The past few days have seen an amazing acceleration of developments which has created a totally new situation. In simple and plain language the following three momentous events have happened:
1) In Kiev an armed insurrection overthrew the elected President and replaced him with a new revolutionary regime.
2) Crimea completely broke-off from the rest of the Ukraine.
3) An counter-revolutionary insurrection has begun in the eastern Ukraine.
The situation in the eastern Ukraine is a complex one and I don’t want to address it at this point in time. What I propose to do here is to re-state some well-known and undeniable facts, organize them, and then do a basic “compare and contrast” exercise with the two clearly defined regimes/entities which have now formed in the Ukraine: the revolutionary regime in Kiev (which I will refer to as RRK and the secessionist regime in Crimea (which I will refer to as SRC). I think that this exercise will allow us to fully qualify the decisions made by various governments to recognize and support one side or the other and it could also provide some hopefully useful talking points. Finally, I want to repeat that I will refer to well-known facts only and I will try to refrain from loaded judgmental statements until I come to the conclusion part.
So let’s look and compare the RRK and the SRC by a basic set of criteria.
1) Legal basis of the regime:
RRK: came to power by violent overthrow of the last lawfully elected President. Then, an self-appointed group of political activists split the main government functions between themselves and went to the Maidan square to get popular approval of the assembled crowd. Some candidates seems to have been endorsed, others were booed, but all were declared endorsed. Nobody knows how many people were present at that moment on the Maidan, nor does anybody have any information as to who these people were.
SRC: came to power by peacefully declaring that the local officials would temporarily taken upon themselves all the functions of the federal authority which at that moment in time had already been overthrown by the RRK. In some cities he former mayors which had been appointed by the Yanukovich regime have been replaced by locals also elected by crowd support.
2) Legality of their decisions:
RRK: Since the former President had fled but never resigned, none of the decisions of the RRK are legal, not by the old constitution, not by the new one.
SRC: The act of taking over the powers of the federal authority was illegal, but considering that the federal authority literally did not exist any more, it could be interpreted as a case of force majeure.
Special forces showed up overnight |
3) Popular support:
RRK:by most accounts the RRK enjoys a majority support in western Ukraine, central Ukraine, including Kiev, and north-central Ukraine; it has a probably the support of a minority in some parts of the eastern Ukraine. In other words, and based on population density, it is most unlikely that more than 50% of the people in the RRK controlled areas actually support this regime.
SRC: I would estimate that the vast majority of Russian-speakers in Crimea support the SRC, something in the 95% or more, and I think that a seizable minority of Tatars also support it. Still, assuming a 100% opposition of the Tatars and assuming a 15% opposition amongst Russian and Ukrainian speakers that leave no less than 75% of support for the SRC.
4) Foreign patrons:
RRK: whatever the degree of popular support the RRK enjoys in the part of the Ukraine it controls, there is no doubt that its political leaders are basically US appointed (Ms. Nuland said so much). Furthermore, we also know that the US has spent 5’000’000’000 dollars to overthrow the Yanukovich regime. As for the armed mobsters which gradually filled the Maindan square, there are numerous reports that these were specially trained groups of the so-called Right Sector which were trained in the Baltic States, in Poland and in Canada. In other words, the RRK is a pure creation of the West.
SRC: one can speculate what would have happened if the Russian military had not intervened in Crimea, but the fact remains that it did. There is overwhelming evidence that the “mysterious” armed men which suddenly appeared in Crimea are part of the Russian Spetsnaz GRU, probably the 3rd Independent Spetsnaz Brigade normally based in the city of Toliatti and, possibly supplemented by elements from the 15th peacekeeping brigade or the 31st peacekeeping division. In other words, the SRC is fully backed by Russia, which also promised it financial support.
5) Ideology:
RRK: nobody denies that the Freedom Party and the Right Sector are neo-Nazis and racists. The other parties in he RRK could be described as “nationalists”, but nationalists who have no problems working hand in hand with neo-Nazis (both Tiagnibok and Iarosh have been offered top positions in the new government). Also telling is the fact that the first two laws (illegally) adopted by (the illegal) “revolutionary Rada” were to re-authorize the propaganda of Fascism and to revoke the status of Russian as an official language (the RRK as now “revoked this revocation”). Nationalist demonstrations are full of photos of Stepan Bandera and neo-Nazis symbols, which the putatively “moderates” never remove. Their goal is a unitary Ukraine in the image and likeness of the western Ukraine.
SRC: it has no clear ideology at all. It is not unreasonable to suspect that some if its supporters are communists, but by no means a majority. It is clearly pro-Russian, so it could be labeled as both “capitalist” (Russia is a capitalist society) and possibly as “Putinist”, though that is by no means certain. Their goal is a multi-ethnic Crimea which would be a sovereign state in a Ukrainian confederation.
The only real “Ukrainian Army” today |
6) Future prospects:
RRK: a lot will depend on the situation in the eastern Ukraine where an insurrection against the RRK seems to be growing in power and resolve and which could see a real civil war taking place. But even assuming that nothing at all happens in the east, Iatseniuk himself openly said that there is no money at all left and that his entire government is a “kamikaze government”. The RRK has no army, no police, nobody at all to ensure law and order. Russia will cease its financial support to the RRK and Russian gas will be sold only a the previous price. A social explosion is simply inevitable at this point. At this point in time, there are already shortages everywhere and many stores and companies are closed.
SRC: the SRC enjoy a complete monopoly on power in Crimea, thanks to the numerous defections which took place over the past 24 hours, the SRC has its own military, its own police, its own special police (Berkut) and even its own security service (the SBU in Crimea switched sides). Not only has Russia committed to assist the SRC financially, the SRC has a guaranteed source of revenue from the lease of the bases to the Black Fleet and from the huge amount of wealthy Russian tourists (about 6 millions each year). At this point in time, all stores and restaurants are open, business is working as usual and there are no signs of social tensions.
Now let’s sum it all up:
The USA and the EU have put their full support and political credibility behind a regime which is:
1) Illegal and came to power by violence.
2) Has no right to pass any law.
3) Whose popular support is dubious at best
4) Which is a pure creation of the West.
5) Whose ideology is basically neo-Nazi and/or rabid nationalism.
6) Which no matter what is headed for disaster.
Russia has put its full support and political credibility behind a regime which is:
1) Which is arguably legal, at least over the territory it controls.
2) Which has been forced to temporarily over-step its legal rights.
3) Which clearly enjoy the full support of a majority of the population.
4) Which has been secure in power by Russian military power.
5) Whose ideology is most likely social/liberal and pluralistic.
6) Which has all the means needed to be successful.
From the above I think that it is pretty undeniable that the West is not only supporting the wrong side, and also that this decision is only completely immoral but also amazingly short-sighted. This is yet another case of what the French called fuite en avant (literally “to flee forward”): when somebody does something clearly and obviously mistaken and then, frightened by that, instead of reversing course decides to run forward at even a higher speed. In contrast, Russia’s decision is not only morally right, it is also pragmatically correct. But there is more to this than just pragmatism.
Western-backed nationalists |
As I have written in the past, for the USA, wrecking the Ukraine is a way of denying it to Russia. This is a Cold War like logic, a zero-sum game and a way of making Russia pay for being independent of the AngloZionist Empire. Still, this is also clearly a choice, an “optional crisis”, a conflict which really does not have a strategic impact on US national security. Not so for Russia.
For Russia the conflict on the Ukraine has become an existential issue. For 20 years Russia did put up with corrupt, oligarchic, pro-Western and anti-Russian regimes, which blackmailed Russia and Europe over gas pipelines and which printed stamps of Stepan Bandera (whom Yushchenko even made “hero of the Ukraine”). Even when the Ukies sent neo-Nazis to support the Chechen Wahabis and when they armed Saakashvili to the teeth, Russia did nothing other than denounce it (nobody gave a damn). But when it became clear that millions of Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians were threatened by neo-Nazis and that a bloodbath in the east was inevitable, Russia decided to act not only to protect its citizens abroad, but to protect itself.
There is also another phenomenon taking place. Unlike the the USA or Europe, Russians have a much longer attention span. While in the West nobody cares to ever remember that, Russians do remember the promise made to Gorbachev not to move NATO to the East, they remember the US bombing and invasion of Bosnia and Kosovo, they remember the West’s support for Chechen Wahabis and Jewish oligarchs like Berezovsky, they remember the West’s full support for Saakashvili’s attack on Russian peacekeepers and the people of South Ossetia, they remember the deployment of missiles all around Russia and they remember the war on Libya, and the US and EU sponsored butchery of Syria. And as one commentator put it yesterday, “this time it is not about Syrians or Ukrainians, it’s about us, we are next in line“.
Russian forces |
Some have said that I make too much of the unanimous decision in the Duma and the Council of the Federation to authorize the use of force because these bodies are controlled by the Kremlin and basically rubber-stamp whatever Putin says. First, this is not quite true, though there is much truth to it, but what this overlooks is the huge swelling of popular anger and even rage to which these politicians responded as least as much as to order from the Kremlin. So when I wrote that “Russia is ready for war” I was not exaggerating. True, in the general public nobody believes that a war will start: most Russians think that Obama, Merkel & Co. will run as soon as Putin bares his fangs, but that is not how people in the Kremlin or the General Staff think. They know that wars can start for the wrong reasons, that the use of force is always dangerous, that before using military force each possible consequence and effect must be carefully calculated and assessed. They also know that Obama is the worst and most incompetent President in US history and that they should never assume that he will do the rational, pragmatic thing, even in his own interests. And I can promise you that when the military took the decision to tell Putin “we can do this” they did consider even the unlikely possibility of a US/NATO military response, either to protect the regime in Kiev, or even in Crimea (where and international coalition lead by Anglo powers already had attacked Russia in the past). Russians don’t do operations like sending the Marines into Beirut or Somalia. If they use military force they are committed to it. In this case, it is obvious that they felt that they had no other choice than to draw a thick and clear line in the sand to stop further US aggression by proxy.
Obama and the Neocons:
I have received many emails suggesting that the Neocons imposed that mess upon Obama who did not need that at all. I don’t necessarily disagree with that version. We know that the Republicans negotiated with the Iranians behind Carter’s back and we know that the Republicans have a proud tradition of not giving a damn about legalities anyway. Finally, there are also plenty of Neocons in the Obama administration itself. But none of this can serve as an excuse. If Obama really did let himself become a hostage of an operation run behind his back, he did not have to be a coward and fully endorse it when it became obvious. Yes, I know, Kennedy was murdered for, amongst other things, not supporting the Bay of Pigs. So what? That just proves my point: Kennedy was no spineless coward whereas Obama is exactly that. As are Merkel, Hollande and the rest of them in the EU.
Thus we see these 1%ers still at time: holding emergency sessions in NATO HQ, condemning Russia at the G7, making more threats on TV (Kerry) and at the UN (Powers) – they are all in the fuite en avant mode. They hope that if enough words are spoken and loud statements are made, this will change something on the ground. It’s wont. Magical thinking does not work in real life. Right now there are two possibilities: either a civil war starts in the east of the Ukraine, or the RRC simply collapses and vanishes in thin air (a very real possibility). After all, what can it do with no money at all and no basic resources? Sing the Ukie anthem and blame Moscow for it all? That is hardly a real program. And even though the western corporate ziomedia tries hard to conceal it – nobody, and I mean *nobody*, in the new regime has *any* idea as to how to begin to address the current problems. The best they could come up so far is to appoint to multi-billionaire oligarch to run the east and southeast of the Ukraine. Check out this headline from the Kyiv Post:
Oligarchs step in to save Ukraine’s sovereignty
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic: the so-called “anti-corruption” revolutionary regime appoints oligarchs to save the Ukraine. When I saw that one it really felt like we were entering the twilight zone or lala land where the most ridiculous and crazy things could happen. This makes for great stories, but for politics this is a recipe for disaster. Sure, these oligarchs have more money that the RRK, but they made that money by robbing the Ukraine of everything it had. And if anybody seriously believes that the Russians will deal with these two thugs then they are dreaming.
They really mean it |
As I wrote in November, the Gates of Hell are opening for the Ukraine. What is amazing is that the entire western ruling class seems to be determined not only to encourage the Ukraine to step in, but also to risk following it. For the life of me I cannot imagine a more self-defeating, dangerous, immoral and stupid policy.
The Saker
well parliament did vote to impeach yankovych so wouldnt that technically mean they did not act in an illegal capacity? don’t get me wrong i don’t really support the new “government” i just want the factual account. Also do you have any insight over whether this supposed deadline given by the russians to ukraine military in crimea to surrender is real? Western media is playing this up but the russians seem to be denying it.
I get the impression that Russians are not as homogeneous as often portrayed by the west. And that there’s a seam of Russian society that really doesn’t like Moscow/the Kremlin/Putin and will do a great deal to avoid its authority. And in addition there will be many in the Crimea who don’t want to turn their home into north Cyprus from an economic perspective.
As for those who identify as Ukrainian in the Crimea (I assume this is not for linguistic reasons) why would they vote for independence, and the same goes for tartars, they were deported by Moscow.
Do you think that given these factors and a Russian majority of 8.5% the independence vote could go the wrong way.(i.e. remain part of the Ukraine). And is that why you say “Their goal is a multi-ethnic Crimea which would be a sovereign state in a Ukrainian confederation.”
That doesn’t sound like independence?
Ukrainian blood on Kerry’s hands by BHADRAKUMAR
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-02-030314.html
“… an self-appointed group of political activists split the main government functions between themselves and went to the Maidan square to get popular approval of the assembled crowd. Some candidates seems to have been endorsed, others were booed, but all were declared endorsed.”
SO, AT BEST, THE SELF APPOINTED GROUP COULD ONLY REPRESENTS KIEV CITY, OR JUST THE MAIDAN SQUARE AND NOT THE WHOLE COUNTRY, AS THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE.
Saker,
I think the interference in Ukraine is a win-win situation for the US . If the revolution had prevailed in Ukraine, and in Crimea, it would have been a huge geopolitical blow to Russia. If Russia reacted, as she really did, the ensuing chaos is not inimical to US interests. It creates uncertainty in the European periphery and puts a wedge between Germany and Russia. I don’t think that the american strategy is accidental, that its all Neocons’ fault, or that the US elites are just arrogant and myopic.
I have, also, the impression that the US elites worry about a war in Ukraine as much as the Romans worried about skirmishes in the Parthian borders.
@anonymous:well parliament did vote to impeach yankovych so wouldnt that technically mean they did not act in an illegal capacity?
Good point. The answer is no, they simply declared that he had “left is post”. He was never properly impeached, besides this Rada was one cleared by the insurgents and not the one which had been elected.
Cheers!
The Saker
the main west strategy in the last few decades is:
1-dissolve state establishments such as the Army and police.
2- divide each country into ethnic, political and sectarian small entities that can be easily controlled and at the same time neutralizing any future threats from such a country.
3-Support radicals on all levels to create a failed state and make sure the failure is sustained for as long as possible (Iraq, Syria,Libya, Afghanistan and so on)
4-take advantage of the situation to win contracts for western corporate-military complex.
5-Rinse and repeat.
the advantages of such strategy:
1- Much cheaper than conventional war.
2- the country’s division can not be fixed easily hence their profits are more sustainable.
3- resources will flow into western economy much easier and with a legal cover (since western countries put the contracts terms in place through their appointed puppet governments).
Thanks,
AIKES
Does anyone have a link to the full text of Lavrob’s speech at the UN Human Rights Council meeting?
I’ve seen small quotes in some sites, but would like to read it in full.
Thanks in advance.
[And as one commentator put it yesterday, “this time it is not about Syrians or Ukrainians, it’s about us, we are next in line”.]
Well, he’s got that right. The encirclement of Russia continues unabated. An Iranian news site reported that the American Army opened a new military base in Romania on February 28. According to this article, a second one is planned to open in 2015.
http://english.irib.ir/analysis/commentaries/item/180432-the-us-opens-a-military-base-in-romania
I would recommend that followers of this rapidly unfolding event in Eastern Europe get themselves a map of the area to refer to. Now look at this map and see where Romania is in relationship to Ukraine. Their borders touch near the sea.
http://goeasteurope.about.com/od/introtoeasteuropetravel/ig/Maps-of-Eastern-Europe/Map-of-Eastern-Europe.htm
Clearly, Russia had to say no to this coup d’etat in Ukraine. Imagine if the Russians opened a military base in Guatemala, then moved on to Southern Mexico, and announcing one in Juarez or Tijuana. You’d never hear the end of the squeals in Washington.
Frankly, I’m surprised that Russia waited so long to push back against NATO/US/EU aggression. I used to think Putin was actually a double-agent working for the West, because there was no end to the reports of another country either joining NATO or being lured into it.
Finally, this may be nothing, but a Russian spy ship landed in Havana, Cuba late last month unannounced
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-spy-ship-docked-havana-224015753.html;_ylt=AwrTca9yjhRTXlUAXPUPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByaDNhc2JxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw
It could be just a routine patrol, and friendly visit, but considering the current crisis, it may be more than that.
Speaking about the actions of the western countries, I don’t think you can ignore the importance of domestic politics.
In the US, the politicians become the victims of their own bellicose rhetoric. Americans want their politicians to appear “tough.” Largely due to their simplistic media narrative, they view the world as “good-guys” vs “bad-guys.” No room for subtleties and Putin has long been demonized as a “bad-guy”, the “new Hitler”. To be reasonable is seen by Americans as a weakness. If Obama were to try and back up now and negotiate some kind of sensible solution i.e. a neutral Ukraine, we would never stop hearing about this latest “Munich.”
In Canada, Harper is of course a dyed-in-the-wool neocon who really does have a simple minded “good-guy” vs “bad-guy” view of the world. His foreign minister, Baird, is if anything even stupider. But there is also the huge Ukrainian diaspora here, most of whom have justifiable resentments against Russia which for them means Stalin and the holodomor. These people vote and are concentrated in swing ridings in Winnipeg and Toronto. Most of them see their ancient aspirations being realized at last in the Euro-maidan. In any case, no one that matters in the world gives a damn what Canada says.
As for Europe, I see some signs of the ruling elites trying in their usual fumbling way to back out of the corner they’ve painted themselves into. They are too cowardly to take a really firm stand either way, and too ineffective to matter at this juncture.
I can’t resist one last note about Canada. Somebody suggested that we really show the Russians what’s what and have our navy towed into the Black Sea.
The short term consequences of the Ukraine do not harm the West. The advantages to confronting the Russians are simply too great. The objective since 9/11 has been global hegemony by any means necessary.
The hope is that enough pressure can be put on Russia to upset the apple cart internally. In a curious way the situation reminds me a bit of Europe prior to July 1914 and the moment in time when Lenin is sent in a sealed train to the Finland Station. As if these two moments are superimposed on a nuclear armed world.
I think the West wants Ukraine to be broken up and will integrate rump Ukraine into NATO.
Saker
Excellent summary.
вот так
You write that ” there are numerous reports that these were specially trained groups of the so-called Right Sector which were trained in…Canada.” This sort of explains our gov’ts blind support; would you please cite or give links to further info?
curious canadian
Hi from Germany,
interesting blog, though I read that some of the things you stated above – like 700.000 refugees – were doubted as “russian propaganda” in our media. But as our own media is obviously engaged in propaganda itself, mostly by just leaving out important facts, i can not judge what is true anymore.
One very interesting fact, however, is one I read some days ago, in the respectable german newspaper ZEIT from maybe 3 weeks ago, online: I the think the – very questionable! – new government claims to have its legitimacy from the parliament (and Maidan, of course). Now this article, it was about the ukranian oligarchs, stated that these oligarchs control the whole parliament – each oligarch has people sitting there for him, following his directions, voting for him. Some sit there themselves. Only a smaller minority of the deputees is what we would call independent. I also read that you could buy seats in the parliament. If you know german, read for yourself:
http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2014-02/ukraine-janukowitsch-oligarchen-reiche
Now I do not know how all this relates to legitimacy in a legal way, but this sounds more like a joke than a parliament to me, and I am very angry at my government and the EU, that they dare to “recognize” a government like this, and claim it was “elected”, instead of demanding a goverment like it was in the agreement. Which might have prevented what we see on television right now. Greetings to the Russians, don’t make the same stupid mistake as western ukraine and entangle yourself into stupid nationalism. I am very sorry for the involvement of western politics in what happened in Ukraine, I am angry about it as well. Nothing wrong with trying to get rid of corrupt Yanukowich, but what followed was very irritating, and the way in which it happened also. But I can definetely say that not many people here support stuff like that, many just did not know. The world is connected today, we, the citizens, shouldn’t let stuff like that happen, whatever our politicians do or tell us.
@Anonymous from Germany: 700’000?
You might want to take that figure with a grain of salt as I did get it from Russian sources. However, it is certain that refugees are arriving because there is real fear amongst the Russian speakers. Some run to Crimea, some to Russia, but they are definitely running.
Also, yes, I read and speak German fluently, so thanks for the article and keep them coming should you see anything of interest.
Kind regards,
The Saker
I think the 700,000 figure, if counted as refugees, is something of an exaggeration. See:
675,000 Ukrainians pour into Russia as ‘humanitarian crisis’ looms
http://rt.com/news/ukrainians-leave-russia-border-452/
“In just the past two months (January-February) of this year…675,000 Ukrainian citizens have entered Russian territory,” Itar-Tass news agency cited the service as saying.”
That is the total number of people crossing for all reasons, not just seeking refuge. That number is unknown. But, given the 675,000 figure covers January and February, and…
“On Saturday, Russian migration authorities reported that 143,000 requests for asylum had been sent to Russia within a two-week period. Russian officials have promised to expedite the processing of those requests.”
… was only for 2 weeks, the real number of refugees is probably not that much less than that 675,000 figure. The real worry expressed by the Russians, I think, is that if things deteriorate, as the west is trying to engineer, then there will be a lot more refugees, with all the attendant problems such rapid mass population influxes generate. I’m sure that is one of the planned factors in this zionazi strategy of weakening Russia, through their attack on the Ukraine.
вот так
I found this interesting. But the comment was small. More comment please.
“So, one has that the Neocons = (a group of) Jews have teamed up with (a group of) Neonazis to conduct a coup in the Ukraine against (another group of) Jews.”
Some are saying that these Ukrainian Neonazis are actually a “false flag” group (of Jews?).
They say that Hitler was the same. In this case, that he was actually a Jew.
The “evidence” they provide is quite interesting;
1) Hitler ordered the tanks to stop for 3 days near Dunkirk when only a short distance away. This allowed the entire British army and part of the French army to escape to Britain.
2) Hitler refused to take Gibraltar and turn the Mediterranean into a “German lake”. There was nothing to stop the Germans from driving through Spain (their ally) and doing the job.
3) Hitler declared war on the United States.
4) Hitler refused to allow the tens of thousands of tons of weaponized nerve gas that the Germans had produced (at Dyhernfurth an der Oder) to be used.
and an extra point
5) Hitler refused to conquer Britain. After Dunkirk, Britain was totally defenseless.
@Anonymous & Torontomike:Canada
I guess I should have phrased that more carefully: there were reports from the local journalists that Ukrainians from Canada had arrived in groups and were taking place in the Maidan fights on the side of the Right Sector. However, these reports did *not* specify where exactly these guys had been trained. There *were* specific reports about training camps in the Baltic and Poland, but none that I can recall about Canada. So it is possible that these Canadian Ukies did not train in Canada at all, and that while the came from Canada, they got their training in Poland or the Baltic states.
Good point and my bad on this one. I should have phrased that more carefully.
Cheers,
The Saker
Saker,
I know of one IDF sniper that has three passports: Isreali, Canadian and Ukrainian.
T1
Saker,
Correction: I’m fairly sure he had a fourth – Georgian. That’s where I met him.
T1
@What would happen to Ukraine?
Are there lessons to be learn from History? Why is experience good? Because you can recognize a mistake when you make it the second time.
The Russian Revolution and the Peace of Brest-Litovsk had somehow masked the fact that the War goals of the Central Powers (which were the dismemberment of Russia) failed. Actually the defeat of Germany started with its expansion in Russia, at the hand of the Bolsheviks they brought to power. A shadowy aspect, very rarely brought to attention until recently, of the war in the East was the idea of the “Osteuropaeischer Staatenbund” proposed by the Zionist Max Bodenheimer since 1902. This League was to include all of the “Jewish Pale of Settlement” under a king of the Hohenzollern dynasty, with the capital at Lublin, in which the Jews would play the dominant role because of their cultural ties with Germany. In 1914 the same Bodenheimer founded the “Deutches Komitee zur Befreiung der Russischen Juden”. Little wonder that many successful Russian offensives came to naught and that “persecution” of the Jews ensued, accused (out of pure prejudice, of course) of spying for the Germans and of desertions! It is asserted that the plan of the “League” was shelved because the German High Command preferred to revive Poland. The Komitee was strongly opposed to the rebirth of Poland. In fact the Osteuropaeischer Staatsbund was the idea of Vladimir Jabotinski.
But as late as the summer of 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm reaffirmed the goals of the war in a message to the Hetman of the Don Cossaks, outlining the plans for the ultimate partitioning of Russia: the Ukraine, the Union of the South-East, Central Russia, Siberia, this time shelving the revival of Poland! And it was not all. The operetta Grossfuersten of Germany, the Archdukes of Austro-Hungary, were vying for a crown in the new countries!
It was all these combinations and the necessity to enforce them, plus the necessity of ensuring the grain, coal, petrol supplies from Ukraine to Germany and Austria that retained in the East the troops that were supposed to be freed for the Western front and which were absent when the tanks of the Entante smashed the last German defenses. And it was the Bolshevik propaganda, allowed by the Germans, that sapped the morale of the German Army and led to the “knife in the back”, no less than the return of the German prisoners in Russia, who came back thoroughly infected by the Bolshevik virus. The capitulation of Germany was directed by the Bolshevik Ambassador to Germany Adolf Joffe (a name very frequent in America nowadays, and Germany. Josef Joffe, of which was talk recently on this blog is the publisher-editor of Die Zeit!). It is on record that Joffe told Karl Liebknecht on the 2 of November that within a week the red flag will be flying over the Berliner Schloss. On 9 November Karl Liebknecht proclaimed the Soviet Republic from the steps of the Imperial Palace! The Germans have shot themselves in the foot. All the Brest-Litovsk gains unraveled. The creation of the Jewish state became from now on a Soviet problem which did not go according to plan. It is ironic, say some, sinister, say others, that the idea of the Lublin state was taken over by Hitler and the deportation to the East was in fact an attempt to revive it. Of course that is a slander of those who “invented” the idea that the Zionists have collaborated with the Nazis!
It must also be remembered that Woodrow Wilson, the American President, endorsed the plan of the foundation of the League of Eastern States, but it did not get to much traction.
So, could we see again the scenario which followed the peace of Brest-Litovsk? Germany having to take upon herself the burden of Ukrainean debt? Integrate in EU a “fascist” state which risks to inspire and enhance fascistic movements all across Europe?
WizOz
Anon
I can address some of your points.
Hitler was a great fan of the Brits and went to great lenghts to avoid conflict. He was naive of the perfidy of GB and their desire to destroy Germany (a new source of competition to their Empire) through their concept of Balance of Power.
GB and France promised Poland military assistance in the event of war and the arrogant Polish diplomatic fell for it. This policy encouraged Polish abuses of Native Germans in Danzig to the point where Hitler was compelled to act. Needless to say, the Poles were left to hang.
British troops were allowed to flee even though there were Panzers nearby to capture them. (See: The German Generals Speak),Germany had no means to invade GB and the entire areal campain by Germany makes no good sense to me.
Hope this is a start.
T1
If this has been posted previously/elsewhere, my apologies. On 2nd thought, even if it has, it is worth re-posting.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/neocons-want-ukraine-crisis/
Parry’s thesis is that the neocons are back in the driver’s seat. Obama and Saker’s Old Anglo Imperialists have been sidelined (again). Their budding rapprochement with Russia is in tatters, and only the boldest domestic move can bring America’s foreign policy to its senses.
“As events spin out of control, it appears way past time for President Obama to explain to the American people why he has collaborated with President Putin in trying to resolve some of the world’s thorniest problems.”
A rewarding read. Both the Ukrainian & Syrian crises have some twists and turns left in them. As I suggested in an earlier Saker post, much of what happens next depends on the battle inside the Beltway.
Erebus
Salutations from Pakistan!
I’m a great fan of your blog! I have learned much from reading you. Wonderful insight. I feel the recent situation in the Ukraine is designed by the (Khazar led) NATO & International Shylocks to try to force Russia into “invading” the Crimea to protect the ethnic Russians. This will give “just cause” for NATO intervene militarily. This is something like what happened in the past when the International Shylocks and their client states FORCED N.S Germany to “invade” Czechslovakia & Poland because they were oppressing ethnic German minorities. Indeed I feel that Putin is the new Hitler-I mean this as no insult but a compliment.
@ 04 MARCH, 2014 01:29 “Germany had no means to invade Great Britain.”
Come on. Get real.
In just over a week 340,000 French and British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, and you are telling me that the Germans had no means to invade Great Britain. If a totally disorganized evacuation can pullout 340,000 troops in 8 days, how many troops can an organized invasion pump in over a few months.
The Germans had total control of the air.
Almost all of the French and British aircraft were shot to pieces on the ground. Those that managed to get airborne were heavily outnumbered and were shot down.
The British had essentially no tanks, no aircraft, only their navy.
The German troops could have swam across the channel and formed a beach-head due to the Germans total domination of the sky. So, if the Germans had invaded, no one could have stopped them (except Hitler).
And the British navy couldn’t help, because if they got to close, the stukas would have taken the ships out, one by one. In a fight between dive bombers and a ship, the ship loses every time (as the Americans proved time after time in the Pacific).
@ 04 MARCH, 2014 01:29 “Germany had no means to invade Great Britain.”
Come on. Get real.
In just over a week 340,000 French and British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, and you are telling me that the Germans had no means to invade Great Britain. If a totally disorganized evacuation can pullout 340,000 troops in 8 days, how many troops can an organized invasion pump in over a few months.
The Germans had total control of the air.
Almost all of the French and British aircraft were shot to pieces on the ground. Those that managed to get airborne were heavily outnumbered and were shot down.
The British had essentially no tanks, no aircraft, only their navy.
The German troops could have swam across the channel and formed a beach-head due to the Germans total domination of the sky. So, if the Germans had invaded, no one could have stopped them (except Hitler).
And the British navy couldn’t help, because if they got too close, the stukas would have taken the ships out, one by one. In a fight between dive bombers and a ship, the ship loses every time (as the Americans proved time after time in the Pacific).
“Germany had no means to invade GB and the entire areal campain by Germany makes no good sense to me.”
A German invasion of Britain would have been suicidal – and Germany ever intended to do that. the aerial campaign against Britain was in fact well thought out and quite closer to a successful outcome than is readily admitted – the aerial campaign was the main instrument of a psychological war whose real objective was REGIME CHANGE. the plan was that a war of attrition would bring about a change of government that would me more predisposed to sue for peace. there is one great book that rips apart the myths about the battle of britain and i recommend it to anyone interested in serious history:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Many-Not-Few-History/dp/1441131515/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393935926&sr=8-1&keywords=the+many+not+the+few
Saker
How do you assess the accuracy of this piece: http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/28/the-rape-of-ukraine-phase-two-begins/
Are or were UNA-UNSO part of GLADIO – and does that still exist and operate do you think?
Keep up the good work.
Seems to be a huge pro-Russian bias here, why, exactly?
My family has lost several members directly to Russian police-state enforcement tactics, the usual, arrest in the middle of the night, then prison or a bullet in the back of the head.
If you are wondering why so many think that the only good Russian is a dead Russian, that would be the reason. I am sure you will never publish this comment, which only proves you are just another pro-Russian propaganda organ.
To those debating whether Germany intended on a land invasion of Great Britain or not, I recommend watching Dennis Wise and his “Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told” at http://www.thegreateststorynevertold.tv
It gives the German side to the story, a story which we never really hear or learn about. It is the best documentary on WWII that I have encountered!
@gaw,
If there is a pro-Russian “bias” it is because this site is not an anti-Russian one.
WizOz
@all
Thanks to the folks for providing more info re: Germany and GB. It seems I have even more history that I need to unlearn. Regarding the Dunkirk evacuation “The German Generals Speak{ was a real head spinner.
It’s gotten very bad over the past few years and I spend a great deal of time sorting out what might be real.
T1