Ukraine’s Elections: Stabilization Through Eradication

November 1, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Curiously, Didier Burkhalter, Swiss Foreign Minister and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Chairperson-in-Office, congratulated Ukrainians for their elections of the parliamentary assembly and hailed them as another important step toward "stabilization." It is a curious statement considering the nature of the elections themselves, carried out under the duress of deadly internal conflict, with multiple regions of the country not even participating in the elections and the intimidation and barring of opposition parties from participating in campaigning and polling.

Despite claims of Ukraine's elections leading to "stabilization," instead it appears they are leading to the rise in prominence of ultra-right Neo-Nazi parties like Svoboda whose supporters are pictured above. This recent rally demanded "war hero" status for their ideological fore-bearers who fought alongside Nazis in WW2. Troubling to some, NATO's Atlantic Council calls the emerging political order in Ukraine "pro-European" and "reformist." (AFP Photo / Genya Savilov)

Surely if "stabilization" is achieved, it will not be by heeding the voices of all Ukrainian people, but rather through the silencing of the lesser half who reject the authority of Kiev's regime after it seized power in a violent coup in late 2013 and early 2014 amid the Euromaidan demonstrations.

Less shy about the desired and predictable outcome of Ukraine's latest round of show-elections, was NATO itself who had openly backed Euromaidan and the subsequent violent response by Kiev's new regime in response to nationwide protests against its seizing of power. Among the pages of NATO's Atlantic Council website is a story titled, "Ukrainians Vote for a European Future and for Reform." In it, NATO openly flaunts the results as a blow to Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also celebrates the eradication from Ukrainian politics of any opposition.

It stated specifically that,
The poll indicates that the Batkivshchyna party of former Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko and the nationalist Svoboda party also surpassed the 5 percent threshold of votes needed to win party-list seats. Altogether, pro-reform parties won roughly two-thirds of the vote. Among parties opposed to a distinctly Europe-oriented Ukraine, only the Opposition Bloc passed that threshold to win a place in the next parliament. (The next legislature will be the first since Ukraine’s independence from Moscow in 1991 in which the Communist Party will have failed to win party-list representation.) 
All of this means that there will be little opposition in the next Verkhovna Rada to policies aimed at synchronizing Ukrainian policies with Europe.
Does NATO and its Atlantic Council truly believe democracy is best served when opposition parties are stamped out of existence and a majority has the unobstructed ability to push through highly divisive policies? Does NATO believe the prominence of the Svoboda Party, a Neo-Nazi ultra-right front, represents the best interests of the Ukrainian people or constitutes European values and "reform?" Apparently when these factors all add up to the benefit of NATO and the special interests it represents, the answer is, "yes." And how exactly did the Communist Party in Ukraine end up pushed out for the first time since 1991?

US Destroying Syria’s Oil Infrastructure Under Guise of Fighting ISIS

November 1, 2014 (Maram Susli - NEO) - The US is considering bombing pipelines in Syria, which it claims is in an attempt to cut off the huge profits being made by ISIS from captured oilfields.

The Independent quotes Julieta Valls Noyes, the deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs during a visit to London, that ISIS was making $2 million a day off oil sales and that the US would consider airstrikes as well as “kinetic strikes against some pipelines" and "actual physical action to stop the flow”.

The trouble with this justification for destroying Syria’s oil pipelines, is that ISIS does not have the capability to use the pipelines to transfer oil. ISIS transports the stolen oil on the back of trucks, and sells it on the black market in Turkey. 

This is admitted in the same Independent article that quoted Ms. Noyes. 

The Independent claims:
Isis has sold some of the fuel from seized facilities back to the Damascus regime through local deals, while shipments had been sent into Turkey for the black market, with the Erdogan government accused of turning a blind eye to the illicit transactions. 

If the US truly intended to stop ISIS oil profits, they would bomb these oil convoys, which are easily spotted via conventional surveillance flights already allegedly taking place as part of ongoing Western operations. The US agenda behind destroying Syria’s pipelines has very little to do with ISIS oil profits, and far more to do with destroying Syria’s oil infrastructure.

In fact, the statistic that ISIS is making 2 million dollars a day from the sale of crude oil is an estimate from a single consulting company (IHS) based in Colorado in the United States. The US administration is choosing to quote this as if it were without a shred of doubt. It’s far more likely that the scale of the profits has been overblown to deflect from the fact that ISIS is receiving funding from state actors such as Turkey, Qatar and other Persian Gulf states, while at the same time providing an excuse to target Syrian infrastructure. 

Ukraine’s Thieves and Nazis: From ‘Russian Propaganda’ to Parliament

October 31, 2014 (Eric Draitser - NEO) - With the final votes being counted in Ukraine’s parliamentary elections, early results show an unsurprisingly strong showing for the country’s oligarchs, while neo-Nazi candidates score significant victories of their own.

Though the democratic character of the elections is certainly in doubt, the inescapable reality is that the new government in Kiev is going to be even more aggressive, even more radical, and even more dangerous, as the political character of the Verkohvna Rada (Ukraine’s parliament) becomes ever more reactionary. Not only will this development have negative repercussions for the people of Donetsk and Lugansk, as they likely will now be facing a renewed assault from a belligerent government looking to assert itself before the eyes of the Ukrainian electorate, it will also further entrench the anti-Russian posture of Kiev, which will now have to contend with even more right wing pressure to eschew negotiations and pragmatism with Russia, in favor of a destructive and unwinnable strategy of continued antagonism and provocation.

In examining closely some of the election’s higher profile winners, one sees a disconcerting trend that goes far beyond simply neo-Nazi ideology; this election has legitimized the rule of criminal oligarchs and the factions and private armies they control, while also entrenching violent, and quite often criminal, individuals and tendencies within the newly constituted government. In effect, the fascist fanatics of Maidan now have a new home in the Rada.

Tallying the Votes, Assessing the Damage

Although the final vote count has yet to be made official, preliminary results show that the two dominant factions and leaders within the Ukrainian government, President Poroshenko and his bloc and Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his “People’s Front,” bothhandpicked by the United States, each garnered roughly 21 percent of the vote, making them the clear winners in the election. Of course, it is clear that the losers are the people of Ukraine, many of whom demonstrated on Maidan against the corruption of an oligarch-controlled government, only to watch new, “pro-Western” corrupt oligarchs usurp control of the country with the backing of powerful Western interests.

US Covers Up Support for Hong Kong "Occupy Central"

The US' clumsy balancing act between backing Hong Kong protesters rhetorically and hiding its support financially, comes to a head. 

Image: The US "not" supporting color revolution in Ukraine in 2013-2014. 
October 28, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - For the United States, so-called "color revolution" used to be a specialty until recently. The Western media has delighted in exposing the US State Department's role  in the wake of successful political subversion around the world via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and a long list of subsidiaries including Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) headed currently by US Senator John McCain. 

For example, the Guardian would admit in its 2004 article, “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” that:
…while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes. 
Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.
Amid the more recent unrest in Ukraine, Washington's role was less subtle, with US Senator John McCain of IRI literally flying to Kiev and taking to the stage side-by-side literal Neo-Nazis to lend the movement political legitimacy it desperately lacked. 

Image: US State Department's Michael Posner would admit on multiple
occasions that the US was backing, funding, and even equipping opposition
around the world to carry out political subversion. 
The US State Department would also brag again toward the end of the so-called "Arab Spring" of its role in fostering the chaos that would eventually lead to deadly protracted warfare across North Africa, as well as within and along Syria's borders and now Iraq. The New York Times would report in its April 2011 article, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," that:
"A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."
The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):
"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "

ISIS: America's Terrorist Mercenaries

October 28, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Generally historical revision takes place long after events unfold and the victors attempt to bury humiliating or inconvenient truths. Today, in the age of information, these would-be victors are finding it increasingly necessary to revise history in real-time through a strategy of increasingly repetitive, but decreasingly effective propaganda. 

Phase I: Justifying Chaos 

It was only in 2007 that US foreign policy openly sought to pursue war against Iran, Syria, and Lebanon's Hezbollah, while undercutting pro-Iranian factions in Iraq which at the time the US was still occupying. Failing to accomplish this directly, the US planned a not-so-covert proxy war that would include funding, politically backing, and even arming groups ranging from the Muslim Brotherhood to militants aligned with Al Qaeda itself. 

This is perhaps best summarized by the prophetic 2007 report "The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh and published in the New Yorker.

It stated (emphasis added): 

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. 
Hersh would also go on to chronicle American political and financial support that was being provided to the Muslim Brotherhood, even then under then US President George Bush. In all, the supposedly "spontaneous" uprisings referred to by the Western media as the "Arab Spring" in 2011 were being engineered years ahead of time - not in an attempt to promote peaceful pro-democratic aspirations, but to serve as cover for ultra-violent foreign-backed inssurections that would leave a trail of destruction stretching along Africa's northern coast, all the way to the borders of Iran, Russia, and even China.