Rss

Archives for : Ukraine

Modern-Day Russian “Dupes”

Modern-Day Russian “Dupes”

pat

Pat Buchanan’s column, “Is God Now on Russia’s Side?,” is difficult to read and almost laugh-out-loud funny, as Buchanan was once a staunch anti-communist who served President Reagan as his communications director during the Cold War. Buchanan’s opposition to the Evil Empire, as Reagan correctly called it, has given way to an unseemly embrace of former Soviet KGB colonel Vladimir Putin, the virtual dictator of Russia who served the “Evil Empire” for decades.

Once a sharp thinker, Buchanan argues that Putin is a Christian and Russia is now a Christian nation. We are apparently supposed to ignore, or forgive, Putin’s violations of human rights, including murders of journalists, and the invasion of Ukraine.

There is absolutely no evidence, aside from rhetoric, to suggest that Russia in general and Putin in particular have been converted to Christianity. Instead, what we are witnessing is a massive Russian “active measures” campaign that has ensnared many American conservatives, convincing them that Putin is somehow a legitimate alternative to President Obama’s decadent worldview. It is troubling to see some of these conservatives endorse Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

The term “active measures” refers to influence operations that use agents of influence, disinformation and propaganda.

The main flaw in Buchanan’s argument is the lack of any real evidence that Russia has come to grips with—and disavowed—its Soviet past. To the contrary, Putin laments the passing of the USSR and has put the former KGB, now the FSB, in charge of the power centers in Russia. He celebrates Russian spying on America.

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet bloc defector, says that Russia is “the first intelligence dictatorship in history.” Two brave Russian investigative journalists, Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, have captured the nature of the problem in their book, The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia’s Security State and the Enduring Legacy of the KGB.

Buchanan cites pro-family statements by Putin, and anti-gay and pro-life laws passed in Russia. But like the Soviet propaganda and disinformation that Buchanan fought to expose when he worked for Reagan, the Russian rhetoric and legislative maneuvers cannot be considered legitimate. It is a show, designed to mask the dangerous path Russia is on, both domestically and internationally.

Rather than embrace Christianity, the evidence shows Russia has embraced the Russian Orthodox Church, always a tool of Soviet intelligence.
As we noted in an AIM Report back in 1984, John Barron’s authoritative book, KGB, said that the KGB’s Directorate 5 is assigned to “clandestinely control religion in the Soviet Union” and to “insure that the Russian Orthodox Church and all other churches serve as instruments of Soviet policy.” Barron added, “The directorate placed KGB officers within the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy and recruits bonafide clergymen as agents. Much of its work is accomplished through the Council on Religious Affairs, which is heavily staffed with retired and disabled KGB officers.”

Nothing has really changed. In fact, the Russian Orthodox Church is even closer to the regime these days, and is still so morally bankrupt that it published a 2014 calendar in honor of Soviet mass murderer Joseph Stalin. Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky has called it “Putin’s Espionage Church,” and devotes a major portion of his book, KGB/FSB’s New Trojan Horse, to its use by the Russian intelligence service.

The scholarly paper, “The Occult Revival in Russia Today and Its Impact on Literature,” demonstrates the existence of something as sinister as the regime’s domination of the church for its own political purposes. It describes how “post-Soviet Russia” has embraced New Age and occult ideas, even what the author, German academic Birgit Menzel, calls “dark” or “evil forces.”

“The occult has always been used for different ends, for purposes that range from benignly spiritual to totalitarian or fascist,” she writes.

Menzel’s detailed article notes the impact of Theosophy on Russia and Russian Marxists. Founded by a Russian mystic named Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831–1891), who wrote The Secret Doctrine, Theosophy teaches that man can become God through mystical experiences, and can even perform miracles.

Traditional Christians have a different view. Theosophy, writes Dr. Peter Jones, one of the world’s foremost experts on paganism and the occult, is part of a movement which “plans to eat the Christian church alive in the days ahead.” He says Theosophy is at “the spiritual heart” of the United Nations and notes that the Lucis Trust (originally the Lucifer Trust) is an occult Theosophist group in charge of the United Nations’ Meditation Room.

In Russia, Menzel cites evidence that the Soviet secret police had “special agents for occult matters” who monitored the theosophical society in Russia, several esoteric orders, and even a “secret society” of some kind.

One of many fascinating revelations from Menzel’s well-researched 2007 article is that Aleksandr Dugin, now an adviser to Putin, has incorporated some of these ideas into his theory of “geopolitical Eurasianism,” a revival of the Russian empire that includes Islamic Iran. She writes, “Since 2000, Dugin has moved to the center of political power close to the Putin administration by a deliberate strategy of veiling his mystic-esoteric ideology…”

This is the same Dugin who was photographed meeting with former American Ku Klux Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke in Russia. Duke argues, like many Russian nationalists, that communism was imposed on Russia by a Jewish banker conspiracy.

Robert Zubrin, the author of several articles about Dugin, points out the similarities between the National Socialism of Hitler and Dugin’s original National Bolshevism. He says Dugin gave up on the idea of his own political party so he could become an adviser to Putin’s United Russia Party. For a time, he worked with the Russian Communist Party, the second largest political party in the country next to Putin’s United Russia.

As part of this transformation, Zubrin says, Putin himself became a spokesman for tradition and morality, even though the Russian government “runs the biggest organized human trafficking operation in the world,” kidnapping Russian girls and selling them around the world as prostitutes. “Nobody should be fooled by Putin’s claim of being a defender of conservative morality,” Zubrin says.

“There’s far more depravity in Russia, including homosexual depravity, than there is here,” he says. “In the Russian army, boyish recruits are subject to homosexual rape by officers as a form of hazing, and the regime protects this.”

Equally troubling, there are reports that Dugin’s vision of a resurgent Russia is built in part on the ideas of Aleister Crowley (1875-1947), a Satanist who described himself as the “Beast 666,” or Antichrist, of the Book of Revelation. “It [is] worth mentioning that in early 90s the National Bolsheviks and their main ideologist Aleksandr Dugin tried to bring Aleister Crowley’s ideas to wide popular masses in Russia with enviable persistence,” one observer of the Russian political scene noted.

Some analysts say Crowley, who visited Russia twice (in 1898 and in 1913), was a mastermind of an international conspiracy rooted in Satanism, and that he helped the Communists in Russia and his philosophy played a role in the subsequent rise of the Nazis in Germany.

His associates included Walter Duranty, the correspondent for The New York Times who achieved notoriety—and a Pulitzer Prize—for helping cover up the crimes of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, such as his murder of millions of Ukrainians.

As incredible as it seems, S.J. Taylor writes in her book about Duranty, Stalin’s Apologist, that Duranty and Crowley participated in drug-taking Satanic orgies. In a series of rituals conducted in Paris in 1913, Crowley received a “sacrament” from “a certain priest, A.B.,” who Taylor says was Duranty. The sacrament was semen. Taylor said that, during these orgies, verses were chanted, including one consisting of “Blood and semen! Blood and semen!”

In his column on Putin’s alleged Christ-like qualities, Buchanan writes that he was “startled to read” that the newsletter from the social conservative World Council [sic] of Families had hailed Russia as a “pro-family leader” and that the group’s conference this fall was being held in Moscow.

Buchanan asked, “Will Vladimir Putin give the keynote?”

Buchanan failed to notice that the conference has been “suspended,” in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The World Congress of Families says, “The situation in the Ukraine and Crimea (and the resulting U.S. and European sanctions) has raised questions about the travel, logistics, and other matters necessary to plan” the Moscow event.

In other words, the Americans planning to go to Moscow and attend services at Christ the Savior Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church would not be able to spend the Russian rubles that were coming their way.

Those rubles were supposed to be provided by Putin crony Vladimir Yakunin, a former KGB officer like Putin who reportedly stole millions, if not billions, from public expenditures on construction projects related to the Sochi Olympic Games. Some of the stolen funds were used to build a fancy estate for Yakunin that includes a guest house, a servants quarters, a garage for 15 cars, sauna, swimming pool and prayer room.

The World Congress of Families (WCF) has been collaborating with the Russians since at least 2008, when it participated in the World Public Forum, another group founded by Yakunin. Larry Jacobs of the WCF said at the time, “Much credit should be given to Vladimir Yakunin, who has invested his time and resources for the betterment of world civilizations.”

Tell that to the people of Ukraine.

Cliff Kincaid — April 4, 2014
www.aim.org/aim-column/modern-day-russian-dupes/

Kremlin and Putin are Anti-Christ….propagating evil against the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN world and weakening it against Al Queda.

Read More:
Revelation13.net: Is the Antichrist Russian President Putin? — More on Putin and Russia — a Bible prophecy and New Age analysis


revelation13.net/Putin.html


Putin's Russia: 'Evil Empire' 2.0? by FORAtv

Meet Stephen F. Cohen, Vladimir Putin’s Best Friend in the American Media

Meet Stephen F. Cohen, Vladimir Putin’s Best Friend in the American Media
He is a great historian of Stalinism who has been celebrated by colleagues on the left and right. So why is Stephen F. Cohen so eager to act as a propagandist for Putin?

Photo by CNN

Photo by CNN


Stephen F. Cohen, a veteran Russian scholar at New York University and Princeton, has lately gained some dubious notoriety as Vladimir Putin’s number one apologist in the ranks of American punditry.
After a piece in The Nation slamming the American media for “toxic” anti-Putin reporting and a CNN appearance defending Putin’s incursion into Crimea as an attempt to protect “Russia’s traditional zones of national security,” Cohen was excoriated not just by the conservative media but by The New Republic and New York magazine. More recently, a critical but respectful feature in Newsweek dubbed him “the man who dared make Putin’s case.”

But what drives Cohen’s ongoing battle against “the demonization of Putin”?
Some of his detractors sound baffled by the paradox of a longtime leftist defending an essentially right-wing authoritarian regime; New York’s Jonathan Chait blames it on “the mental habits of decades of anti-anti-communism” transferred onto a no-longer-communist Kremlin. In The Daily Beast, James Kirchick treats Cohen as one of the “realists” advocating a pragmatic rather than morality-based foreign policy. And Cohen himself, in the Newsweek interview, avers that he is the true American patriot seeking to keep the United States out of a reckless confrontation.

Yet none of these explanations quite captures the motives or the history behind Cohen’s passion, which is ultimately less about realism than frustrated idealism. Regrettably, this idealism has led Cohen—a man of unquestionable erudition, sometimes insightful analysis, and by all appearances genuine sympathy for Russia’s tribulations—into some strange places at odds with both reality and morality.

As he writes in the foreword to his 2009 book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, Cohen’s interest in Russia dates back to his days as a college student in the late 1950s, when he became keenly concerned with social justice after growing up in segregated small-town Kentucky. He developed a particular interest in Soviet alternatives to Stalinism and Nikolai Bukharin, the revolutionary and theorist killed in Stalin’s purges whom Cohen saw as the embodiment of such an alternative—a champion of a mixed economy and more humane politics. (Other historians argue that Bukharin, earlier a full supporter of revolutionary mass terror and state-controlled production, saw liberalization in the 1920s as merely a strategic retreat to rebuild the Soviet economy and pacify the populace.) Cohen’s first book was an acclaimed 1975 biography of Bukharin, an expanded edition of which is to be published this year.

Cohen had a strong personal investment in his subject. In the mid-1970s, he began spending a lot of time in Moscow in academic exchange programs, an experience he describes in his 2010 book, The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag After Stalin; he grew close to Bukharin’s widow Anna Larina, herself a gulag survivor, and developed friendships with a few Soviet dissidents. He was a devout foe of Stalinism—at the time, he was already doing research on gulag survivors—and no fan of the Brezhnev-era Soviet regime, which for unspecified reasons barred him from travel to the Soviet Union from 1982 to 1985. However, a running theme in Cohen’s writings was the possibility of “socialism with a human face.” He argued that Communism was not monolithic; that Stalinism was not an organic continuation of Leninist Bolshevism (a “richly diverse movement,” as Cohen, then a junior fellow at Columbia University’s Research Institute on Communist Affairs, wrote in a 1967 letter to the New York Review of Books) but a radical break from it; and that the Soviet system had real potential for peaceful reformism. It is telling that his closest dissident friend was Roy Medvedev, probably the only notable dissident in the 1970s who still considered himself a Marxist-Leninist.

In his 1985 book, Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History Since 1917, Cohen noted with regret that, as reformist hopes withered and died in the 1970s, most liberal dissidents “concluded that the entire Soviet system was hopelessly ill-conceived and corrupt—that reform from within the Communist party-state was impossible,” and their protests “grew increasingly anti-Soviet.” This, he argued, only led to more repression, drawing dissenters into a “political cul-de-sac” since change in the Soviet Union could only happen through “reform from above.” Around the same time, he claimed in The Nation that the Reagan administration’s quest to pressure the Soviets into change would inevitably fail since it was “predicated on wildly exaggerated conceptions of Soviet domestic problems. In reality, the Soviet Union is not in economic crisis; nor is it politically unstable.”

Not long after, Cohen’s cherished “reform from above” suddenly became reality as the new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, embarked on a course of liberalization and reform. Still more excitingly for Cohen, glasnost included a Bukharin revival, with major support from Gorbachev himself. Bukharin was formally exonerated in 1988 and became, as Cohen recounts in Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, “virtually canonized as Lenin’s rightful heir, anti-Stalinist prophet and hero, and forerunner of Gorbachev’s perestroika reformation.”

Cohen threw himself enthusiastically into this reformation. He traveled regularly to the Soviet Union with his wife Katrina Vanden Heuvel, an editor at The Nation and currently its editor-in-chief and they co-authored the 1989 book, Voices of Glasnost: Interviews with Gorbachev’s Reformers, a collection of interviews with fourteen officials, journalists, and intellectuals, all of them proponents of a kinder, gentler (and more efficient) Soviet socialism.

Then, in late 1991, the dreams of reformist socialism crashed with the end of the Soviet Union. The new Russian leadership was far more interested in embracing Western-style democratic capitalism than in reforming socialism. Lenin was tossed on the dustbin of history—even if his mummified body remained in the Mausoleum on Red Square—and Bukharin’s ghost faded into irrelevance. As Cohen notes with tangible bitterness in Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, “Of what political use or historical interest was a founding father whose country no longer existed?”

For many observers, the Soviet Union’s downfall leads to the logical conclusion that Soviet communism was not reformable after all: virtually the moment its coercive mechanisms weakened, the entire edifice began to crack and promptly collapsed. Not surprisingly, Cohen strongly disagrees. His view is most succinctly summed up in a 2011 talk at a conference sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation: the Soviet Union, he believes, did not “collapse” but was dismantled by the power-hungry Boris Yeltsin—aided by “the radical intelligentsia” which “hijacked Gorbachev’s gradualist reformation” and helped bring Yeltsin to power, and by greedy bureaucratic elites eager to plunder the Soviet Union’s wealth. To make this case, he drastically downplays both the economic crisis of 1990-1991 (when, as Russian satirist Viktor Shenderovich once quipped, “Soviet power still existed but the food had already run out”) and the separatist tensions in the Soviet republics.

Meanwhile, Cohen blames Yeltsin’s reforms in the early 1990s for causing “the worst economic and social catastrophe ever suffered by a major nation in peacetime.” That’s a rather startling assertion from someone familiar with Stalin’s brutal collectivization of agriculture and the ensuing “terror-famine” of the early 1930s.

Of course, few would disagree that Russia’s “Wild West capitalism” of the nineties was not a pretty picture, with the rise of oligarchs who gave robber barons a bad name and millions of people cast adrift and struggling. One can argue about the causes and the specifics of this crisis—for instance, whether Yeltsin-era policies were really free market-oriented (the private sector remained crippled by byzantine taxes and regulations, official corruption, and lack of effective legal protection for property rights) and whether some of the decade’s social ills were caused by the transition to the market or by the disastrous Soviet legacy. (Thus, the decline in Russians’ life expectancy began in the Soviet era, with male life expectancy at birth dropping from 64 years in 1965 to 61.4 years in 1980.) Still, Cohen has an indisputable point when he says that the hardship and chaos of the 1990s explain widespread Russian support for Putin’s neo-authoritarian rule—as well as the resurgence of Stalinist nostalgia, with both Putin and Stalin seen as symbols of the “strong hand” bringing order and security.

sadThis, however, should hardly preclude a critical view of Putin and Putinism: if anything, an authoritarian strongman is all the more dangerous when he rides a wave of legitimate popular discontent with economic and social chaos. The fact remains that after his rise to power, Putin systematically strangled Russia’s free press (the remnants of which are now under attack in the warmongering over Ukraine), crushed political opposition, turned elections into a farce and the parliament into an obedient rubber stamp, and moved toward making anti-Western nationalism an official ideology. And these are facts that Cohen either glosses over or downplays—for instance, by asserting that “de-democratization began under Yeltsin, not Putin” (which is true only in the sense that power was increasingly concentrated in the presidency rather than elected representatives).

All this autocratic thuggery seems a more than adequate explanation for why the Western media would take an uncharitable view of Putin, the ex-KGB officer who has always taken conspicuous pride in his Soviet-era career. Yet Cohen professes to be utterly baffled by why Putin is so “villainized.” His explanation in The Nation article is that the U.S. press “adopted Washington’s narrative” of Yeltsin as the man steering Russia to democracy, still treating him as “an ideal Russian leader.” By contrast, in the 2000s, the media—again taking their cue from Washington—began to treat the Kremlin as the enemy. (This account completely ignores, among other things, the complexities of U.S.-Russian relations in both the 1990s and the 2000s: the chill between Moscow and Washington at the end of the Yeltsin years, the initially cordial relationship between George W. Bush and Putin—the War on Terror ally in whose eyes Bush famously got “a sense of his soul”—and the “reset” at the start of Obama’s presidency.)

In essence, Cohen is arguing that the American media dislikes Putin because he is seen as the anti-Yeltsin. But this seems like classic projection: the far more likely explanation is that Cohen sympathizes with Putin because he sees Putin as the anti-Yeltsin, and Yeltsin as the anti-Gorbachev who destroyed the bright and shining hopes of Soviet reformism. The irony, of course, is that Putin’s rule hasn’t seen a restoration of socialism, Soviet-style or otherwise (except for the fact that, while Yeltsin repudiated the Soviet period, Putin treats it as a source of real achievements and legitimate pride). Putin’s Russia is a country of corrupt crony capitalism, conspicuous consumption by the rich and the affluent, and a repressive state that increasingly leans on a subservient church as its source of moral authority. It stands, in short, for everything a leftist should detest.

Many of Cohen’s arguments about post-Communist Russia are legitimate subjects of debate, and his scholarship has been serious enough to draw praise from the likes of Robert Conquest, the British historian and author of The Great Terror. And yet his Putin cheerleading increasingly crosses the line into denial or outright recycling of Kremlin propaganda. Last October, at a New York University symposium, Cohen asserted with a straight face that the game of musical chairs between Putin and Dmitry Medvedev (who was handpicked to succeed Putin in 2007, then stepped aside for his mentor four years later) was not a carefully orchestrated ploy to circumvent the Russian constitution’s ban on two consecutive presidential terms but a genuine, though unsuccessful, “tryout” for Medvedev. “I don’t believe that Putin’s return was agreed upon in advance,” said Cohen—flatly contradicting Medvedev’s own statement to the media in 2011 that he and Putin had “long ago” agreed on the power arrangement.

In a 2012 Reuters column, Cohen complained that Putin is often blamed for the 2006 murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, even though “the editors of Politkovskaya’s newspaper, the devoutly anti-Putin Novaya Gazeta, believe her killing was ordered by Chechen leaders, whose human-rights abuses were one of her special subjects.” He forgets to mention that the Chechen leader in question, Ramzan Kadyrov, is Putin’s best buddy—or that Novaya Gazeta has also asserted that the actual killers are connected to Russian special services and protected by the government.

But the disconnect from reality is most glaringly evident in Cohen’s Newsweek interview. Take this gem: “We don’t know that Putin went into Crimea. We literally don’t know. We’re talking about ‘facts’ that are coming out of Kiev, which is a mass of disinformation.” Cohen must be the only person in the world who thinks there’s any doubt that the armed men who are all over Crimea wearing Russian army uniforms without insignia and wielding Russian weaponry—“little green men,” as irreverent Russians call them—are actually Russian soldiers.

And he hits an all-time low when asked about Pussy Riot, the activist punk rockers given a two-year prison sentence in 2012 for an anti-Putin protest performance in a Moscow cathedral. After noting that “in 82 countries they would have been executed” (a statement later amended to say that the women “would have faced criminal charges in many countries and the death penalty in several of them”), Cohen tells the interviewer, “You know what they were doing before they went to prison? They would go into supermarkets, strip, lay on their back, spread their legs apart and stuff frozen chickens in their vagina. There were people in there with their kids shopping and Russian authorities did nothing. They didn’t arrest them.”

The very slight factual basis for this outlandish claim is that two members of Pussy Riot once belonged to an activist performance art group called Voina (War). In one of its “performances,” a woman discreetly stuffed a supermarket chicken inside her panties and into her vagina (an act not witnessed by anyone except other group members who took photos), then left the store and “birthed” the chicken in an empty lot outside. However tacky, this was hardly the flagrant public obscenity Cohen alleges. What’s more, the chicken stunt did not actually involve any of the Pussy Riot defendants—though Russian television falsely implied that it did.

It’s rather sad to see Cohen, who has written with sensitivity and compassion about gulag survivors, sink to the level of a pro-Kremlin Internet troll, perpetuating a crude slander against courageous young women who are currently braving harassment and physical assaults as they advocate for prisoner rights.

Cohen is doubtless sincere in his conviction that he stands against a propaganda war that incites dangerous hostility to Russia. Yet his sincerity leads him to channel Kremlin propaganda as effectively as any paid shill. A verse composed by Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko for Cohen’s seventieth birthday in 2008 included the lines, “I love you, my unique friend, Steve / And envy you that you’re naïve.” Alas, this brings to mind an old Russian proverb: “There’s a kind of simplicity that’s worse than thievery.”

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She is the author of Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood (Ticknor & Fields, 1989). You can follow her on Twitter at @CathyYoung63

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/16/meet-stephen-f-cohen-vladimir-putin-s-best-friend-in-the-american-media.html

Omitted in this article is Cohen’s disdain for the Ukrainian people. He refers to Ukraine as a region of Russia denying along with Putin the existence of Ukraine. He is a Ukrainophobe who is against Ukraine’s self determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. He believes that his fellow Jews are also against the establishment of an independent , free and democratic Ukraine. I believe this is not true as many Jews have embraced Ukraine as their Homeland.

Ukraine PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk raises nuclear non-proliferation alarm

Ukraine PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk raises nuclear non-proliferation alarm
UNITED NATIONS: Ukraine’s interim premier on Thursday warned the security council that nuclear non-proliferation could be undermined by the Crimea crisis, but insisted that a peaceful solution was not out of reach.

One day after winning full support from US President Barack Obama in Washington, Arseniy Yatsenyuk delivered a short address in English and Russian at an emergency session of the council.

“We still believe that we have a chance to resolve this conflict in a peaceful manner,” the prime minister said.

“We urge the Russian Federation to pull back its military forces deployed in Crimea to barracks and to start real talks and negotiations in order to tackle this conflict,” he added.

Ukraine in 1994 gave up its nuclear arsenal, the interim prime minister reminded the Council but global security would be at risk unless the crisis could be resolved properly.

Yatsenyuk said that, unless Russia agrees to a real dialogue, the crisis could undermine global security and nuclear non-proliferation.

“As after these actions it would be very difficult to convince anyone in the globe not to have nuclear weapons,” he said.

“We want to have talks. We don’t want to have any kind of military aggression,” added the premier, before turning to address Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin directly in Russian.

Britain and the United States expressed support for Ukraine and condemned a referendum planned Sunday in Crimea to decide whether the region should stay with Ukraine or join Russia.

US secretary of state John Kerry would Friday meet his Russian counterpart, US ambassador Samantha Power told the Council.

“None of us can afford to leave any stone unturned, but Russia has to want a diplomatic solution,” she said.

British ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said the Council was meeting in the “gravest possible circumstances.”

Going ahead with Sunday’s referendum, illegal under Ukrainian law, would be “inflammatory and destabilizing,” Grant said, adding it would have “serious implications for the UN charter.”

“It would be dangerous and irresponsible for Russia to take unilateral actions or collude with unilateral actions of the Crimea authorities,” Grant said.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Ukraine-PM-Arseniy-Yatsenyuk-raises-nuclear-non-proliferation-alarm/articleshow/31968428.cms

Ukraine PM Visits UN, Calls Russian Aggression ‘Entirely Unacceptable’
“We strongly believe that there is still a peaceful solution,” Arseniy Yatsenyuk said. “What we ask for is international support to stop this crisis.

Young girl from Odesa: We are all Judeo-Bandero-shahids!

Young girl from Odesa: We are all Judeo-Bandero-shahids!

We must share this post by a young girl from Odesa:

odesa
March 2, 2014 Facebook
Translated by Voices of Maidan
Source: https://www.facebook.com/EvromaidanSOS/posts/383770915097257
Image source: https://twitter.com/Dbnmjr/status/440099119412310016/photo/1

“If we survive, live through [these events] and stabilize, then I would suggest to build a monument to Vladimir Putin – for the revival of the Ukrainian nation. We thought Yanukovych had united us. No, it was still not the unity we could have had. Yesterday, Odesa held an “Odesa is Ukraine” rally, which proved to be the most numerous rally in the history of Ukraine’s independence (you must understand, it’s Odesa after all). We finally lifted our butts off the sofa and went. Apparently, there are still some Jews left in Odessa. A couple of thousand for sure. And, you will not belive it, they are all Banderites! Yes! The real Banderites. We have a preponderance of Banderites here [in Odesa]: Jewish Banderites, Russian Banderites, Ukrainian Banderites, as well Armenian Banderites, Bulgarian, Greek and many others. Muslim Banderites uh … I do not remember how they call it …. said that three million Muslims will defend their homeland – Ukraine, and a column of Jewish Banderites passing by a mosque (disguised as Arab cultural center) shouted “Allah Akbar!” One man said, “Now I’ve seen everything in life!”

Thank you, Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin], you have made the impossible possible! We thought we were Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Tatars, Orthodox, Jewry, Muslims … and it turned out that we are all Ukrainians. Banderites. They say that Kiselev will have a glitch, but I believe in him! Expect a new term: “State Department agents, Judeo-Bandero-shahids!” God save Ukraine! Glory to its Heroes!”

‪#‎ЄвромайданSOS ‪#‎Евромайдан ‪#‎EuromaidanSOS ‪#‎Euromaidan ‪#‎saveUkraine ‪#‎Одеса
People attend an anti-war rally in the Ukrainian Black Sea city of Odessa on March 2, 2014. Ukraine has placed its army on full combat alert, but with ageing equipment and limited personnel. AFP PHOTO/ ALEXEY KRAVTSOV/AFP/Getty Images
UKRAINE-UNREST-RUSSIA-POLITICS
People attend an anti-war rally in the Ukrainian Black Sea city of Odesa on March 2, 2014. AFP PHOTO/ ALEXEY KRAVTSOV/AFP/Getty Images

maidantranslations.com/2014/03/05/young-girl-from-odesa-we-are-all-judeo-bandero-shahids/

Ukraine Chief Rabbi Accuses Russia of Anti-Semitic ‘Provocations’ in Crimea. Yaakov Dov Bleich Compares Behavior to Nazi Anschluss

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/193766/ukraine-chief-rabbi-accuses-russia-of-anti-semitic/#ixzz2v76holuw

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/193766/ukraine-chief-rabbi-accuses-russia-of-anti-semitic/#ixzz2v76QPZ7z

forward.com/articles/193766/ukraine-chief-rabbi-accuses-russia-of-anti-semitic/

jew syn

Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin.
eajc.org/page32/news43672.html

Western Media: Don’t distort the situation in Ukraine!

Western Media: Don’t distort the situation in Ukraine!
Halya Coynash
02.03.14
Quelle: khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1393797933
>

mic
They’re out on the streets, they’re vocal and they tacitly allow the West to think that since there are two sides to the story, expressing grave concern is enough. There are indeed a large number of pro-Russian citizens in the Crimea who welcome Russian intervention, however there are plenty of Ukrainians – including ethnic Russians – who vehemently oppose Russia’s effective occupation of the Crimea.

Any media coverage should be objective and present all sides.

A CNN report on Sunday afternoon spoke only to people who were pleased that the Russians had seized control and delighted to be asked if they were frightened of the new government in Ukraine. No attempt was made to ascertain what was meant by their allegations of “fascists” in control or what the grounds for their fears were. This has no basis in fact, making the fears unfounded, if understandable. If journalists had spoken to a broader range of interviewees, they would have understood that nobody is stopped from speaking Russian in the Crimea, and that these fears were largely being fuelled by propaganda on Russian television channels.

As of around 23.00, Kyiv time, just over 117 thousand “ethnic Russians and Russian speakers” have signed a petition entitled Mr Putin: We ethnic Russians and Russian speakers don’t need protection; there have been statements of protest from religious bodies; human rights organizations (Ukrainian and Russian); the Crimean Tatars (up to 15% of the Crimean population, and an indigenous people for whom the Crimea is their sole homeland).

Nobody is asking international news agencies to take a stand. Quite the contrary: the truth is needed to ensure adequate response to a situation of grave danger and to counter seriously distorted coverage of events which mislead the public.

Please be careful in your news coverage, and provide as full a picture as possible.

maidantranslations.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/western-media-dont-distort-the-situation-in-ukraine/

Media beware in the coming days and weeks Putin will try to destabilize Ukraine’s eastern regions with hired thugs and paramilitaries. And he may yet impose his will on these regions with a formal invasion. Get the word out and do good to stop a war between Russia and Ukraine.

Fact-Checking The Ukrainian Revolution

Fact-Checking The Ukrainian Revolution
Feb. 27, 2014 By Andrea Chalupa


Amy Goodman via YouTube

In 2008, while covering the Republican Convention, I bumped into Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow!, and I was star struck. When Russia Today announced that Julian Assange would get his own show, I thought that was brilliant and couldn’t wait to watch it. One of my more interesting email newsletter subscriptions comes from CounterPunch, a political website in Portland, Oregon—that lovable hipster Narnia. But now that my mainstays in alternative media are covering the revolution in Ukraine—a part of the world I have lived in and researched extensively for years—it’s left me heartbroken, and wondering: If Russia Today, DemocracyNow!, and Counter Punch are spreading misinformation about Ukraine, what else have they been wrong about? By sharing their articles in the past, have I helped them blur the truth?

Ukraine has a history of being the victim of media conspiracy. In 1933, the Western mainstream media deliberately covered-up Stalin’s genocide famine in Ukraine that starved to death many millions. Stalin, a great statistician himself, cited 10 million dead. Eugene Lyons, a reporter for UPI in Moscow, confessed to the cover-up in his tell-all memoir Assignment in Utopia. It was reviewed by Orwell and helped inspire ideas for 1984, namely the slogan: 2+2=5.

Before reading this article, had you heard of the famine? There’s a reason why most people still don’t know that many millions of Ukrainians were starved to death by their government in a single year; the Western media, confined to Moscow, was successful in ignoring “the rumors.” In one notorious instance some of the world’s most influential foreign reporters ganged up on a brave, young, independent journalist named Gareth Jones, by publishing articles full of lies that contradicted Jones’ fearless eye-witness reporting. The media’s silence or flat-out denials helped the Kremlin keep the truth of the famine locked behind the Iron Curtain. It eventually became reserved to the world of academia, where it was debated for generations.

Today the alternative media is the Kremlin’s little helper. Many Americans are infuriated with our government’s NSA spying and wars-for-profit, and obviously rightfully so. But their anger toward American neocons seems projected onto a revolution that would inspire free thinkers and freedom fighters. If only they could forgive The New York Times for Judith Miller, they would trust the incredible reporting the paper is doing on the ground in Ukraine. Yes, corporate media is fiercely generic and prefers covering shiny celebrity objects; but its ability to afford fact-checkers and travel budgets can lead to some damn good reporting.

Here’s what you need to be aware of as the situation in Ukraine develops:

Any article that links to Russia Today (RT) to cite a “fact” was written by a lazy journalist. It’s well-known that Russia Today was started by the Russian government, which has a history of imprisoning and killing investigative journalists
.

Russia Today has led the charge that Ukraine’s protest movement was a fascist, neo-Nazi take-over of the country. Luckily, the jaw-dropping photos of President Yanukovych’s Versailles McMansion, built with stolen tax-payer money on privatized national park land, clearly communicated to the world why Ukrainians were fighting. They had enough of their government’s sociopathic corruption: an estimated $70 billion was stolen from the budget since Yanukovych became president in 2010. Yes, he was democratically elected (and he lied to get elected), but he delegitimized his power when he violated the Ukrainian constitution by mass-murdering his own people.

In fact, many Jewish intellectuals across Ukraine were protest organizers, according to Tablet Magazine. A former Israeli soldier taught self-defense on Maidan—Kyiv’s Independence Square. Unfortunately, Haaretz and David Firestone, a columnist for The New York Times, were duped by an erroneous story that quoted a Kremlin ally who urgently called for Jews to leave Ukraine for their own safety. (Ukraine has one of the largest Jewish communities in the world, according to Haaretz.) Haaretz has since issued a correction; Firestone has not and seemed to attribute a recent attack on two Jews to the protesters. Jewish-Ukrainian historian Vitaliy Nakhmanovich released a statement that those attacks were a provocation by government forces—a statement I tweeted to Firestone just after he re-tweeted something else I posted, but I have not received a response.

It’s safer to be Jewish in Ukraine than black in Florida. Anti-Semitism is not on the rise in Ukraine. Vadim Rabinovich, president of the All-Ukrainian Jewish Congress (VEK), co-founder of the European Jewish Parliament (EJP), issued this statement:

“Thus, I categorically refute the statements appearing in a number of foreign media outlets of facts of massive anti-Semitism and xenophobia in Ukraine that do not correspond to reality! The whipping up of the situation around this issue is of a provocative nature and does not contribute to a calm life for the Jewish community of Ukraine. Together with the entire people of Ukraine, the Jewish community will actively participate in the building of a democratic state and promote the renewal and prosperity of the country.

Another common fallacy is that the “Russian half” of Ukraine supports and wants to be aligned with Russia. First of all, how do you think half of Ukraine became Russian in the first place? After Stalin wiped out millions of Ukrainians in the genocide-famine, he replaced them with Russians; the borders of Ukraine then only extended around what is now eastern Ukraine; that is why western Ukraine, then under Poland, is still so very Ukrainian—they did not experience the famine. Mind blowing, eh?

Ukrainian protesters are not fascists: the movement was started by a dark-skinned Afghani-Ukrainian, the first victims were Armenian and Belarusian, and many of the killed protesters were native Russian speakers. Even some Russians are inspired by what Ukraine has done; this incredible footage from a hockey game in Russia shows young Russians chanting: “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!” Yes, there are far-right elements–there’s a shadow side to every movement and human-being; Jewish-French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy breaks down that issue wonderfully here.

The anti-corruption movement is diverse. Leaders and victims came from all over the country. Ukraine does not want to be partitioned, and symbolically expressed its unity on Wednesday when Lviv agreed to speak Russian, and Donetsk agreed to speak Ukrainian for a day. My father is from Lviv, and my mother is from Donetsk; if they can stay married for 45+ years, Ukraine can stay united. The only threat is Russian meddling which will either take the form of its usual Soviet-style subterfuge or a Russian military invasion of Crimea. During this critical time, Western leaders and especially media must stay vigilant and not serve the Kremlin by spreading its propaganda.

Know that Ketchum PR represents Russia, and has placed Russian-friendly content in The Huffington Post. Conservative bloggers have been paid to write pro-Kremlin pieces, as this bombshell investigation explains. You will continue to see a retired university professor named Stephen F. Cohen defend Russia and demonize the Ukrainian anti-corruption movement onThe Nation. This is because Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and part owner of The Nation, is his wife. So his perverse defense of Vladimir Putin will likely always have a home there. It is strange how Cohen can overlook Putin’s human rights record. Historically, communists and other liberals have associated the Soviet Union with the socialist struggle. The Soviet Union never achieved the dream of socialism that Denmark, for instance, has. It was a terror regime that seduced liberal movements and leading intellectuals in the West. When he was a newly arrived immigrant in the Lower East Side, my uncle saw his American high school teacher crying on the day “Uncle Joe” Stalin died. For him, it’s a memory as strong as witnessing the fiery clashes of Hitler and Stalin’s armies in east Ukraine’s Donbas region.

The West did not orchestrate the Ukrainian protests—they started from a Facebook post by Afghani-Ukrainian journalist Mustafa Nayem. When the State Department’s Victoria Nuland was caught in the leaked phone call saying “fuck the EU,” it was obvious that this would color the movement as a “Western conspiracy.” But many Ukrainians also had to agree with her: the EU seemed to do nothing but issue statements of moral support. I feared it would soon run out of combination of words that all said the same thing. Their tone-deaf moral support is perfectly called-out in this video from protesters. In the end,Ukrainians rejected a Western-brokered “peace deal” and threatened to storm the president if he didn’t leave town the next day; he fled. Ukrainians won their freedom despite the West, not because of it.

Another fun-fake-fact is that the protesters were paid. Such a cliché deserves a cliché: that’s like saying Santa Clause is real. People gave their lives fighting for their freedom—a sentiment honored in the Ukrainian national anthem.

If you think that’s romanticism, then maybe we in the West need to get romantic, and fast. We, the American people, on the left and the right, have a common enemy in corporate-bought politicians. If anything should unite our country and draw us out into the streets it’s America’s desperate need for campaign finance reform. But who among us would be willing to take a sniper bullet for that? TC mark
image – Russia Today – YouTube

Andrea Chalupa
Andrea is a Brooklyn, New York–based journalist and author of Orwell and The Refugees: The Untold Story of Animal Farm. She studied at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. In January, she and thousands of others around the world launched DigitalMaidan.

thoughtcatalog.com/andrea-chalupa/2014/02/fact-checking-the-ukrainian-revolution/

When will Russia’s/Kremlin/Putin distortions of Ukraine STOP.
“What ethnic Russian, Russian citizen, or Russian speaker in ANY part of Ukraine, specifically Crimea, has had ANY of his or her rights abridged by the central government in Kyiv? And in what manner? Evidence, please!

What evils is Putin’s occupation preventing from occurring? Show a SINGLE instance of such a xenophobic act AGAINST a Russian.
I’ve seen plenty perpetrated BY Russians!”

Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum of 1994

Ukraine: The Budapest
Memorandum of 1994

The following is the text of the Memorandum on Security Assurances, known as the Budapest Memorandum,
in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed Dec.
5, 1994.
The United States of America, the Russian Federa
tion, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-
nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to
eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a
specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situ
ation, including the end of the Cold War, which have
brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear
forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The United States of America, the Russian Fed
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE
[Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe]
Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty
and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The United States of America, the Russian Fed
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain
from the threat or use of force against the territorial in
tegrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that
none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine
except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The United States of America, the Russian Fed
eration, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE

www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2014/2014_1-9/2014-08/pdf/34-35_4108.pdf

Budapest Accord Doesn’t Give Russia Right to Intervene in Ukraine But Kremlin May Think Otherwise, Illarionov Says
windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2014/02/window-on-eurasia-budapest-accord.html
So Kremlin deceived the world for Ukraine to give up its Nuclear Arsenal with this agreement lest to break it at its conveniance.

United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership
2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/113366.htm

We pray that The 1994 – Budapest Agreement Treaty will not be betrayed by the USA, United Kngdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with impeding aggression from Russia ala Georgia!!!!!!! The 20 Million Ukrainian Diaspora must act on behalf of Ukraine demanding th world leaders to keep their words once given.

February 23, 2014

ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN VIS-À-VIS RUSSIA IN THE EVENT OF FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION
– ECONOMIC OR OTHERWISE – AGAINST UKRAINE

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and Great Britain are signatories of the 1994-Budapest Memorandum ensuring the territorial integrity, security, and sovereignty of Ukraine and security from economic coercion.

Russia has previously violated its obligations under this agreement with only deafening silence from the other signatory countries. Recent reports in the press have indicated that Russia intends to continue its economic and military coercion of Ukraine with the aim of splitting the country. It is time for the United States and the European Union to finally stand up and defend their own principles and fulfill the commitments they made to Ukraine. If they do not, the risk of overall conflagration in Europe is real, with not only regional but global instability resulting. If they do not, their credibility will vaporize, fueling even further dangers.

Towards this end, the following actions must be immediately taken by the US and the EU.

• Issue forthright public statements to Russia – without delay and without mincing words – that it must stop advocating violence against Ukraine or agitating for its division or separatism.

If such actions by Russia should continue in any form, then the United States and the EU must forthwith:

• The US must act upon its obligations under the “United States – Ukraine Charter On Strategic Partnership Agreement” of December 19, 2008 and the various Ukraine – NATO Cooperation agreements.

• Freeze Russia’s application to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

• Expel Russia from all G-8 conferences and other international economic forums.

• Bring punitive actions against Russia within the rules of World Trade Organization [WTO] for Russia’s repeated violations of WTO rules by its aggressive economic behavior towards Ukraine.

• The EU should intensify its scrutiny of Gazprom’s behavior in the European gas market and strongly pursue a pending antitrust complaint.

• Expand Magnitsky sanctions on Russian government officials and their assets in the US. The EU should also freeze Russian government officials’ assets and reject the pending Russian request for visa-free travel for holders of “official” passports.

• Use the forum of the United Nations to condemn any aggressive Russian behavior vis-à-vis Ukraine. If there are signs of military intervention by Russian forces in Ukraine, to immediately call upon the UN to send UN observers and/or a UN peacekeeping force to prevent and rollback any Russian military incursion into Ukraine.

Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq.
Counsellor at Law
Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA)
Immediate Past Chairman of the Board of Governors of the UABA, Former Public Member of the United States Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) Madrid, 1980


Ukrainians all over the world must speak up for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, security and territorial integrity by having this Budapest Agreement adhered to 100%.

Fallen Heroes in Ukraine

Fallen Heroes in Ukraine

In Memory of the Fallen Heroes of Ukraine Revolution of Dignity.

This is the Shrine to those who gave their lives yesterday on Maidan.
Symbolically, this memorial was set up at the foot of the monument to Ukraine’s independence – scarred with bullet holes, blackened by fire, but still standing!

Вічна пам’ять Героям Майдану!ALTHOUGH WE SAW THE END OF THE YANUKOVYCH BLOODY REGIME TODAY, UKRAINE LOST SO MANY BRAVE SONS THIS WEEK. VICHNAYA PAMYAT TO THE NEBESNA SOTNIA.
sotnya

shrine
Blood stains have been covered with flowers, and memorials set up at each spot where a person was killed during the fighting on Feb 19-20. The coffins of heroes who lost their lives to sniper fire and riot police grenades were brought to the stage in pairs all day today – each was sent off in a moving ceremony in the presence of tens of thousands of demonstrators.

fallen

21 century genocide in Ukraine February 2014 Massive funerals today in Kyiv.
1618556_549940171780287_553132434_n

A tribute to the Heroes that gave their lives for Ukraine and her people ….. average folks like you and I in their regular lives; but extraordinary in their sacrifice. Maidan tonight. The city is heartbroken over its deceased heroes.
The Heavenly Hundred. A tribute to those who defended Euromaidan. Our Heros. Please share in their memory.
TO HEROES GLORY

Decoding Ukraine

Decoding Ukraine
A lexicon of the smears, stereotypes, and clichés used to describe the battle for the country’s future.
By Anne Applebaum

Anti-government protesters clash with police in Independence Square on Feb. 19, 2014, in Kiev, Ukraine.

Anti-government protesters clash with police in Independence Square on Feb. 19, 2014, in Kiev, Ukraine.


Photo by Alexander Koerner/Getty Images

WARSAW, Poland—For those who are new to the subject—indeed, for those who have been following it for many years—the Ukrainian crisis can seem murky. The Ukrainians have a president, Viktor Yanukovych, who granted himself dictatorial powers and then repealed some of them, announced a truce and then broke it, and claims to enforce the law but employs thugs who haul journalists out of cars and shoot them. The Ukrainian opposition, meanwhile, has three separate leaders who may or may not actually control the Ukrainian protest movement at any given moment.

The opacity helps to explain why Ukraine, after years of stability, has suddenly become violent and unpredictable. It also helps to explain why so many inside and outside the country use historical clichés to describe the situation. Often, those clichés are intended to serve the interests of those who use them. Sometimes they are just bad simplifications. Either way, what follows is a handy guide to the terms, words, and phrases to treat with deep skepticism:

Fraternal assistance
This is a Soviet expression, once used to justify the Soviet invasions of Prague in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979. Fraternal assistance was intended to prevent Soviet puppet states from being overthrown, whether violently or peacefully. In December, Russian President Vladimir Putin called Ukraine a “fraternal” country, hinting that he sees it as a puppet state. This week, a senior Russian parliamentarian declared that he and his colleagues are “prepared to give all the necessary assistance should the fraternal Ukrainian people ask for it.” This may well be the cue for pro-Russian organizations inside Ukraine to ask for intervention.

Anti-terrorist operation

This is a Putin-era expression used to justify the Russian invasion of Chechnya in 1999. An anti-terrorist operation, in this particular context, means that anything is permitted: The term granted Russian soldiers carte blanche to destroy Grozny, the Chechen capital. This is why so many reacted with horror earlier this week when the Ukrainian defense ministry warned that the army “might be used in anti-terrorist operations on the territory of Ukraine.”

Coup d’etat
This more universal expression has been used since November by both the Ukrainian government and Russian commentators to describe street protests in Kiev and elsewhere. It can mean anything from “peaceful protests that we don’t like” to “protesters using violence against police,” but either way, it is a term being used to justify the deployment of an “anti-terrorist operation” and not necessarily to describe an actual coup d’etat.

Nazi or fascist
These loaded historical terms have been used by both Russian and Ukrainian officials for many months to describe a wide range of opposition leaders and groups. Fake photographs of nonexistent Hitler posters in Kiev have been circulating online; recently, the Russian foreign minister lectured his German colleagues for, he said, supporting people who salute Hitler. Of course there is a Ukrainian far right, though it is much smaller than the far right in France, Austria, or Holland, and its members have indeed become more violent under the pressure of police clubs, bullets, and attacks.

At the same time, those who throw these terms around should remember that the strongest anti-Semitic, homophobic, and xenophobic rhetoric in this region is not coming from the Ukrainian far right but from the Russian press and ultimately the Russian regime. As historian Tim Snyder has written, “The Ukrainian government is telling itself that its opponents are Jews and us that its opponents are Nazis.” The smears do stick. Romano Prodi, the former president of the European Commission, just wrote an otherwise anodyne article ticking off Ukrainian “far-right nationalist groups” as if they were the main problem, proving that even Western statesmen aren’t immune.

Ethno-linguistic divisions or Yugoslav situation

These are more loaded terms, used in both the West and Russia, to show that the conflict in Ukraine is atavistic, inexplicable, and born of deep ethnic hatred. In fact, this is not an ethnic conflict at all. It is a political conflict and—despite the current opacity—at base not that hard to understand. It pits Ukrainians (both Russian and Ukrainian-speaking) who want to live in a “European” democracy with human rights and rule of law against Ukrainians (also both Russian and Ukrainian-speaking) who support an undemocratic, oligarchic capitalist regime that is politically and economically dependent on Russia. Some of the regime’s supporters may well believe they are fighting fascists and militant European homosexuals; others may simply fear that deep reforms will cost them their paychecks.

Either way, this is not a fight over which language to speak or which church to attend. It is a deep, fundamental disagreement about the nature of the state, the country’s international allegiances, its legal system, its economy, its future. Given how much Ukrainians have at stake, the least we outsiders can do is avoid foolish stereotypes when discussing their fate.

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/02/ukraine_s_opaque_politics_the_smears_and_clich_s_used_to_describe_the_fight.html

The Ukrianophobic Media and Press must stop the pathological lying about the Ukrainian people! Its time for fair and balanced reporting. Truth is on the Ukrainian people side along with their Revolution of Dignity. Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom as said by Thomas Jefferson.

PRAYER FOR UKRAINE

Prayer for Ukraine

2/20/2014

The Knights of Columbus has been following the events unfolding in Ukraine. Yesterday, Pope Francis said: “I assure the Ukrainian people of my closeness and pray for the victims of the violence, for their families, and for the injured. I urge all parties to cease every form of violence and to pursue harmony and peace throughout the country.”

In solidarity with our Holy Father, and with the Catholic Bishops and Church in Ukraine, the Knights of Columbus is asking all of our members around the world to pray the Prayer of St. Francis this coming Sunday that there may be a renewed dialogue and respect and a peaceful resolution to the situation in Ukraine.

assissiPrayer of St. Francis

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,
Grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled, as to console;
To be understood, as to understand;
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

www.kofc.org/un/en/news/releases/detail/stfrancisprayer-20140220.html

pray