JRL/2014/119/36

The Ukraine that existed last summer, was a space on the map whose boundaries were drawn by Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev. Not, perhaps, the people you’d pick to draw the boundaries of your country, but that’s what happened. In this space lived people who certainly regarded themselves as “Ukrainians” but also people who regarded themselves as “Russians”, “Tatars”, “Greeks”, “Hungarians” and all the other nationalities recognised by the Soviet system. The Russian Empire of 1917 had possessed much but not all of the territory known as Last Summer’s Ukraine. In particular, St Petersburg possessed most of central Ukraine as well as south and east Ukraine (a territory known as Novorossiya when the Empress Catherine re-conquered it from the Ottomans). The west was then part of the Austrian Empire. But, after the collapse of the Russian Empire and the First World War, it was taken by Poland. After the attack on Poland in 1939 Stalin incorporated it into the Ukrainian SSR. Some small territories were taken from Romania and added as well. Krushchev’s addition of Crimea rounded out the territory the world recognised as independent Ukraine in December 1991.

In simple terms, the present effect of these completely different histories of the parts of Last Summer’s Ukraine is that the south and east tend to look towards Russia while the west looks towards Europe and the centre has a certain ambivalence. And so, if you wanted to keep Last Summer’s Ukraine together, there was a central prohibition, a “First Rule of Ukraine”: “do not attempt to force a choice between east and west” or, more plainly, “do not demand that one half of the country swallow what only the other half wants”. Violate that rule and the whole thing could tear apart. Ukraine could stay together so long as, for example, no government in Kiev tried to make Ukraine a formal military ally of Russia. Such an idea would be welcomed by many in the east and south but would be anathema in the west and, to a lesser degree, in the centre. In short, the only choice for a stable Ukraine would be neutrality, or, more grandly, to proclaim itself a bridge between Russia and NATO. Likewise an exclusive trade agreement with Russia would be welcome in the south and east but unacceptable in the west. So, again, the correct stance, the one that would preserve Ukraine, would be to advocate trade agreements with both. The “bridge” concept again. Everyone who knows anything about the realities of Ukraine knew this. I can’t stress this enough: this sort of understanding would have been Lecture 1 of Ukraine 1011. So long as one half did not have the other half’s preference shoved down its throat, the two halves could rub along together. But that is precisely what the West did. Twice. The West pushed the NATO option in the so-called “Orange Revolution” of 2005 and pushed an exclusive trade deal with the EU in 2013. If one wanted to tear Ukraine apart, two more explosive issues than military alliances and exclusive trade could not be found. When last Summer’s Ukraine survived the first Western attempt to blow it up, the West tried again2, this time with trade.3

The second attempt to destroy Ukraine succeeded: Last Summer’s Ukraine will never appear on a world map again. Crimea is gone forever and, by all accounts, quite happy to be back in Russia (where, it should be noted, it was for 171 years until Khrushchev’s whimsical gift). Donetsk and Lugansk have indicated their unwillingness to follow Kiev in its present form. They will, no doubt, soon be followed by other oblasts in Novorossiya unless Kiev changes its behaviour4.

And the probabilities of Kiev changing its behaviour are, at present sight, very low; its use of the absurd word “terrorist” to describe the resistance, apart from the cringing obeisance to Washington, is all that we need to know. People with a different opinion of the constitutional structure who noted that the very first thing the new power in Kiev did was ban their language 5 are not “terrorists”. Thus the end of 2014 is likely to find a good chunk of the south and east of former Ukraine either independent de facto or part of the Russian Federation. There is a very good chance that Rump Ukraine will be in civil strife – not everyone in central Ukraine is as enamoured of Stepan Bandera and the SS Galician Division as the members of Pravy Sektor and Svoboda. Added to which there will be some level of fighting along the border of Novorossiya and Rump Ukraine because the “opinion border” is not clear-cut. The economic future of Rump Ukraine is hardly brighter. Today’s Ukraine is broke, the east and south are its most productive parts; if they’re gone to independence or to Russia, then what’s left? Ukraine’s neighbours are starting to eye territory – the leaders of Hungary are speaking about the rights of Hungarophones in Ukraine; others will no doubt follow as the prospects of profit grow higher. After all, Rump Ukraine is full of bits of what were in other countries only a century ago and, if its leaders are lost in a Ukrainian super-nationalist dream, many of its inhabitants are not. In that part of the world, the Second World War was only a few moments ago and emotions set then are still strong.

Not that Rump Ukraine’s new friends are offering it much money. The USA and the EU between them have offered about as much as China is suing Ukraine for. The IMF only gives loans; and, if there is any reality to these loans, much of them will have to cover the billions Gazprom is owed . But, in reality, that money is likely gone. Gazprom understands this and, starting next month, further gas will be on a cash in advance arrangement. I am amused to see the BBC saying: “There is a danger for EU nations that Ukraine will start taking the gas Russia had earmarked for its European clients, something it did when it was cut off from Russian gas during previous disputes in 2006 and 2009.” I say “amused” because my memory last time was that the BBC was reporting on the sinister “Russian gas weapon 6 ”; not that the Ukrainians were stealing Europe-bound Russian gas. But, and this is easy to predict: Gazprom will demand cash in advance; Kiev will promise, bluster, but pay nothing; Gazprom will cut Rump Ukraine’s share of the supplies going west; Kiev will siphon off what it needs7; Europe suffers. Will Europe this time blame Moscow? If it does, we know, thanks to the BBC’s admission, not only that it it’s lying but that it knows it’s lying. Perhaps it will “lend” Rump Ukraine the cash to pay Gazprom. Which would be ironic. In short, the West broke Ukraine, it now owns it. Or, to put it more precisely, it owns that part that Moscow doesn’t want. And what part that is is entirely up to Moscow to choose. So, an operation that may have had its origin in a desire to weaken Moscow (see Brzezinski’s argument below) has actually strengthened Moscow by adding to its territory, influence and security. And, also – this will be the next shoe to drop – adding to its influence and respect in the world8.

In 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire”. And Brzezinski keeps it up today: in a March piece in the Washington Post, while managing to compare Putin with Hitler, Mussolini and a Mafia gangster, he called for full Western support for the self-appointed government in Kiev; while the West should not “threaten war”, it should assure Kiev that the “Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid”. Apart from the fact that there is no Ukrainian Army any more, such assurances are, in fact, exactly how wars get started9. Notable in this piece is his complete disregard of the existential problem of Ukraine: namely that lots of citizens of Last Summer’s Ukraine would rather be in Russia. No doubt this First Rule of Ukraine escaped his attention in his eagerness to block Putin’s imagined desire to create a “Eurasian empire”. But, nonetheless his equation that Russia+Ukraine=Empire while Russia-Ukraine=something else (but evidently a something else no less threatening) is having an influence in Washington these days.

If Victoria Nuland and her bosses had in mind to deny Ukraine to Russia, they have completely failed. A peaceful, non-aligned, prosperous Ukraine would have been all the “barrier” they imagined Russia needed – as well as having suited Moscow perfectly. But that is gone. Russia now has Crimea (and NATO does not get the port of Sevastopol10). By the end of the year it is probable that much of Novorossiya will have seceded from Kiev; whether these bits become part of the Russian Federation is Moscow’s decision to make and Rump Ukraine will be a nightmare that the West will be expected to pay for. But the West can’t afford to prop it up. If their dream was to have Ukraine in NATO, or the EU, they are welcome to Rump Ukraine; but it will be no asset. It’s rare to hear a coup d’état plotted live so it is worth refreshing one’s memory with the Nuland-Pyatt phone call in which everything had to “stick together” and “gain altitude” before the Russians “torpedoed it”. Well, everything came unstuck and crashed to the ground without the need for a Russian torpedo. And the reason is simple: Nuland & Co ignored Ukraine 101: they wanted one half to swallow something that only the other half wanted. If the EU had allowed Ukraine, as it allows Canada, to have a trade agreement with another bloc, and had Washington kept out of it, we wouldn’t be where we are today and Last Summer’s Ukraine would still exist. There was no need for Moscow to “torpedo” anything: Nuland’s mix blew up on its own.

So what for the future? It’s already clear that Crimea is and will remain part of Russia. Lugansk and Donetsk will be independent or part of Russia (although it is not yet completely impossible that they could be in Ukraine but with real autonomy). Other eastern and southern oblasts of Last Summer’s Ukraine will join them. Rump Ukraine will be a terrible place to live, even if Pravy Sektor and Svoboda aren’t ruling it. Europe and Washington are not going to spend the money to make it anything else11. NATO is not as powerful as it likes to think: the participating European members could not bring down so insignificant an opponent as Gadaffi without American support. Who expects Washington to start a new military adventure in Ukraine? With its deficit? After so many years of war elsewhere? And Russia is not an opponent to be dealt with off stage by a few drones or aircraft sorties. There is nothing to suggest that anyone in Rump Ukraine has the stomach for real fighting: it’s one thing to murder civilians in Odessa12, quite another to take on Russian Spetsnaz. And, at that, it’s not as if Kiev’s forces are doing very well in eastern Ukraine against the local militias: while 650 casualties seems improbable, the note of triumph is not misplaced. After a month, Kiev’s effort to gain control has been a complete failure.

It will not be easy for Washington and Brussels to back themselves out of this mess they have created. Too much has been said to suddenly “discover” that the Kiev government is riddled with unpleasant characters. Or that worshippers of Stepan Bandera don’t really “share Western values”. The issue has been made into a light show of good and evil and the compliant Western media has been shouting out its assigned lines without pause13. Ukraine is too big and too close to home to forget as Libya, Kosovo and other catastrophic results of Western “humanitarian interventions” have been forgotten. Its a serious problem. And so casually started.

There is possibly one way that that Washington and Brussels can get out of this mess. If the election this week is vaguely credible, (and we may be confident that, despite the fact that one candidate has pulled out because he kept getting beaten up by Anne Applebaum’s “patriots” and another has dropped out because he sees the election as illegitimate, that the east and south have no candidate and that their political party has effectively been banned, that many areas in the east won’t vote at all and that they are under attack, that one of the two likely winners, neither of whom could be called “new”, says, if not elected, there will be a “third round of revolution”; despite all that, we may be confident that the USA, the OSCE, EU and so on will say the election was perfectly acceptable) then the winner, if it is Poroshenko, could take the only possible way out. This is, as Moscow has been saying from the beginning, a united Ukraine (minus Crimea of course – that is too late) which is not in NATO (or the Russian equivalent) and is not exclusively attached to the EU (or to the Russian equivalent). In short, a Ukraine that, as this paper began, hews to the First Rule of Ukraine: neither the one nor the other but something of each. Then – another if – if the neo-nazis can be reined in, then possibly things can get back to some sort of cautious coexistence. But – another if – the regions must be given a good deal of real autonomy14. And the final if, the most important one – Washington shuts its mouth and keeps out of the whole tortuous process of reconstructing Ukraine. A lot of ifs here and therefore a small probability but not completely impossible. Otherwise it’s more secessions – especially as the economic disasters bite – and Rump Ukraine sinking into chaos and misery.

1It is interesting to see a prominent American think tank finally (finally) getting it: Ukraine: A Prize Neither Russia Nor the West Can Afford to Win. Of course, the point is that it’s really the West that can’t afford it.

2Were they actually trying to tear Ukraine apart? Who can say; the First Rule of Ukraine is so plain to see that it is hard to believe that anyone can be that stupid.

3But there was something in the lengthy document about “gradual convergence on foreign and security matters”. So the first was not forgotten.

4Not utterly impossible; see last paragraph; but a lot of ifs, not least that Washington steps back completely.

5The fact that the Acting President immediately vetoed it does not mean that the message was not received and understood.

6I challenge the reader to find, anywhere in this BBC report, the blunt admission that Russia sent enough gas westwards to fulfil its obligations to its European customers but Ukraine “took it”. Which is what the BBC now says happened.

7Unless, of course, Pravy Sektor blows up the pipeline as its leader threatensto do. (Typical of the Western selective and intentionally misleading coverage of the actual reality in Kiev, search this piece for any mention that Yarosh is Deputy Secretary of National Security.)

8The UN General Assembly vote of 27 March is revealing. Despite the widespread assertion of the Western media that Russia was “isolated” when the condemnation of its annexation of Crimea passed 100-11 it is more significant that 82 countries either abstained or didn’t do anything. Israel being one of the latter to Washington’s “surprise”. Not so condemnatory.

9A host of assurances, Russia for Serbia, Germany for Austria, Britain for France, were instrumental in transforming another Balkan squabble into the First World War.

10Did the US military have plans for Sevastopol? This writer thinks so. EUCOM denies it but does admit to a “humanitarian facilitation project”. “Humanitarian” of course has acquired some interesting meanings of late in places like Libya.

11 $276 billion is the authors’ starting bid.

12Since the Western media carefully avoids discussing the slaughter in Odessa on 2 May , we must rely on other sources for “Bloodbath in Odessa guided by interim rulers of Ukraine”.

13The New York Times set some sort of record: 20 April “Photos Link Masked Men in East Ukraine to Russia”; 24 April “Aftermath of Ukraine Photo Story Shows Need for More Caution”. As often in these cases, the readers’ comments are illuminating.

14No more governors of regions appointed by Kiev. Something, that when Russia did it was much condemned by the West, but not even mentioned in the case of Ukraine.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 22 May 2014

On May 22, 2014January 21, 2016 By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

RUSSIA-CHINA. The big story of the… what? Decade? Century? We’ll see. The big gas deal was signed; we don’t know all the details but 30 years, 38 bcm/year, $400 billion, $70 billion of infrastructure are some of the numbers. But not in USD; bank agreement to use renminbi/rubles; joint production agreements; statements chiding the USA; cooperation in foreign affairs. “Multipolar” was heard a lot. And, we are told, sales of the S-400 air defence system coming. More details will trickle out. One cannot help seeing it as a predictable consequence of the Western anti-Russia campaign of which Ukraine is just the latest and most transparent.

SANCTIONS. Russia is finally starting to respond. I wonder if anyone in the White House or Foggy Bottom was aware that the US military depended on Russian-made rocket engines to launch their satellites. They are now. Maybe six years to develop an alternative. The US sanctions affected some VISA and Mastercard users in Russia, Moscow reacted and now the two wonder whether they can continue operations there. Thus far nothing about getting US astronauts to and from the ISS or US forces’ supply routes to Afghanistan. It transpires that Russia did indeed dump billions of US securities (immediately bought by “Belgium”); then it bought gold. Will there be more of this? Possibly involving China now? After all, the new Russia-China friendship reduces what you might call USA Futures Inc. Pepe Escobar ties the various possibilities together; highly recommended reading, he’s certainly got a lot of it correct.

ABSURDITY. Watch this and tell me “incompetent” is not the appropriate word for the US Administration. What’s Putin’s next stop? Alaska, of course. It is apparently Russia that is bringing “fascism” to Ukraine; Svoboda and Pravy Sektor being unimportant. “China signs $400 billion deal to prop up Russia’s economy as it becomes isolated”. Loud stupidity is still stupidity.

SYRIAN CW. We are told by the OPCW that 92% of Syrian’s CW stock is already out of the country.

FEARLESS PREDICTION. Ukraine is supposed to have a presidential election next week. Despite the fact that one candidate has pulled out because he kept getting beaten up by Anne Applebaum’s “patriots” and another has dropped out because he sees them as illegitimate, that many areas in the east won’t vote at all and that they are under attack, that one of the two likely winners, neither of whom could be called “new”, says, if not elected, there will be a “third round of revolution”; despite all that, we may be confident that the USA, the OSCE, EU and so on will say the election was perfectly acceptable.

JACKALS. The Hungarian PM has called for autonomy for ethnic Hungarians living in other countries. There are said to be 200,000 in Ukraine, entitled, says he, to citizenship and self-administration.

UKRAINE MISCELLANY. Referendums in Donetsk and Lugansk went as expected; the atrocity in Odessa is actually being investigated by Ukrainian officials and results so far do not accord with bland Western MSM accounts that fire “broke out”. Likewise the Ukrainian investigator tells us that there is no forensic evidence linking Berkut to sniper killings in Kiev. (Pretty important pillars of the Official Western Narrative, by the way). One of the EU’s “presidents” politely hopes EU gas supplies will not be disrupted; for some reason he sent the letter to Moscow not Kiev. (Can this this flabby plea be the answer to Putin’s letter?). Moscow has said cash in advance as of 1 June, but is still trying for something else. Kiev’s efforts to bring the east and south to heel are failing; indeed they’re having the opposite effect: who wants to stay in a country where you are terrorists? The West persists in calling them “pro-Russian”. Some are, but many want to live in a Ukraine not run by Pravy Sektor, Svoboda and the like; the latter being condemned, in other times, by the EU. It is not, and never has been, a united space on the map and cannot be run as if there were, to kick Applebaum’s nonsense again, a “patriotic Ukrainian” monoview.

REPORTING. Western reporting in Ukraine remains pretty faithful to the party line but a few things are appearing to shake it. Some reports in the German media that the US mercenary company formerly known as Blackwater have 400 people in Ukraine. (Denial by company here and by White House here). Paris Match has a piece arguing that Pravy Sektor goons killed unarmed civilians in an attack on a polling station in Krasnoarmeysk. I am amused to see the BBC saying: “There is a danger for EU nations that Ukraine will start taking the gas Russia had earmarked for its European clients, something it did when it was cut off from Russian gas during previous disputes in 2006 and 2009.” I say “amused” because my memory last time was that the BBC was reporting on the sinister “Russian gas weapon”. But, in general, the Western media is in full propaganda mode, the currently most outrageous example being Applebaum’s attempt to whitewash this.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 1 May 2014

On May 1, 2014January 21, 2016 By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

SUSTAINED AND ABSOLUTE INCOMPETENCE. Monday 21st: front page story on NYT “Photos Link Masked Men in East Ukraine to Russia”, ah hah! proof at last!; a bit of doubt surfaces on Wednesday; entire story trashed Thursday: “Aftermath of Ukraine Photo Story Shows Need for More Caution”. When I was a kid, CIA confections lasted a lot longer than a couple of days. So, into the bin along with the Jewish registration letter, captured “OSCE observers” and soon to be followed by the new intercepts. All I see from Washington is desperation piled on incompetence: none of this has turned out the way it was supposed to and no one has any idea of what to do next. So turn the volume up, desperately clutch at any story, hysterically accuse RT of propaganda when all it’s doing is accurately quoting you, announce more sanctions based on the dopey assumption that Putin has billions stashed in the West and move military forces to irrelevant places like Poland or Romania. The Micawber school of diplomacy.

CONTAINMENT. “Containment” is the new mantra for dealing with Russia in Washington these days. But has anyone there read the original? (Original telegram, subsequent article). Apart from the fact that George Kennan was strongly against NATO expansion, which is one of the two Original Sins of today’s Ukrainian catastrophe, the conditions Kennan saw in 1946 simply do not apply today. In essence Kennan was arguing that the inner constructions and logical implications of the Marxist-Leninist ideology did not correspond well with reality and therefore, over the long haul, it would not survive. Assuming that the USA would survive because it was better connected to reality, he expected the USA to outlast the USSR, given patience and prudence. This proved correct over the next half-century. Who believes this to be the case today other than the few crazies who still think Marxism-Leninism rules in Russia? And, speaking of perception of reality, one might compare any statement by Lavrov with Slaughter’s article below or any bloviation from Kerry. Or, thinking long-term as Kennan did, who can be confident that the USA will be Number One in 50 years? Or 25? Or even 10? They say China is about to become the premier economy this year. Deng’s reforms began only 35 years ago… What will the world look like in another 35?

CRAZINESS. To give you an idea of the level of impassioned lunacy in Washington these days, read “Stopping Russia Starts in Syria”. Essentially the argument is that Obama should bomb Syria in order to show Putin he is serious about using force. Or something. “Striking Syria might not end the civil war there, but it could prevent the eruption of a new one in Ukraine”. Gibbering nonsense, eh? And incoherently erected on idiotic assumptions. But the author is not some bizarro from the outer fringes of the Net; it is Anne-Marie Slaughter, academic and quondam director of policy planning in the US State Department and now President of the New America Foundation. Mainstream madness.

KIEV’S WEAKNESS. Another US official visits, another “anti-terrorist operation”, another fizzle. This piece (rather poorly translated) gives a clue why. We have already seen in previous events that what remains of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are unwilling to get involved – even the supposedly elite airborne forces handed over their weapons rather than shoot. The so-called special forces are no better. The local police sympathise with the rebels. Now we see the ineffectiveness of the new “National Guard” made up of western Ukrainian nationalists: not even they, under-equipped, unfed and unpaid, are willing or competent. Kiev simply hasn’t got anyone to do its will no matter how much Biden and Brennan might prod it. And a couple of nights ago a riot between two different flavours of super-nationalists in Kiev itself. “Ukraine” no longer exists; Washington and Brussels have broken it in half.

NAVY. Russia has handed over to Ukraine 13 of the 70 Ukrainian Navy warships it acquired when their crews switched sides.

CONSEQUENCES. Debka (which I regard as not always wrong) claims Putin has approved the sale of the S-400 SAM system to China. Said to be pretty advanced; here’s some marketing porn for it. And other signs of closeness: big investment, naval exercise. The first fruits of the many unintended consequences of Victoria Nuland’s grand scheme.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 17 April 2014

On April 17, 2014January 21, 2016 By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

KIEV ATTACKS. On Tuesday what remains of Kiev’s army, accompanied with threats of destruction, entered two eastern cities, Kramatorsk and Slavyansk. The soldiers soon switched sides (or as they say in Kiev “Russian terrorist sabotage groups have been captured six units of armored vehicles”), up went the Russian flags and St George ribbons and the townspeople fed them; I guess the American rations didn’t get to them. Interview. And another column stopped. Good news – especially when you think of what the rhetoric of easterners as “terrorists” and Washington’s enthusiastic encouragement could have led to. Today will probably tell: if the attacks fizzle out, there’s still hope for a federalised Ukraine. I look forward to watching Washington, Brussels (and Ottawa, I am ashamed to include) try and spin their way out of this shattering confutation of their fantasies. Reminds me of the Ossetia War when Wikileaks revealed that the US Embassy had uncritically transmitted whatever nonsense it was being fed by the Saakashvili regime.

TIME TO GO? Staff in Kiev’s power ministries are changing sides, refusing to attack the protesters, melting away; there are more dismissals in the power organs. Kiev’s new rulers have, apart from the uncertain loyalty of the most extreme, little force available (vide Kramatorsk). Moody’s has dropped Ukraine to “default imminent with little prospect for recovery”. Their sponsors in Brussels and Washington have kicked in only a sum that would about cover what China is suing Ukraine for. Meanwhile conditions worsen for the ordinary stiff. Large areas of the east ignore Kiev and demand more autonomy or a referendum. And where’s Right Sector? Disarmed? Mobilising? Or beating up presidential candidates and demanding resignations in Kiev? Can’t think Yatsenyuk will be around for much longer: no power, no money, no support. A visit from the CIA head isn’t much comfort.

SNIPERS. It’s almost forgotten now, but the Ukraine crisis was negotiated to a satisfactory result on 21 February. The agreement collapsed thanks to the snipers on the Maidan. So who were they? The new people in Kiev, predictably, blame Yanukovych and hint at Russian involvement. However, the simple application of the principle of cui bono would query that. The Ashton-Paet intercept raised the possibility that the snipers were connected with the people now in power in Kiev. A German investigation supports this conclusion. This question is at the core of the nature of the regime now in Kiev and, Dear Reader, its coverage, or ignoring, will be another test of whether your local media outlet is reporting or re-typing. Original in German, English translation on JRL/2014/84/1or here.

SNIPPETS. Far extreme anti Russia propaganda (but note what Tymoshenko said and how The Telegraph chose to frame the story.) Note this photo of Kiev’s Interior Minister; what’s the story on the flag patch on his guard’s uniform? You may be sure that people in south and east wonder. Here are some easterners stopping a lone tank. The “Russian colonel” video is a fake. These are former Ukrainian vehicles that switched sides.

SANCTIONS. Remember how Russia’s stock market was going to be badly hurt by the sanctions? Not so much.

AND EVEN BIGGER CONSEQUENCES? The “petro-dollar” is a pillar of US power. There are straws in the wind: the BRICS talking about setting up their own IMF. Russia, China and India thinking about by-passing the US Dollar in oil deals. Et Cetera. I wonder if the fall in the US stock market has anything to do with this. After all, Washington does not look like a good bet at the moment: hugely overextended, empty blustering, incompetent and destabilising interference. Time to bring it down? Or time to get yourself out from under the crash?

RUSSIAN MASSING. Finally NATO issued some pictures of the Russian forces “massing” along the border. Nonsense! all clearly bases: everything neatly lined up, fences around the edges, buildings, no tactical grouping. Not evidence at all. In some cases you can find same or similar photos on Google Earth from months ago; the airfield at Primorsko-Akhtarsk for example; same aircraft in different places. Holly finds no Russians.

PUTIN LETTER. Trying to inject some reality, Putin sent a letter to Russia’s European gas customers. It says: Ukraine’s economy is collapsing; Russia has been providing cheap gas, other money and discounts totalling about US$35 billion in the last 4 years; the EU has contributed nothing; Ukraine hasn’t paid anything for gas for several months. Russia is close to demanding payment in advance for deliveries; this “increases the risk of siphoning off natural gas passing through Ukraine’s territory and heading to European consumers”. We must all get together to figure out a solution. Merkel has indicated she is taking this seriously.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 3 April 2014

On April 3, 2014January 21, 2016 By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

THE FUTURE OF UKRAINE. The Ukraine of six months ago no longer exists; it has been destroyed by the scheming of Brussels and Washington. If there is to be something on the map named “Ukraine” at the end of the year that in anyway resembles what was there six months ago, Moscow’s plan must be adopted. Autonomy for the regions so that one half can’t bully the other half; minority language rights; neutrality, neither NATO nor Russia. As to Crimea, it is part of Russia; that is done. If it offends you to call this the Moscow plan, you may call it the Kissinger plan. If these principles are not accepted, and fairly soon, then by the end of the year south and east Ukraine (known as Novorossiya – New Russia – for two centuries) will be independent or part of Russia while rump Ukraine will be in full economic collapse and even civil war (and eventual absorption by Poland?). The only thing left undetermined will be the border of Novorossiya and rump Ukraine. None of this was necessary; all of it was predictable. (Here I am in December. But I claim no special prescience: everyone who knew anything about Ukraine knew it was fatal to the project to force an all-or-nothing choice. The West did this twice: ten years ago with NATO and now with an exclusive EU trade relationship, with NATO in the background). So here we are: hard times ahead for the citizens of any conceivable future Ukraine.

RUSSIA’S INVISIBLE ARMY. Much about how Russia is “massing” its army along the Ukrainian border. These reports are so confused as to be valueless – read this one carefully for example, noting contradictions; note the rag-bag elements tossed together of this one. No “massing Russian troops” were found in a 200 mile trip by Daily Telegraph reporters; nor in a 500-mile trip by NBC reporters. But it’s still hyped by NATO. (Once upon a time I believed NATO over Moscow. No more. Kosovo wounded it; Libya killed it; Ukraine has buried it. From now on my base assumption is that NATO is lying.) There is no need for “massing”: Russian troops in Crimea (already there, which is why US int couldn’t find them) were welcomed by an enormous majority and 90% of the Ukrainian forces either joined them or quit. There is every reason to expect that the reception of the Russians would be the same in Novorossiya, as we should perhaps get used to calling it.

UN VOTE. A General Assembly vote saying the Crimea referendum was unlawful passed 100-11 allowing various organs to trumpet that Russia was isolated. But closer scrutiny adds 58 abstentions and 24 who didn’t vote at all to the 11: a total of 93. Given that established states strongly disapprove of secession, a 50-50 split is a sign that Russia is not isolated at all. By now many know they might be on the list for a “humanitarian intervention” and they are happy to see the West humbled in an attempt.

LONGER TERM EFFECTS. I think this will prove to be pretty big; maybe even the moment when the EU and NATO will be seen to have begun their slide to oblivion. The final effects are of course contingent on many factors but some can be seen on the horizon. I think Putin (and most Russians) feel that they have been lied to by the West for the last time. (Just what did happen to the 21 February agreement, by the way?) China has taken sides in an occidental squabble for the first time I can recall. Most of the opposition groups in Russia so loved by the West are revealed to be sock puppets. All intelligent observers now know that Western N“G”Os have hostile intent (Nuland’s $5 billion). The BRICS have moved closer to becoming a political entity. NATO is further weakened (Poland would not want foreign troops stationed on it if it trusted Article 5). The EU has taken another step towards irrelevance (notice that the discussions now are Kerry-Lavrov; Ashton doesn’t exist). As a reminder, listen to Nuland’s speech in December: not at all the landslide she thought she was starting.

BOSTON BOMBING. “In September 2011, Russia’s FSB sent a cable to the CIA restating their initial warning, and a second note on Tsarnaev was entered on the TECS system, but his name was misspelled ‘Tsarnayev’”. Umpteen billion dollars’ worth of NSA communications capture and storage goes for naught because the Russians have their own alphabet. Who knew? No one at State apparently.

THE “PUTIN MYSTERY”. Read what he says, watch what he does, think about it (hint: the fact that people are asking who he is after 15 years shows they haven’t been paying attention). Start with the idea of patriotic Russian. As a indication, what does Putin find so funny here? the interviewer hasn’t a clue.

NASA. Has severed relations with Russia. Except for the International Space Station. Which is prudent, given that Russian rockets are the only way to get there. Washington had better hope that Moscow doesn’t get really angry – Afghanistan is the other location Washington depends on Moscow to get to.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 20 March 2014

On March 20, 2014January 21, 2016 By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

PUTIN SPEECH. After the referendum (by the way, perfectly normal numbers for this sort of thing see Falklands Islands, Kosovo and others) the process of re-joining Russia has begun – Putin’s speech here. One of his points was the illegality of Khrushchev’s transfer in 1954 “What matters now is that this decision was made in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then. The decision was made behind the scenes. Naturally, in a totalitarian state nobody bothered to ask the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol.” He quoted the UN International Court ruling of July 22, 2010. If I were to pick two sentences to sum it up, they would be these: “Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right.” The second: “Are we ready to consistently defend our national interests, or will we forever give in, retreat to who knows where?” But it should be read: again, read what he says, not what people tell you he says.

UKRAINE FUTURE. Putin said he has no intention of absorbing other parts of Ukraine but this must be considered conditional. The warning is here: “But it should be above all in Ukraine’s own interest to ensure that these people’s [ie Russophones] rights and interests are fully protected. This is the guarantee of Ukraine’s state stability and territorial integrity.” If it gets bad, he will. Yatsenyuk has said he will disarm the extremists. Let’s hope that he does but I think he’s the von Papen of this revolution and I doubt he’ll be around in six months.

LIFE IN UKRAINE. Now that the Crimea issue has been resolved, maybe our intrepid reporters can find the time to turn their attention to investigating fake voting in the Rada, vigilantes “lustrating” doctors, press people being beaten up (congratulations to Huff Post for carrying this one), neo-nazi thugs parading through towns, ditto beating up passers by, ditto beating up cops, ditto smashing up buildings, the “heroes” shaking down a gas station, people in the east turning back Ukrainian armed forces, big pro-Russia demos. Then again, maybe not. But they won’t have to go far or stay in uncomfortable hotels: this stuff is all over the Net and just has to be looked for.

UTTER FAILURE. Whatever the EU and Washington thought they were doing in Ukraine, it has been an utter failure. And there is more failure to come. Ukraine is broke, thousands and thousands of people in the south and east want out, some very nasty people hold the power in Kiev. The West’s absurd “sanctions” (parodied here) have been mocked by the whole Duma requesting to be put on the list. Is Ukraine more united? more democratic? richer? Is NATO stronger? more attractive? How about the EU? Does it look like a good bet for the future? Are Washington-EU relations stronger? Is Russia weaker? divided? poorer? Putin less popular? Do the people of Western countries think their leaders are smarter, more competent, more electable than they did a month ago? Do people believe their media outlets? (read the comments, for example, here). And they just keep digging their hole deeper. Just think, if Nuland, Ashton and the rest had kept their meddling hands out, Crimea would still be part of Ukraine and the tensions inherent in the Ukraine concept would not have burst open. But the concept has been broken and it will likely get nastier before it’s over. Biden may think that Russia is “naked and alone” but note Putin’s thanks to India and China. The world has changed; a lot of people are glad to see the “West” humbled.

SEA OF OKHOTSK. The relevant UN commission has agreed that a 52,000 sq kms section of the Sea is part of Russia’s continental shelf giving it exclusive rights to what may be a lot of resources.

HMMM. There is a report that more than $100B worth of US treasury bills were shifted out of New York.

JIHADISM. The Caucasus Emirate has announced, without details, the death of its leader Doku Umarov. It doesn’t say when so it may be that Kadyrov was correct when he said earlier this year that he had been killed. He was around for a long time – I see my first reference to him was in a Sitrep in June 2006 when he became President of the Chechen Republic/Ichkeria. As the obituary says, soon after he “raised the banner of monotheism and proclaimed the Caucasus Emirate.”

SYRIAN CW. The OPCW announces that more than 45% of the Syrian CW stockpile has been removed with 2 more shipments loaded at Latakia in the last week.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 13 March 2014

On March 13, 2014January 21, 2016 By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

PROPAGANDA. Watch for these news items in your local media outlet to indicate when it stops re-typing and starts reporting. Who is what in the new govt in Kiev; the sniper story; General Dempsey has no evidence the soldiers in Crimea are Russians; what the treaty allows Russia to have in Crimea; whether Yanukovych was deposed according to the constitution. There are others but these are a start. Most have had some mention in Europe but very little in North America. The Guardian seems to have the most even coverage. While waiting, amuse yourself by applying to the USA the US State Department method of getting rid of presidents you don’t like. (Number 4; no messy constitutions). Or enjoy the psychoanalysis of Putin.

“REMEMBER THE YELLOW WATER!” I steal this from Gordon Hahn: remember all the stories about Sochi? Many of them outright lies? Don’t be taken in again. Remember the yellow water. And everything worked.

NOT SELLING. But the information war doesn’t seem to be selling. In the Ossetian War the West’s propaganda line was well accepted and it was only months later that the truth started to appear. This time however, I notice that many commenters spurn the standard line. On many websites 50% or more do not buy it. Why the difference? The New Media is more powerful and there are more alternate sources of information than your local media outlets; too many people have heard US diplomats stage-directing things; the rather flippant reaction by Ashton to the sniper story; words of sobriety from Kissinger, Cohen or Matlock. A few examples of these sceptical comments.

DEVELOPMENT. Very interesting chart from World Bank data comparing incomes of the former USSR countries in 1994 with 2012. Two things leap out: the Baltics haven’t done better, despite NATO and EU, than Belarus. And how badly the successive gangs of thieves and fantasists have served Ukraine – it’s dead last.

CRIMEA POLL. The respondents on Sunday are offered two questions: join Russia? Stay in Ukraine with 1992 Constitution. Polling at the moment expects 80% yes to the first. My guess is that Moscow will wait to see if anything develops before saying yes. Remember it only recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia after a war.

CHINA. I don’t recall Beijing expressing an opinion on previous Western overthrows but it has this time. Indeed, Beijing’s statements – enigmatically expressed in its media – are becoming more outspoken. The latest from Global Times says “Chinese public opinion should firmly stand by Russia and support its resistance to pressure from the West”. Interesting way to put it, don’t you think? “pressure from the West”. This may prove to be the most significant consequence of this idiotic Western adventure.

UKRAINE NATIONAL GUARD. With the discovery that the Armed Forces barely exist, the Rada has decided to create a 60,000-strong national guard. Given that “a source in the government” has said that some members will be recruited from “activists” involved in the protests, we will learn whether the neo-nazis are indeed just something in the “Russian media’s fun-house mirror”.

PROBABLY NOT COINCIDENCES. A Russian ICBM was successfully tested; a big air defence exercise is on; an airborne division is exercising. All “long-planned” no doubt like the US warship in the Black Sea. However, in light of Kiev’s statement that there are 220,000 Russian troops on its borders, Moscow is allowing a reconnaissance flight to show Kiev that there are not.

CORRUPTION. Turning to Russia, the dismissed Defence Minister, Anatoliy Serdyukov, has been amnestied. At first glance (and second) this would seem to make a mockery of Putin’s oft-repeated promises that no one is exempt in the anti-corruption effort. He seems to have been surrounded with corruption but has escaped personal blame. Interested people may follow the discussion here. One theory is that he is being protected by higher levels – ie Medvedev or Putin or, alternatively, he has something on one of them. (The weakness with that theory is that he would hardly have been fired in the first place.) Another theory is that these kinds of high-level cases never come to a satisfactory conclusion: the swindles are so complicated, involve so many people, the parts are so deniable that it is almost impossible to put a case together – see, for example, the Lockheed case. It is always possible that he was a nincompoop who just didn’t notice. Nonetheless it is a shabby ending to a case that seemed to establish Putin’s seriousness.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 6 March 2014

On March 6, 2014January 21, 2016 By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

INFORMATION BATTLESPACE. Just as in the Ossetia War, Western governments and media are in full propaganda mode. And, again, their citizens and news consumers will eventually find out they are being lied to. But this time it will be sooner because the New Media is stronger and alternative views are available. The discovery of neo-Nazis and the sniper story will accelerate the collapse. Washington will soon be talking to itself.

SNIPERS. On 21 February an agreement was cobbled together by representatives of the EU-Russia-Yanukovych-opposition (text here). Very soon snipers started killing people on Maidan Square – both police and protesters and the agreement collapsed. We have an intercepted conversation from 26 February in which an Estonian diplomat tells Ashton that his information is that the snipers were from the “new coalition” (ie the people now in power in Kiev). It is genuine. Easy deductions: the sigint part of the former Ukrainian security service bugged the call. Ergo it has defected from Kiev; ergo what’s the next revelation going to be? It now would seem to be a good bet that these guys bugged the Nuland phonecall too and maybe the Crimea communication too (see below). It took a day but the story has crossed the Atlantic and arrived on Fox.

ZEN JUDO. Russia wins if it does nothing; USA/EU lose if they do anything.

WHO’S IN CHARGE? These guys have the street power: “talking” to prosecutors; no one will take my weapons away; a town council gets the word. Why do you suppose these things are proudly filmed and put out on You Tube? Pour encourager les autres? The BBC interviews some of these people; go to 2:48 – a little bit like Hitler… in our own way. The Guardian finally reports; the comments are fun to read – that’s not what you told us! “I had thought that Russian propaganda about ‘Nazis’ was just that, propaganda, nothing more. Now I read this article describing the composition of the new cabinet, and I’m floored. It’s dominated by neo-nazis and palaeo-nazis, with only token representation of moderates.” More on the Pravy Sektor and Svoboda presence. Another media outlet wakes up. A Swedish paper. There’s a report from Russian media (tomorrow’s news today in many cases – the sniper story first appeared on RT and spread from there) that Yatsenyuk is trying to regularise these people as an accepted militia. When will this information cross the Atlantic? Floored indeed.

IT’S OVER. Ukraine is a space on the map combining bits of the Russian Empire, Poland and Romania bounded by lines drawn by Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev. Inside that space are indeed people who regard themselves as “Ukrainians” but there are lots of other national identities too. It is a country split on “east-west” issues. The “Ukraine concept” could rub along so long as no one tried to make all Ukraine obey the desires of half Ukraine. To insist on alliance with Russia alienates the west just as NATO membership alienates the south and east. The stable option is neutrality. To insist on EU association and cutting Russia off is as bad as a Russia trade connection that cut the EU off. The stable option is an arrangement with each (“tripartite” – here rejected by the EU). But Western arrogance and ignorance keeps trying to split it (blaming Russia as it does). The so-called “Orange Revolution” ten years ago soon forgot “democracy” and “reform” in its desire for NATO membership. This time the “Ukraine concept” has been blown apart thanks to the West’s insistence on EU and not Russia and the neo-Nazi seizure of power. Ukraine is slowly separating along the tear line. Not “secession” yet, let alone joining Russia, but “dissociation”. This would be happening if Putin had never existed; it was implicit in the “Ukraine concept”. The Armed Forces, security structure, police services have probably split. The Ukrainian state has ceased to exist and I don’t see how it can be put back together.

STEPAN BANDERA. Learn about him, he’s a hero in the west of Ukraine and the people in power in Kiev but in the south and east he’s a “fascist” or “Nazi”. This disagreement is the precise aim-point of the destruction of the “Ukraine concept”. Here’s Wikipedia to start with.

COUP IN CRIMEA THWARTED? Some people have pieced together a story of a coup attempt in Crimea on 27/28 February that was thwarted by Russian special forces. Here are the arguments and information; read them for yourself. One, Two Three. Videos, intercepted communications, aircraft movements.

REALITY BITES. US supply routes to Afghanistan depend very heavily on Russia. Crimeans are perfectly happy with the situation. Russia by treaty is entitled to have 25,000 troops in Crimea; it has not exceeded that number. Russian gas supplies to Europe. China is not amused. Turkey is calm. Abandon US dollar? And the nature of the people Washington and Brussels have put into power. And polling data.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 27 February 2014

On February 27, 2014January 21, 2016 By Patrick ArmstrongIn RF SITREP

OLYMPICS. A triumph, no question about it, with the added unexpected pleasure for Russia of topping the medal list. A Levada poll showed something less than enthusiasm at the start: 53% were glad Russia was hosting but 26% were not. Bet there’s more support now! Perhaps connected is a poll rating that puts Putin up to 68% approval. So, after all the toilets, fake pictures, (intentional fakes too), breathless warnings, subtropical, they were safe, everybody had a private toilet and food, the athletes seem to have enjoyed themselves. Will Western opinioneers and media outlets admit to getting it wrong? (“Sochi has been utter embarrassment for Vladimir Putin”). Silly question: “away from all the cameras, there are still many glaring questions”, “these games were anything but carefree”. I believe they went too far: in the event, millions and millions of viewers have seen the Western MSM’s coverage of Russia revealed to be largely lies and propaganda and the happy, modern ordinary Russians shown are a contrast to the grey, miserable, downtrodden Russians we’re told about. So, while they are indeed only sports, the Games’ success is another bucket of paint remover thrown at the Western portrait of Russia.

CORRUPTION. Investigations chew away: an investigation into fraud at the Defence Ministry re-opened upon new testimony. Perhaps connected is a report that the former minister seeks amnesty. Seven generals and admirals investigated last year for corruption. A senior official in Interior Ministry detained over claims of bribery and abuse of office. Another senior Interior Ministry official dismissed with no reason given.

BOLOTNAYA CASE. Jail sentences for seven (longest 4 years, shortest 2 ½ – less double time served I presume as is usual) and probation for one. An anti-Putin rally turned violent in 2012. My sources tell me the violence was organised to happen (one of the principal Putin opponents said she wouldn’t appear because she knew there would be violence) but the WMSM of course pretends that this is a terrible outrage.

MORE LIBERALS. Vladimir Ryzhkov has quit RPR-PARNAS. I have lost track of how many registered parties there are now – over a hundred I think – so I guess there will soon be one more. The Russian “liberals” are so ego-bound that none can bear to cooperate with another.

OMBUDSMAN. Putin nominated Ella Pamfilova as ombudsman. An interesting choice: she had been the head of the human rights council until she resigned quite loudly in 2010. The apparent reason being her conviction that no one was listening. Many of the other members subsequently quit.

THE WORLD IS CHANGING. Straws in the wind. China unloading some US bonds (by the way China has an interest in Ukrainian developments). Russia-Egypt arms deal. Big year for Russia-India arms sales and cooperation. India showing interest in the Customs Union. Thoughtful people should know of this editorial in the CPC People’s Daily on Ukraine: “The theories related to politics, economics and security during the Cold War period are still influencing many people on their concept of the world, and some Western people are still imbued with resentment towards Russia”. What would happen if China unloaded, say, 10% of its $1.27 trillion of USD bonds to underline its displeasure with “outdated thinking”?Perhaps the EU and USA aren’t the final word any more.

UKRAINE. Nuland has got her way for the moment and “Yats” is named Prime Minister, As far as I can see, what actually happened was that the protest leaders made their “suggestions” and Parliament rubber-stamped them. And now it’s time to talk money because Ukraine is bankrupt. At the moment the number mentioned is US$35 billion but it will probably be more – someone has to pay for the gas. But the EU and USA aren’t as rich as they once were: Kerry thinks a billion is possible and the EU doesn’t sound helpful and the IMF is only talking $15 billion. No wonder Hague thinks Russia should chip in. (Who’d have thought, 20 years ago, that Russia would be the one with the spare cash?) Meanwhile, who’s in charge? People like this former fighter in Chechnya? Secession or civil war coming? The next month or so will tell us. My argument that the Standard Western Media Narrative is propaganda and lies is here. My prediction is that Moscow will sit back and watch developments: the EU and USA have broken it, let them pay for it. Ukraine in its present condition is no prize and it could be a real nightmare in a few weeks. I hope I’m wrong.

SYRIA. A fourth batch of CW left Syria yesterday and a third on the 10th.

Propaganda and the Narrative

On February 25, 2014January 1, 2018 By Patrick ArmstrongIn PROPAGANDA, LIES AND NONSENSE, UKRAINE

http://darussophile.com/2014/02/propaganda-and-the-narrative/

JRL/2014 /40/19

I assume that most of the people who read this blog agree that a great deal of what might be called the “Standard Western Media Narrative on Ukraine” could better be termed propaganda. That is to say that it is a constructed narrative designed to produce deep-rooted convictions. Or, more bluntly, constructed lies and selected truths designed to shape opinion.

Let’s get the truths out of the way: Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych ran a corrupt and inefficient government. The condition of life for a great many Ukrainians is dreary, disappointing and declining. EU association had serious, perhaps majority, support in Ukraine at the time Yanukovych abandoned it. A lot, perhaps even a majority (but no one knows), supported, at least to some extent, the Maidan protesters and are glad to see the back of Yanukovych. Those could be agreed to, with some discussion about how big the support was and how bad Yanukovych was, by practically all people with any degree of informed knowledge. But those aren’t the things I am talking about.

The “Standard Western Media Narrative on Ukraine” (SWMN henceforth) goes quite a bit further than that. It would, I would say, consist of the following assertions

Yanukovych was very much under the thumb of Putin (It’s very personalised: Russia is Moscow is Putin. But that’s another story.)
A key Putin policy is to keep Ukraine and the other former USSR countries under his influence.
Putin will not allow Ukraine or any of the former USSR countries to form an association with any other power.
Using his influence, in furtherance of his aim to keep Ukraine under control, Putin forced Yanukovych to cancel the EU agreement.

Perhaps a little variation in the SWMN; maybe Putin bribed Yanukovych rather than ordering or threatening him. But these variances are unimportant and these four assertions are taken for granted in almost every Western report on recent events in Ukraine.

I say that these four are propaganda and I say they are because there are huge logic holes in them; therefore they cannot be true. They can only be believed if they are repeated so loudly, quickly and routinely that none of the audience gets a chance to think.

So let us think. We’re told Putin controls Yanukovych and won’t let Ukraine sign on with the EU. So why did Putin let him get so close to signing? Surely he would have stopped the whole process months ago when it was easy to do so. This is a huge logic hole. We’re told that Putin wants to keep all the former Soviet states under his control. But Georgia and Moldova signed association agreements with the EU. Are we supposed to believe that Putin had more power over big Ukraine than over little Georgia and Moldova? Another logic hole. Therefore, consideration of what actually happened – Yanukovych changing his mind at the last moment and Georgia and Moldova signing – detonates the four assertions: they cannot be true. QED

Now to a second question. Has any Western media outlet discussed, at any level of detail, what the terms of the agreement were? I have not seen anything; I’ve read opinions but I have seen nothing with any detail in the Western media. Not even the authors of the Wikipedia entry can find anything about what the agreement actually said. Why not? Isn’t that a relevant part of the story? Or might seeing the details raise questions about how beneficial the deal would have been for Ukraine? Better to keep the discussion at the level of EU agreement Good! Russia agreement Bad! That’s propaganda, not reporting. QED

Finally a third question. A decade ago there were protests in Kiev and elsewhere and people power triumphed. A decade ago the people demanded new elections, got them and West-friendly people were voted in. A decade ago democracy triumphed over corruption, Russian influence and so on and on. And here we are again (with a lot more violence and some creepy people we didn’t see much of then, but never mind). Have you seen any Western media outlet discuss this fact? Or speculate on what happened to the “Orange Revolution” and Yushchenko and how Ukraine got back to Yanukovych? Or even mention that this is a second appearance of the same theme? Or don’t you agree that everything is written up as if this was something absolutely unprecedented in modern Ukrainian history? Propaganda again: a constructed narrative designed to make the audience feel a certain way. If one were to think about “Orange Revolution” I and its failure, one would have a different opinion of “Orange Revolution” II; probably not a very optimistic or supportive one. So don’t remind anyone. QED

So, I submit that we have three powerful arguments that the SWMN is a construction that plays up some facts, ignores others and avoids certain questions. In short, something manufactured by interests that are not necessarily concerned with improving the miserable situation in Ukraine but are playing some geopolitical game. (And playing it rather ineptly: I very much doubt that the supporters of “88” are going to just go away quietly. And they don’t like the EU or NATO.)

Some more evidence of manufacture: given that the famous Nuland-Pyatt conversation was out there and could not be ignored by media outlets that pretend to objectivity, chase the squirrel: make the reporting about her opinion of the EU and not about the fact that two American diplomats have been caught arranging the chairs in the new Ukrainian government. (And, the way things are looking, I doubt either “Klitsch” or “Yats” will be in the chair when the music stops.) That’s propaganda – or information-management, if you prefer – too.

So, Dear Readers, I’m not really trying to persuade any of you; what I hope you will do is try these arguments out on your neighbours and see if they have any effect at weakening the deep narrative planted in their heads by endless repetition. And, please, report back either way.

We spend our time talking to each other: preaching to the converted. That may be amusing and keep us from watching daytime TV but it doesn’t move anything forward. We have to come up with something that makes our neighbours, daily subjected to propaganda (here’s an egregious example), stop and think a bit. Why? Because calling Putin/Russia the Enemy could have very painful consequences for a lot of people. Quite apart from the moral repugnancy of cheering on what may turn out to be really terrible times for Ukrainians who, are after all, people who’ve never done any of us any harm.

Russia Observer

The Destruction of Ukraine