in Libya has been deteriorating in the last few days. So is NATO going to offer any kind of cooperation to the Libyan authorities to restore calm and security? There are going to be elections in Syria next month. So do you think these elections will contribute to solving the crisis or make it more complicated?

A5. Secretary General: Last year we received a request from the Libyan authorities for NATO assistance to help develop their security sector. We responded positively. Unfortunately, we have had some difficulties in engaging with the Libyan authorities, also because of instability and lack of security. But once the Libyan authorities are ready to engage with us in a way that also ensures a safe environment for our assistance, we are ready to assist Libya to develop their security sector. Provided that elections in Syria are free, fair, transparent, and produce an outcome that is considered a true reflection of the will of the Syrian people, I think they could contribute to a political solution.

Q6. Udor Rawicky (ph) from Real (ph) Northwest News Agency: Don't you think that the ongoing security operation in the eastern Ukraine can disturb the whole presidential elections? And don't you call the Ukraine government to show restraint?

A6. Secretary General: Of course the lack of stability in the east is a matter of concern. And obviously there is a clear relationship that instability in the eastern regions will make it difficult to conduct elections in that part of the country in an orderly manner. And that's exactly why we urge the armed pro-Russian separatist groups to stop their illegal activities and allow presidential elections to go forward in an orderly manner. I also think Russia could play a much more constructive role, living up to their Geneva commitments, and stop their support for these armed groups.

Q7. Anna Sweetska (ph), (inaudible): You have mentioned that you have visited some central and eastern European countries recently. We can see a divergence of views on the level of the Russian threat within NATO and the EU. How they see the threat? And do you think this makes united and decisive action by NATO more difficult?

A7. Secretary General: So far, you have seen a clear demonstration of unity within our Alliance when it comes to a number of immediate steps we have taken to reinforce collective defences. We move in a unified manner. Concerns expressed by eastern European Allies are definitely not exaggerated and must be taken seriously.

Q8. Nicolas Gros-Verhyde, Bruxelles2 and Ouest-France: Will you go to the Beach of Normandy on 6 June for the anniversary of the Second War? And do you have some intention of meeting Vladimir Putin? Do you think your future after the General Secretary for NATO is at European Union?

A8. Secretary General: No, it's not foreseen that I will go to participate in the Normandy commemoration which, in my opinion, is not NATO business. I haven't started reflections or planning my future for the very reason that I'm very much focused on my tasks at hand, the NATO Summit in September and of course the ongoing Ukraine crisis.

Q9. Adrian Croft, Reuters: NATO officials have been involved in a number of talks with the Ukrainians about energy safety and security. Could you tell us what role you envisage for NATO in helping Ukraine with energy security? Spiegel reported yesterday that you said that NATO military planners said it would be difficult to defend the Baltics by conventional means. Are you reconsidering your 1997 commitment not to place nuclear weapons on the territory of new member states?

A9. Secretary General: We have sent a small team of civilian experts to assist the Ukrainians in improving security of their civilian nuclear plants. On the Baltic states, rest assured that we have all plans in place to ensure effective defence and protection of all Allies against any threat, and we have all the means to do it. We have to adapt accordingly to review our defence plans, enhance our exercises, and also consider appropriate deployment. I do not foresee any NATO request to change the content of the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

Q10. Ito, Japanese Daily (inaudible): The German Chancellor Ms. Merkel said something negative to increase defence budget because this problem cannot be solved by military. It's a little bit contradictory to your appeal. What do you think about it?

A10. Secretary General: I don't think we have a disagreement because I agree that there is no military solution to the crisis in Ukraine. We are all for a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine. When I speak about the need for increased defence investments, I'm more speaking about the broader, long-term, strategic perspectives. My point is that the trend of reducing defence budgets must be reversed. European Allies must invest more in defence.

Q11. Juen Navata (ph), Global News Japanese News Agency: Recently there is a strong tension concerning the South China Sea among Vietnam, Philippines, China. What do you see in this situation?

A11. Secretary General: The situation in East Asia is a matter of concern. And we urge all nations in the region to seek peaceful solutions to disputes, and live up to their international commitments. I think China has a particular responsibility as a major power, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.    


Met andere woorden: onder leiding van Washington en Wall Street bereidt de NAVO van Geert Mak's 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' zich ook voor op een mogelijke oorlog met China over de vitale grondstoffen in het gebied van de Zuid Chinese Zee. De NAVO-leden zijn daartoe verplicht, want ze dienen in actie te komen zodra één van de bondgenoten in een gewapend conflict met een niet NAVO-lid betrokken raakt. En aangezien de Amerikaanse hegemonie voorschrijft dat alleen de VS kan bepalen wat in de wereld gebeurt, hebben de eerste schermutselingen met China al plaats gevonden. Op de voorpagina van de International Herald Tribune van vrijdag 1 juni 2012 berichtte de krant onder de kop 'U.S.-China tensions grow at sea' dat 'Naval test of strength revolves around control of potential of energy source.' Na de context duidelijk te hebben gemaakt, namelijk energiebronnen, vervolgde de Herald Tribune:

Superficially, a recent squabble in the South China Sea was over rare corals, clams and sharks that Philippine Navy seamen were trying to seize from a half-dozen Chinese fishing boats -- until two Chinese Marine craft intervened. After tense hours in the tropical waters of the Scarborough Shoal, the Philippine Navy Ship -- a refitted U.S. Coast Guard cutter -- withdrew. But the real stakes were far larger, as the insistent claims of sovereignity over the shoal by the Philippine and Chinese governments since the standoff in April have made clear. The clash intensified longstanding disputes over the strategic and potentially energy-rich area that have become more urgent as the United States and China expand their naval power in the region. 'We're just pawns,' said Roberto Romulo, a former Philippine foreign secretary who argues that China is flexing its muscles to gain unimpeded access to vast reserves of natural gas and oil believed to be buried under the South China Sea. 'China is testing the United States, that's all it is. And China is eating America's lunch in Southeast Asia.' A senior Chinese military officer dismissed any legitimate role for the United States in the South China Sea.
Zie: http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.nl/2012/12/deskundigen-50.html

Het mag duidelijk zijn dat de Europese burgers van 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' hier niet of nauwelijks van op de hoogte zijn, laat staan dat ze een oordeel hierover kunnen uitspreken. Oorlog of vrede wordt bepaald door de machtige elite, ook in een neoliberale 'democratie.' De propaganda op de voorpagina van de westerse kranten mag dan wel claimen dat de EU-'burger elke dag invloed' kan uitoefenen, maar niet zodra het om de belangen van de elite gaat. 


De commerciële massamedia zijn zo gecorrumpeerd geraakt dat ze voor een deel zelfs niet eens meer weten dat ze corrupt zijn. Ik bedoel dit: Geert Mak weet maar al te goed dat hij de kluit belazerd. En ik begrijp dat ook, als nakomertje heeft hij vanaf kindsbeen af zich moeten manifesteren om tegenover zijn veel oudere broers en zusters gehoord te worden. Hij bezit een overmatige geldingsdrift, en die pathologie is ongeneeslijk. Inmiddels weet hij dat zijn boeken over Europa en de VS nu al gedateerd zijn, en dus moet hij alles op alles te zetten om toch maar weer gehoord te worden. Hij kan niet anders dan roepen dat het dorp Jorwert, dat hem beroemd maakte, niet kan voortbestaan zonder het neoliberale Brussel. Naast zijn verslaving aan aandacht, speelt bij hem nog een element. Mak weet dat zijn roem na zijn dood als sneeuw voor de zon zal verdwijnen omdat dan duidelijk wordt hoe erg hij de plank heeft misgeslagen. En dus wil hij op dit moment gehoord worden, nu het nog kan. Het weerzinwekkende is alleen dat Geert Mak, die  geen eigen kinderen heeft, de kinderen en kleinkinderen van anderen opzadelt met een desastreuze toekomst. Hoe dan ook, dit fenomeen is nog te begrijpen, moeilijker wordt het om te doorgronden waarom de eerste de beste letterknecht van de mainstream-pers zoveel leugens kan verspreiden. Het lijkt erop alsof ze, net als Geert Mak, geen waardigheid bezitten, en zelfs geen zelfrespect. Maar waarom niet? Aan welke psychische stoornis lijden zij? Hoe erg het allemaal is laten de makers van de Amerikaanse documentaire Shadows of Liberty (2012) zien. Als motto van hun film hebben ze de uitspraak van de Britse revolutionaire vrijdenker Thomas Paine genomen:

When men yield up the exclusive privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon. 

Het is precies dat waar wij nu getuige van zijn: een meedogenloze economische macht gesteund door corrupte politici en een al even corrupte mainstream-pers. Shadows of Liberty belicht 

stories you will not be told on radio, in newspapers or on television: a clash between two worlds. Big media corporations spinning public perception for profit versus the defenders of truth who stand for liberty and democracy.

De Amerikaanse journaliste Amy Goodman van Democracy Now! wijst op de paradox dat

in this country, the most powerful country on earth, it is actually so difficult to get information, especially outside our borders, not to mention what is going on inside this country.
Public information, the news we rely on to learn about what is happening in the world, to learn about one another is basically in the hands of commercial enterprises.

Giant media corporations, Time Warner, Disney and so forth, get to decide what is news, what is newsworthy and what is not newsworthy.

You have a commercial driven journalism that has no interest in poor people. They are basically written out of the picture altogether. And we have a system that tells us what people in power are interested in and what they want to talk about.

De journalist Julien Assange, oprichter van WikiLeaks, merkt terecht op: What the press is pushing is distortion, lies… 

De Amerikaanse journalist en media-criticus Norman Solomon:

We are in a profound crisis of democracy. You can't choke off discourse and have a free society.


De informatie die u aantreft op mijn weblog aangaande de westerse journalistiek kan en mag niet in de mainstream-media gegeven worden. De Nederlandse massamedia volgen de Amerikaanse. Zij zijn de norm. Waarover zij niet berichten, bericht ook de polderpers niet. Zo wordt bewust vitale informatie geweerd. De censuur en zelfcensuur werkt in een neoliberale 'democratie' even doeltreffend als in een dictatuur, door het feit dat de media in bezit zijn van een handvol grote concerns, die het als handelswaar zien. Zo wordt de NRC nu opnieuw verkocht, omdat mede-eigenaar, SP-multimiljonair Derk Sauer, er winst mee hoopt te maken.  

John Nichols, auteur en journalist van The Nation Magazine: This country was founded on the idea that when you gave citizens the information they needed, they could govern themselves.

Shadows of Liberty: The founders of the U.S. gave citizens the fundamental right to a free press.

De Amerikaanse hoogleraar en journalist Robert McChesney: One of the primary reasons for the freedom of press was that it was the only way that people outside of power could keep the government from becoming an empire. Stop militarization, stop the corruption, the secrecy, the cronyism. That was the function of the free press.

Amy Goodman: There is a reason why our profession, journalism, is the only profession explicitly protected by the Constitution, because we are supposed to be holding those in power accountable, asking the critical questions… It is simply information that is  power. It's information that frees us, because when people get information they can then decide what to do.

Janine Jackson, 'Program Director of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), and the co-host and co-producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin --a weekly program of media criticism airing on more than 150 stations around the country':

Media  is the conversation we have as a society. It is the way we learn about the world. It is the way we learn about one another. We see the range of public debate constrained because there may be many things that citizens of  democratic societies need to know about that private corporations may not be interested in telling them.

A recent study found that anywhere between 40 and 70 percent of what is considered news is an idea that came out of a PR-department. The media should have a social responsibility. Unfortunately that does not happen in the current context.
President Ronald Reagan: Government is not the solution to our problem, government ís the problem.
John Nichols: Ronald Reagan believed the answer to any concern, any question as regards how to create a good media-system was to get government oud of the way.


Ronald Reagan op 29 maart 1985 tegenover de 'Ronny, Ronny' schreeuwende speculanten op de beurs van Wall Street: Driving the Bears back into permanent hibernation we are going to turn the Bull loose.

Deepa Kumar: Their whole model was the idea that if you remove all controls and regulations, and allow the free market rip, then everything would be fine, everything would be wonderful. In reality what it does is to allow a handful of giant corporations to come in and gobble up everything, and these conglomerates don't see journalism as actually vein central and essential to the functioning of democracy. Their mains interest is making profit.

David Simon. Auteur en journalist, Creator of 'The Wire': Capitalism is not the best judge of what is good for society.

Norman Solomon. Journalist en Founder of 'Institute for Public Accuracy' over de mainstream-journalistiek: The current mission is to sell things, to delude and to deceive, to do damage control when unpleasant stories come up.

Binnen deze context opereren de Makkianen. Zonder enige norm en waarde zijn ze bereid en in staat om de grofste leugens te verkopen om er zelf beter van te worden. Op het moment dat ze worden betrapt kunnen ze niets anders dan zwijgen. Vandaar dat geen één van de journalisten die ik sinds 2005 bekritiseer durft te reageren. Lafheid is misschien wel hun voornaamste karaktereigenschap. Volgende keer meer. 


Well we know what they want. They want more for themselves, and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want - they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that - that doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people that are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table, and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don't want they. You know what they want? Obedient workers - Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines, and do that paper work. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and vanishing pension that disappear the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your social security money. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They'll get it - they'll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You, and I are not in The Big Club.
George Carlin.





The Ukraine in Turmoil 
By Israel Shamir

May 20 2014 "ICH" - It is not much fun to be in Kiev these days. The revolutionary excitement is over, and hopes for new faces, the end of corruption and economic improvement have withered. The Maidan street revolt and the subsequent coup just reshuffled the same marked deck of cards, forever rotating in power.
The new acting President has been an acting prime minister, and a KGB (called “SBU” in Ukrainian) supremo. The new acting prime minister has been a foreign minister. The oligarch most likely to be “elected” President in a few days has been a foreign minister, the head of the state bank, and personal treasurer of two coups, in 2004 (installing Yushchenko) and in 2014 (installing himself). His main competitor, Mme Timoshenko, served as a prime minister for years, until electoral defeat in 2010.

These people had brought Ukraine to its present abject state. In 1991, the Ukraine was richer than Russia, today it is three times poorer because of these people’s mismanagement and theft. Now they plan an old trick: to take loans in Ukraine’s name, pocket the cash and leave the country indebted. They sell state assets to Western companies and ask for NATO to come in and protect the investment.

They play a hard game, brass knuckles and all. The Black Guard, a new SS-like armed force of the neo-nazi Right Sector, prowls the land. They arrest or kill dissidents, activists, journalists. Hundreds of American soldiers, belonging to the “private” company Academi (formerly Blackwater) are spread out in Novorossia, the pro-Russian provinces in the East and South-East. IMF–dictated reforms slashed pensions by half and doubled the housing rents. In the market, US Army rations took the place of local food.

The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists, apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.

The harshest repressions were unleashed on industrial Novorossia, as its working class loathes the whole lot of oligarchs and ultra-nationalists. After the blazing inferno of Odessa and a wanton shooting on the streets of Melitopol the two rebellious provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms and declared their independence from the Kiev regime. They came under fire, but did not surrender. The other six Russian-speaking industrial provinces of Novorossia were quickly cowed. Dnepropetrovsk and Odessa were terrorised by personal army of Mr Kolomoysky; Kharkov was misled by its tricky governor. Russia did not interfere and did not support the rebellion, to the great distress of Russian nationalists in Ukraine and Russia who mutter about “betrayal”. So much for the warlike rhetoric of McCain and Brzezinski.

Putin’s respect for others’ sovereignty is exasperating. I understand this sounds like a joke, — you hear so much about Putin as a “new Hitler”. As a matter of fact, Putin had legal training before joining the Secret Service. He is a stickler for international law. His Russia has interfered with other states much less than France or England, let alone the US. I asked his senior adviser, Mr Alexei Pushkov, why Russia did not try to influence Ukrainian minds while Kiev buzzed with American and European officials. “We think it is wrong to interfere”, he replied like a good Sunday schoolboy. It is rather likely Putin’s advisors misjudged public sentiment. « The majority of Novorossia’s population does not like the new Kiev regime, but being politically passive and conservative, will submit to its rule”, they estimated. “The rebels are a small bunch of firebrands without mass support, and they can’t be relied upon”, was their view. Accordingly, Putin advised the rebels to postpone the referendum indefinitely, a polite way of saying “drop it”.

They disregarded his request with considerable sang froid and convincingly voted en masse for secession from a collapsing Ukraine. The turnout was much higher than expected, the support for the move near total. As I was told by a Kremlin insider, this development was not foreseen by Putin’s advisers.

Perhaps the advisors had read it right, but three developments had changed the voters’ minds and had sent this placid people to the barricades and the voting booths:

1. The first one was the fiery holocaust of Odessa, where the peaceful and carelessly unarmed demonstrating workers were suddenly attacked by regime’s thugs (the Ukrainian equivalent of Mubarak’s shabab) and corralled into the Trade Unions Headquarters. The building was set on fire, and the far-right pro-regime Black Guard positioned snipers to efficiently pick off would-be escapees. Some fifty, mainly elderly, Russian-speaking workers were burned alive or shot as they rushed for the windows and the doors. This dreadful event was turned into an occasion of merriment and joy by Ukrainian nationalists who referred to their slain compatriots as “fried beetles”. (It is being said that this auto-da-fé was organised by the shock troops of Jewish oligarch and strongman Kolomoysky, who coveted the port of Odessa. Despite his cuddly bear appearance, he is pugnacious and violent person, who offered ten thousand dollars for a captive Russian, dead or alive, and proposed a cool million dollars for the head of Mr Tsarev, a Member of Parliament from Donetsk.)

2. The second was the Mariupol attack on May 9, 2014. This day is commemorated as V-day in Russia and Ukraine (while the West celebrates it on May 8). The Kiev regime forbade all V-day celebrations. In Mariupol, the Black Guard attacked the peaceful and weaponless town, burning down the police headquarters and killing local policemen who had refused to suppress the festive march. Afterwards, Black Guard thugs unleashed armoured vehicles on the streets, killing citizens and destroying property.

The West did not voice any protest; Nuland and Merkel weren’t horrified by this mass murder, as they were by Yanukovich’s timid attempts to control crowds. The people of these two provinces felt abandoned; they understood that nobody was going to protect and save them but themselves, and went off to vote.

3. The third development was, bizarrely, the Eurovision jury choice of Austrian transvestite Conchita Wurst for a winner of its song contest. The sound-minded Novorossians decided they want no part of such a Europe.

Actually, the people of Europe do not want it either: it transpired that the majority of British viewers preferred a Polish duo, Donatan & Cleo, with its We Are Slavic. Donatan is half Russian, and has courted controversy in the past extolling the virtues of pan-Slavism and the achievements of the Red Army, says the Independent. The politically correct judges of the jury preferred to “celebrate tolerance”, the dominant paradigm imposed upon Europe. This is the second transvestite to win this very political contest; the first one was Israeli singer Dana International. Such obsession with re-gendering did not go down well with Russians and/or Ukrainians.

The Russians have readjusted their sights, but they do not intend to bring their troops into the two rebel republics, unless dramatic developments should force them. 

Russian plans

Imagine: you are dressed up for a night on Broadway, but your neighbours are involved in a vicious quarrel, and you have to gun up and deal with the trouble instead of enjoying a show, and a dinner, and perhaps a date. This was Putin’s position regarding the Ukrainian turmoil.
A few months ago, Russia had made a huge effort to become, and to be seen as, a very civilised European state of the first magnitude. This was the message of the Sochi Olympic games: to re-brand, even re-invent Russia, just as Peter the Great once had, as part of the First World; an amazing country of strong European tradition, of Leo Tolstoy and Malevich, of Tchaikovsky and Diaghilev, the land of arts, of daring social reform, of technical achievements, of modernity and beyond — the Russia of Natasha Rostova riding a Sikorsky ‘copter. Putin spent $60 b to broadcast this image.
The old fox Henry Kissinger wisely said:
Putin spent $60 billion on the Olympics. They had opening and closing ceremonies, trying to show Russia as a normal progressive state. So it isn’t possible that he, three days later, would voluntarily start an assault on Ukraine. There is no doubt that… at all times he wanted Ukraine in a subordinate position. And at all times, every senior Russian that I’ve ever met, including dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Brodsky, looked at Ukraine as part of the Russian heritage. But I don’t think he had planned to bring it to a head now.
However, Washington hawks decided to do whatever it takes to keep Russia out in the cold. They were afraid of this image of “a normal progressive state” as such Russia would render NATO irrelevant and undermine European dependence on the US. They were adamant about retaining their hegemony, shattered as it was by the Syrian confrontation. They attacked Russian positions in the Ukraine and arranged a violent coup, installing a viciously anti-Russian regime supported by football fans and neo-Nazis, paid for by Jewish oligarchs and American taxpayers. The victors banned the Russian language and prepared to void treaties with Russia regarding its Crimean naval base at Sebastopol on the Black Sea. This base was to become a great new NATO base, controlling the Black Sea and threatening Russia.

Putin had to deal quickly and so he did, by accepting the Crimean people’s request to join Russian Federation. This dealt with the immediate problem of the base, but the problem of Ukraine remained.

The Ukraine is not a foreign entity to Russians, it is the western half of Russia. It was artificially separated from the rest in 1991, at the collapse of the USSR. The people of the two parts are interconnected by family, culture and blood ties; their economies are intricately connected. While a separate viable Ukrainian state is a possibility, an “independent” Ukrainian state hostile to Russia is not viable and can’t be tolerated by any Russian ruler. And this for military as well as for cultural reasons: if Hitler had begun the war against Russia from its present border, he would have taken Stalingrad in two days and would have destroyed Russia in a week.

A more pro-active Russian ruler would have sent troops to Kiev a long time ago. Thus did Czar Alexis when the Poles, Cossacks and Tatars argued for it in 17th century. So also did Czar Peter the Great, when the Swedes occupied it in the 18th century. So did Lenin, when the Germans set up the Protectorate of Ukraine (he called its establishment “the obscene peace”). So did Stalin, when the Germans occupied the Ukraine in 1941.

Putin still hopes to settle the problem by peaceful means, relying upon the popular support of the Ukrainian people. Actually, before the Crimean takeover, the majority of Ukrainians (and near all Novorossians) overwhelmingly supported some sort of union with Russia. Otherwise, the Kiev coup would not have been necessary. The forced Crimean takeover seriously undermined Russian appeal. The people of Ukraine did not like it. This was foreseen by the Kremlin, but they had to accept Crimea for a few reasons. Firstly, a loss of Sevastopol naval base to NATO was a too horrible of an alternative to contemplate. Secondly, the Russian people would not understand if Putin were to refuse the suit of the Crimeans.

The Washington hawks still hope to force Putin to intervene militarily, as it would give them the opportunity to isolate Russia, turn it into a monster pariah state, beef up defence spending and set Europe and Russia against each other. They do not care about Ukraine and Ukrainians, but use them as pretext to attain geopolitical goals.

The Europeans would like to fleece Ukraine; to import its men as “illegal” workers and its women as prostitutes, to strip assets, to colonise. They did it with Moldova, a little sister of Ukraine, the most miserable ex-Soviet Republic. As for Russia, the EU would not mind taking it down a notch, so they would not act so grandly. But the EU is not fervent about it. Hence, the difference in attitudes.

Putin would prefer to continue with his modernisation of Russia. The country needs it badly. The infrastructure lags twenty or thirty years behind the West. Tired by this backwardness, young Russians often prefer to move to the West, and this brain drain causes much damage to Russia while enriching the West. Even Google is a result of this brain drain, for Sergey Brin is a Russian immigrant as well. So are hundreds of thousands of Russian scientists and artists manning every Western lab, theatre and orchestra. Political liberalisation is not enough: the young people want good roads, good schools and a quality of life comparable to the West. This is what Putin intends to deliver.

He is doing a fine job of it. Moscow now has free bikes and Wi-Fi in the parks like every Western European city. Trains have been upgraded. Hundreds of thousands of apartments are being built, even more than during the Soviet era. Salaries and pensions have increased seven-to-tenfold in the past decade. Russia is still shabby, but it is on the right track. Putin wants to continue this modernisation.

As for the Ukraine and other ex-Soviet states, Putin would prefer they retain their independence, be friendly and work at a leisurely pace towards integration a la the European Union. He does not dream of a new empire. He would reject such a proposal, as it would delay his modernisation plans.

If the beastly neocons would not have forced his hand by expelling the legitimate president of Ukraine and installing their puppets, the world might have enjoyed a long spell of peace. But then the western military alliance under the US leadership would fall into abeyance, US military industries would lose out, and US hegemony would evaporate. Peace is not good for the US military and hegemony-creating media machine. So dreams of peace in our lifetime are likely to remain just dreams.

What will Putin do?

Putin will try to avoid sending in troops as long as possible. He will have to protect the two splinter provinces, but this can be done with remote support, the way the US supports the rebels in Syria, without ‘boots on the ground’. Unless serious bloodshed on a large scale should occur, Russian troops will just stand by, staring down the Black Guard and other pro-regime forces.

Putin will try to find an arrangement with the West for sharing authority, influence and economic involvement in the failed state. This can be done through federalisation, or by means of coalition government, or even partition. The Russian-speaking provinces of Novorossia are those of Kharkov (industry), Nikolayev (ship-building), Odessa (harbour), Donetsk and Lugansk (mines and industry), Dnepropetrovsk (missiles and high-tech), Zaporozhe (steel), Kherson (water for Crimea and ship-building), all of them established, built and populated by Russians. They could secede from Ukraine and form an independent Novorossia, a mid-sized state, but still bigger than some neighbouring states. This state could join the Union State of Russia and Belarus, and/or the Customs Union led by Russia. The rump Ukraine could manage as it sees fit until it decides whether or not to join its Slavic sisters in the East. Such a set up would produce two rather cohesive and homogeneous states.

Another possibility (much less likely at this moment) is a three-way division of the failed Ukraine: Novorossia, Ukraine proper, and Galicia&Volyn. In such a case, Novorossia would be strongly pro-Russian, Ukraine would be neutral, and Galicia strongly pro-Western.
The EU could accept this, but the US probably would not agree to any power-sharing in the Ukraine. In the ensuing tug-of-war, one of two winners will emerge. If Europe and the US drift apart, Russia wins. If Russia accepts a pro-Western positioning of practically all of Ukraine, the US wins. The tug-of-war could snap and cause all-out war, with many participants and a possible use of nuclear weapons. This is a game of chicken; the one with stronger nerves and less imagination will remain on the track.

Pro and Contra

It is too early to predict who will win in the forthcoming confrontation. For the Russian president, it is extremely tempting to take all of Ukraine or at least Novorossia, but it is not an easy task, and one likely to cause much hostility from the Western powers.

With Ukraine incorporated, Russian recovery from 1991 would be completed, its strength doubled, its security ensured and a grave danger removed. Russia would become great again. People would venerate Putin as Gatherer of Russian Lands.

However, Russian efforts to appear as a modern peaceful progressive state would have been wasted; it would be seen as an aggressor and expelled from international bodies. Sanctions will bite; high tech imports may be banned, as in the Soviet days. The Russian elites are reluctant to jeopardise their good life. The Russian military just recently began its modernisation and is not keen to fight yet, perhaps not for another ten years. But if they feel cornered, if NATO moves into Eastern Ukraine, they will fight all the same.

Some Russian politicians and observers believe that Ukraine is a basket case; its problems would be too expensive to fix. This assessment has a ‘sour grapes’ aftertaste, but it is widespread. An interesting new voice on the web, The Saker, promotes this view. “Let the EU and the US provide for the Ukrainians, they will come back to Mother Russia when hungry”, he says. The problem is, they will not be allowed to reconsider. The junta did not seize power violently in order to lose it at the ballot box.

Besides, Ukraine is not in such bad shape as some people claim. Yes, it would cost trillions to turn it into a Germany or France, but that’s not necessary. Ukraine can reach the Russian level of development very quickly –- in union with Russia. Under the EC-IMF-NATO, Ukraine will become a basket case, if it’s not already. The same is true for all East European ex-Soviet states: they can modestly prosper with Russia, as Belarus and Finland do, or suffer depopulation, unemployment, poverty with Europe and NATO and against Russia, vide Latvia, Hungary, Moldova, Georgia. It is in Ukrainian interests to join Russia in some framework; Ukrainians understand that; for this reason they will not be allowed to have democratic elections.

Simmering Novorossia has a potential to change the game. If Russian troops don’t come in, Novorossian rebels may beat off the Kiev offensive and embark on a counter-offensive to regain the whole of the country, despite Putin’s pacifying entreaties. Then, in a full-blown civil war, the Ukraine will hammer out its destiny.

On a personal level, Putin faces a hard choice. Russian nationalists will not forgive him if he surrenders Ukraine without a fight. The US and EU threaten the very life of the Russian president, as their sanctions are hurting Putin’s close associates, encouraging them to get rid of or even assassinate the President and improve their relations with the mighty West. War may come at any time, as it came twice during the last century – though Russia tried to avoid it both times. Putin wants to postpone it, at the very least, but not at any price.

His is not an easy choice. As Russia procrastinates, as the US doubles the risks, the world draws nearer to the nuclear abyss. Who will chicken out?

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net - (Language editing by Ken Freeland)





2 opmerkingen:

Sonja zei

Persbericht van de Rijksoverheid: Minister Hennis bezoekt Israël
Je weet natuurlijk dat het zo gaat, maar je verwacht niet dat het zo open en bloot gebeurt. En dat niemand hier op reageert vind ik onvoorstelbaar.

Anoniem zei

Hallo Sonja,

Naar aanleiding van je reactie kwam het volgende in me op. Mensen die weten hoe het zit kunnen alleen publiceren via vrije media op internet. En zij die de versie van de gevestigde media geloven hebben geen reden om te reageren. Ik denk dat dat voor een deel de relatieve stilte rond dit soort onderwerpen verklaart. En dan is er het gebrek aan interesse, de moeheid van 'altijd het zelfde liedje', het gevoel van machteloosheid en het 'te verwend zijn in het westen' om echt om je heen te kunnen en willen kijken. (Als je leven veel te moeilijk is kom je daar trouwens ook niet echt makkelijk aan toe). En natuurlijk het verstikkende geweld van de oppervlakkige consumptiesamenleving die wordt aangewakkerd door 'het dom houden' via reclame, voorgekookte culturele programma's, de gevestigde media, het gerieflijk denken in abstracties, etc. Nou ja, ik kan ook nog noemen het gezapige geloof in het makkelijke eigen onderbuikgelijk, het in slaap gesuste geweten, luiheid, het niet willen aangaan van pijnlijke confrontaties e.d. maar als ik hierover blijf nadenken wordt de lijst kwalen waar we aan leiden erg moedeloosmakend steeds maar langer en langer... Beter is het denk ik om de oorzaken te zoeken en niet de oneindige lijst van symptomen in zijn geheel te willen benoemen. Daarom hou ik het voorlopig op 'niet graag wakker willen worden' en op de mechanismen die dat van buitenaf voeden en in stand houden. Mechanismen die bewust door 'de gevestigde orde' op de massa worden losgelaten. Veel politici en vertegenwoordigers van andere elites zie ik trouwens meer als slachtoffers van die mechanismen dan als beheersers ervan. Ik geloof bijvoorbeeld dat mensen als Mark Rutte, Frans Timmermans en Geert Mak eerder meelopers zijn dan bewuste intriganten. Waarschijnlijk zullen het schokkende gebeurtenissen zijn die ons wakker schudden en ook helpt de informatie die ons via de vrije media bereikt. Verder geloof ik dat er tegenwoordig veel meer mensen zijn die echt iets van belangrijke wereldgebeurtenissen begrijpen dan bijvoorbeeld dertig jaar geleden en ik hoop dat die trend zich doorzet en dat we op den duur echt betere tijden tegemoet gaan. In ieder geval zijn er in mijn ogen veel bewonderenswaardige mensen die zich daar enorm voor inzetten. (Iets wat ik van mijzelf eerlijk gezegd niet direct durf te zeggen. Ik meen tamelijk veel te zien en te begrijpen maar dat omzetten in maatschappelijk geëngageerde daden ligt op een of andere manier niet echt op mijn weg).

Met vriendelijke groet en succes met alles,
Vincent Brunott

Peter Flik en Chuck Berry-Promised Land

mijn unieke collega Peter Flik, die de vrijzinnig protestantse radio omroep de VPRO maakte is niet meer. ik koester duizenden herinneringen ...