The US military hasn’t actually been involved in an overt “war”, in the traditional sense of a conflict between two mostly equally matched adversaries, since the end of the Korean war in 1953. As Col. Fletcher Prouty points out in his book JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, US soldiers in Vietnam were mainly fighting against 1 million North Vietnamese villagers who were ‘deported’ to the South (by the US Navy) where, like any dispossessed people, they resorted to theft to survive. These were the bulk of the ‘Viet Cong’ that the US military raped, tortured, napalmed and shot en masse. Every other US military and/or CIA ‘adventure’ from the 1960s until today (and there have been many) has involved one of the following three approaches:
A) a short-lived ‘turkey shoot’ against an impotent ‘enemy’ (see Iraq “war” 1, Libya 2011).
B) a protracted direct “war” of colonial expansion waged against an indigenous, largely civilian, population who resist occupation and plunder of their land (see Iraq “war” 2).
C) a ‘proxy war’, where paramilitary groups (either local or imported) are funded, trained and armed by CIA and US military ‘advisers’ (too many to list, but see here for a list) and fight local resistance groups on behalf of the USA.
A complex combination of strategies B and C has also been used where invasion and occupation of a foreign country by US and British troops is justified as “fighting terrorists”, where the terrorists themselves are to some extent co-opted and used by US and British intelligence and military intelligence agents. On many occasions, attacks by the “terrorists” against the local government and population are in fact the work of American or British intelligence/military agents. Earlier this year for example, Afghan President Karzai publicly expressed his suspicions that bombings attributed to “the Taliban” were in fact the work of the US government:
The Washington Post quoted a senior Afghan presidential palace official as saying that President Karzai has provided a list of several attacks, in which he says Washington may have been involved, including the recent bloody assault on a Lebanese restaurant in Kabul, where over 20 people, including 13 foreigners, were killed.
The January 17 bombing and shooting attack on the restaurant was attributed to the Taliban militant group, though Karzai said it is one of the many attacks that may have been orchestrated by the United States in order to undermine Afghan government’s abilities in maintaining security and pave the way for keeping its soldiers in the country beyond 2014.
Since the 1950s option ‘C’ has been the favorite “war” strategy and the one employed most often by the US and British political and military ‘elite’. There are clear advantages to this strategy: fewer troops on the ground means less body bags coming home, and plausible deniability that the “war”, or any US military presence, is for “peace keeping” or “defending freedom and democracy”.
No one should be surprised therefore at the suggestion that recent events in Ukraine, in particular the massacre in Odessa, bear the hallmarks of a ‘proxy force’ being used by the Ukrainian ‘interim’ government on the advice of Western powers in an effort to wrest control of the future of Ukraine from the Russian government. That allegation has been explicitly made by eyewitnesses to the events outside and inside the Trade Unions building in Odessa on May 2nd.
A Very Reasonable Massacre
The bloodshed began when “pro-Kiev” radicals attacked a make-shift camp that had been set up outside the building by anti-Kiev government/pro-autonomy protestors. Dozens of people fled into the building, which was then set on fire by the pro-Kiev radicals. According to eyewitnesses, the exits were blocked and those who did not succumb to the flames were “finished off” with bats or strangled. The evidence also suggests that the entire operation was planned in advance, given that pro-Kiev radicals were already inside the building before the anti-Kiev government protestors entered. At least one “radical” wearing a bulletproof vest was filmed shooting at the burning building. The final death toll stands at 46.
The US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, said of the murderous attack:
“The Ukrainian people and government have embarked on an effort today to reclaim one city in the eastern part of their country. Their response is reasonable, it is proportional, and frankly it is what any one of our countries would have done in the face of this threat.”
Obviously, Power is a psychopath or something similar. 46 people being burned or bludgeoned to death by knuckle-dragging ‘neo-Nazis’ is neither reasonable nor proportional, in any scenario. Power’s comment is all the more outrageous when you consider that her academic background is in research into genocide. Her book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, is a “survey of the origin of the word genocide, the major genocides of the 20th century, as well as an analysis of some of the underlying reasons for the persistent failure of governments and the international community to collectively identify, recognize and then respond effectively to genocides ranging from the Armenian Genocide to the Rwandan Genocide.” Of course, in her writings, Power neglects to make any reference to the estimated 6 million people who have died as a result of CIA ‘interventions’ in foreign countries over the past 60 years. The selective and biased ‘academic research’ of people like Samantha Power is most often a means to establishing their credentials as shills for murderous American foreign policy, and it has worked pretty well for Power.
As regards the Odessa massacre, I do, however, accept that Power is speaking on behalf of the US government when she said, “it is what any one of our countries would have done in the face of this threat“, and I can’t argue with her on that point. After all, the US government burned alive a group of defenseless US citizens in 1993 in Waco, Texas, in a very proportionate and reasonable act of mass murder (but not genocide of course).
Incidentally, a few months ago I was disturbed (but ultimately not surprised) to learn that Victoria ‘f**k the EU, Yatz is our man’ Nuland was married to PNAC founder Robert ‘we need a new Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 will do‘ Kagan. In the course of researching for this article, my disquiet was compounded when I learned that Samantha ‘burn them all and let god sort them out’ Power was married to Cass ‘conspiracy theorists are terrorists and must be cognitively infiltrated’ Sunstein. I hadn’t considered the idea that psychopathic-warmongers-with-a-messiah-complex-in-government could find ‘love’ across the Potomac (rather than in the usual public conveniences), but I suppose ya learn something new every day!
Attempts have also been made to describe the ‘pro-Kiev’ radicals as “football hooligans”, but the coordinated style of the Odessa attack and the high death toll suggests that an organised gang was involved. The same level of organisation among ostensibly ordinary people was last seen in the actions of the “Right Sector” at the Maidan square in Kiev in February, and it is generally accepted that they were not, as Samantha Power claims, “ordinary Ukrainians”.
Those Embarrassing Neo-Nazis
The ‘interim government’ in Kiev has repeatedly ignored Russian requests that they take action to disarm these groups and it is therefore directly responsible for the Odessa carnage. It is, however, understandable that the coup-installed Kiev authorities have not moved to disarm and disband the ‘radicals’, because several ministers in the cabinet of that coup-installed government are themselves ‘radical’ members of the right-wing Svoboda party: the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Defense Minister, the Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food and the Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine, in addition to the Attorney General, are all Svoboda party members.
The current situation in Ukraine can perhaps been summed up as follows: Agents of the American and certain European governments conspired to foment a ‘revolution’ in Kiev in order to pull all of Ukraine away from Russian influence and open it up to US and EU plunder. To do so they relied primarily on right-wing neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine with whom, ordinarily, no one in their right mind would choose to associate themselves. When enough blood had been shed (by way of mysterious snipers firing at both groups in Kiev) and President Yanukovych fled, a new ‘interim’ government was installed with the US State Department’s choice, Arseny Yatzenyuk, taking the post of Prime Minister.
But the putative political representatives of those radicals who effectively staged the coup through extreme violence also wanted a piece of the pie, and the hoards of club-wielding, inbred ‘neo-Nazis’ they control meant that they were in a position to demand it. As a result, several neo-Nazi types are today ensconced in the Ukrainian government. That government is, however, officially “interim” (i.e. unelected) and elections are scheduled for May 25th. The US State Department and its Euro poodles are quietly eager to see the general election go ahead so that they can rid themselves of the ‘radicals’ with whom they conspired to orchestrate the coup in February. You have to understand, it’s hard enough for the average Western diplomat to justify pressing the flesh with a neo-Nazi, but the fact that the Svoboda party has an official policy platform of nationalization of enterprise and the ending of privatization, precisely the opposite of the policies that the US and EU plan to impose on the Ukrainian people, is just too much to handle. While the US and British governments have a long history of consorting with anti-democratic and atavistic fundamentalists and radicals to implement their foreign policies and “protect their interests” in other people’s countries, I believe this is the first time that the ‘fundies’ in question are also socialists. It was bound to happen though. When you mess with the global geopolitical scene to the extent and in the way that US and British governments have, you shouldn’t be surprised if you create a few political equivalents of Frankenstein’s monster. What you actually do with such monstrosities is, admittedly, a problem. So far, the CIA/MI6 has chosen to put them down, set them ‘free’, or keep them as useful ‘pets’.
Squabbling Oligarchs or WW3?
Putin has recently stated that the referendum on autonomy for the Donetsk region that is scheduled for May 11th should be postponed. Some people are interpreting this as “Putin backing down”, but it is likely that Putin is taking the opportunity to dispel the allegations by the US and EU that Russia is behind the “pro-Russian” movement in Ukraine. The local Donetsk council today voted to ignore Putin’s suggestion and go ahead with the referendum, and it’s possible that Putin realised this when he made his suggestion. The point being, “see, Russia has no control over those people”. In fact, Russia probably has very little control over “those people”. They may be “pro-Russian” but they are even more “anti-coup-installed Kiev government populated by many fascists”. And who can blame them?
At the same time, the Russian government has expressed their opinion that the May 25th national election should also be postponed until changes are made to the Ukrainian constitution. In the game of diplomatic chess that is being played, the longer that an unelected, coup-installed government containing “right-wing nut jobs” is in power in Kiev, the longer the Russians can continue to legitimately delegitimise it, its advocates in the US and EU, and lobby for the rights of the Southern and Eastern Ukrainians.
It’s highly unlikely that the situation in Ukraine will spark World War 3 between the ‘West’ and Russia (sorry all you Armageddonites!) and for a very simple reason: money. What we are seeing in Ukraine is perhaps best described as ‘squabbling Oligarchs’, those of both the pro-Western and pro-Russian variety, although such ‘ideologies’ are merely a means to an end for such people (and they’d switch ‘sides’ in a heartbeat if it was financially expedient). None of the billionaires with vested interests in Ukraine have any desire to see their fortunes, or a large part of them, disappear, least of all into the public pursue of some delusional ‘revolutionary people’s government’. They’re willing to endure (or play) the game of ‘blood-soaked musical chairs loaded with money’, played to the tune of ‘oh what a lovely civil war’, just as long as there are enough chairs for all players and only in the context that they, the ruling elite, remain the ruling elite. The point being, Putin and his monied supporters have far more in common with European and American billionaire businessmen (and billionaire politician businessmen) than they do with the ordinary people of any part of Ukraine (or anywhere else). And none of us ‘little people’ should forget it.
Reality Vs. Fiction – Don’t Ask the Mainstream Media
The show, such as it is, is far from over in Ukraine though. A few days ago ‘Voice of Russia’ (a veteran Russian state-owned broadcasting channel) ran a story entitled Ukrainian forces prepare provocation against Russia in Donetsk, which states:
Russian military uniforms and fake IDs of Russian officers have been taken to the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk to stage an attack on Ukrainian border guards, a Ukrainian law enforcement official told RIA Novosti Tuesday on condition of anonymity. “The task is to stage an attack on Ukrainian border guards by people dressed in Russian military uniforms and make a video of it,” he said.
“The SBU [Ukraine’s security service] has transferred about 20 personal bodyguards of Dnepropetrovsk Region governor [Igor] Kolomoisky from Kiev to Donetsk. In Donetsk, the group was met by members of the Right Sector [ultranationalist movement]. The group accompanied a cargo of about 200 sets of Russian military uniforms and about 70 [blank] IDs of Russian military officers,” the source said.
Russian propaganda? Maybe. Then again, the CIA and US military intelligence has been using tactics such as those described by Voice of Russia for decades. One example is offered by Col. Fletcher Prouty in his above-mentioned book, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. Prouty explains how, in the early 1950s, US Air Force officer/CIA operative (and psychopath par excellence) Edward Lansdale stage-managed a fake attack on a Philippine village in order to convince the villagers not to support a burgeoning peasant farmer rebellion (the ‘Huk’ rebellion) and support the US government’s choice of new Philippine president.
[Lansdale] would take Magsaysay’s [the US choice for president] battalion out into a “Huk” infested area. He would use movies and “battlefield” sound systems, i.e. fireworks to scare the poor natives. Then one-half of Magsaysay’s battalion, dressed as natives, would “attack” the village at night. They’d fire into the air and burn some shacks. In the morning the other half, in uniform, would attack and “capture” the “Huks”. They would bind them up in front of the natives who crept back from the forests, and even have a “firing” squad “kill” some of them. Then they would have Magsaysay make a big speech to the people and the whole battalion would roll down the road to have breakfast together somewhere…ready for the next “show”.
This event probably did not appear in the newspapers at the time, but can you imagine how it would be reported by the Western media if it occurred today?