This is a collage of excerpts from some of the best news-reports about how the U.S. Government took and control Ukraine, and it provides the historical background by which a person can understand the significance of this famous phone-conversation posted to the Web on 4 February 2014, in which Obama’s agent, Victoria Nuland, running the operation, was instructing the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev whom to get appointed to run the post-coup Ukrainain government after the coup will be over:
4 January 2016 – In the world 3564 [translated fm. Russian]
Ukrainian law enforcement agencies have long since lost their independence and come under the control of Western intelligence services, especially the CIA.
This was proved once again by the scandal with the Ukrainian spy detained in Moscow this week.
Thus, SBU [Security Bureau of Ukraine] lieutenant colonel Yuri Ivanchenko arrived in Russia, according to the FSB, to recruit Russian special services. To do this, he had to offer his services to the FSB as an informant.
However, the Russian secret services already had information that the CIA had sent Ivanchenko to Moscow “to participate in an operation based on the recruitment of the FSB by proactively offering them its services,” the Russian agency said.
The exposed spy will soon be deported to Ukraine, as he did not have time to harm Russia’s interests with his actions.
The FSB also notes that currently the work of the SBU in the Russian direction is led by American specialists from the CIA.
This statement was confirmed in an interview with Russian media and the former head of the SBU Alexander Yakimenko, who headed the department under President Viktor Yanukovych.
According to him, after the coup d’etat in Ukraine, the Security Service was headed by Valentin Nalivaychenko, who was recruited by the CIA when he was Consul General of Ukraine in the United States. The SBU even launched an investigation against the former diplomat, but Euromaidan and a change of government in the country prevented it from being completed.
In addition to Nalivaychenko, according to Yakimenko, the CIA and his colleague, Valery Kondratyuk, who now heads the SBU’s counterintelligence, were recruited.
Earlier, the media received a report addressed to the acting head of the SBU Nalivaychenko signed by the first deputy head of the SBU counterintelligence department, Major General Vladimir Bik.
According to this document, the former head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Andrei Deshchitsa, who held this post from February to June 2014, was an agent of American intelligence.
Officially, Ukraine established “close” contacts with Western intelligence services by signing a 15-year defense agreement with Britain in March, including the exchange of intelligence between the two countries.
Given that the British secret services are closely integrated with the American, the agreement indirectly extends to cooperation with the CIA.
“At the same time, the SBU is already almost under the full control of the CIA, and talk of some additional information exchange is more of a verbal veil. Because the SBU is actually a “native branch” of the CIA that exchanges information in both directions. ” – stated earlier political scientist Vladimir Kireev.
Retired FSB lieutenant colonel Alexei Filatov, vice president of the International Anti-Terrorist Association “Alpha”, believes that one of the reasons why the Americans were able to “crush” Ukraine is the lack of activity of Russian special services in Kiev.
Exclusive: Few Americans understand the ugly history behind the Nazi-affiliated movements that have gained substantial power in today’s U.S.-backed Ukrainian regime. Western propaganda has made these right-wing extremists the “good guys” versus the Russian “bad guys,” as Jonathan Marshall explains.
28 January 2016 By Jonathan Marshall
The latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine, one of the leading journals in its field, offers a two-page photo essay on “what to see, do, and buy” in Lviv, a picturesque city in the Western Ukraine. “Amid the turmoil that has rocked Ukraine over the past two years,” the article gushes, “Lviv has stood firmly as a stronghold of national culture, language, and identity.”
That’s one way of putting it. Another, less charitable way would be to note that Lviv has for nearly a century been a breeding ground of extreme Ukrainian nationalism, spawning terrorist movements, rabid anti-Semitism, and outright pro-Nazi political organizations that continue to pollute the country’s politics.
On the lovely cobblestone streets admired today by tourists flowed the blood of some 4,000 Jews who were massacred by locals in 1941, during the German occupation. They were egged on by the radical Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), whose founder and wartime leader is today a national hero to many of his countrymen.
On April 28, 2011, the 68th anniversary of the formation of a Ukrainian Waffen-SS division, hundreds of people marched through Lviv, with support from city council members, chanting slogans like “One race, one nation, one Fatherland!”
Two months later, residents celebrated the 70th anniversary of the German invasion “as a popular festival, where parents with small children waived flags to re-enactors in SS uniforms,” according to the noted Swedish-American historian Per Anders Rudling.
Later that year, extreme right-wing deputies at a nearby town in the Lviv district “renamed a street from the Soviet-era name Peace Street to instead carry the name of the Nachtigall [Nightingale] Battalion, a Ukrainian nationalist formation involved in the mass murder of Jews in 1941, arguing that ‘Peace’ is a holdover from Soviet stereotypes.’”
Such inconvenient truths rarely get aired in Western media, but they are important for at least two reasons. They help explain the recent violent, anti-democratic upheavals that have made Ukraine the battleground of a dangerous new cold war between NATO and Russia. And they should inspire Americans to reflect on our own country’s contribution to recent political extremism in the Ukraine, going back to the early post-World War II era, when the CIA funded former Nazi collaborators to help destabilize the Soviet Union.
By JP Sottile, Global Research, March 25, 2014
As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation’ of Crimea, JP Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there’s a gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.
The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing … production here could double … Ukraine’s agriculture could be a real gold mine.
On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 “pro-Western” Ukrainians descended upon Kiev’s Independence Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning of the end of Yanukovych’s four year-long government.
That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.
Business confidence never faltered
Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine’s UkrLandFarming.
According to the Financial Times, UkrLandFarming is the world’s eighth-largest land cultivator and second biggest egg producer. And those aren’t the only eggs in Cargill’s increasingly ample basket.
On 13th December 2013, Cargill announced the purchase of a stake in a Black Sea grain terminal at Novorossiysk on Russia’s Black Sea coast.
The port – to the east of Russia’s strategically and historically important Crimean naval base – gives them a major entry-point to Russian markets and adds them to the list of Big Ag companies investing in ports around the Black Sea, both in Russia and Ukraine.
Cargill has been in Ukraine for over two decades, investing in grain elevators and acquiring a major Ukrainian animal feed company in 2011. And, based on its investment in UkrLandFarming, Cargill was decidedly confident amidst the post-EU deal chaos.
John Robles, 30 March 2014
The US Government, through the use of paramilitary neo-nazi extremist elements carried out the overthrowing of the government of Ukraine. Admissions, statements and the actions of US Government officials and hundreds of taped conversations, private e-mails, and uncontested facts that have been reported and released prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US was behind the coup in Ukraine, yet the “world community” is quiet and the disgrace and affront to humanity that the West calls “Euro-Maidan” continues to blight and sully the concepts of democracy, rule of law, sovereignty and civilization in front of the eyes of the world.
The geopolitical architects of Madan
Brezhinsky acolytes, neo-conservative PNAC planners, CIA, NATO, the Pentagon, the US corporate/military industrial complex that controls the entire US Government including the President of the United States Barrack Hussein Obama (who has become nothing more than a gas salesman of late) and the entire US foreign policy establishment decided they wanted regime change in Ukraine.
The goal of the western cabal is many fold in Ukraine but includes: cementing US hegemony in former Soviet Republics, installing NATO war elements to continue to surround Russia, ending Russian influence in Ukraine, dividing the Slavic world, weakening the Russian Orthodox Church, controlling and profiting off the flow of Russian gas into Europe, evicting the Black Sea Fleet and ending all trade between Ukraine and Russia.
The planners needed a fifth column in Ukraine, one that would hate Russia enough to do anything to bring about the change of government that was needed in order for Washington to continue with its nefarious plans of world domination and control of resources. They spent at least $5 billion and 10 years training neo-nazis including the Right Sector and organizing a coup d’état timed to begin with the start of the Olympic Games in Sochi so as to lessen the impact of the success that was had by Russia in organizing and hosting the games.
All of those facts and more are known to the world as is the plain and simple fact that the regime in Kiev is nothing more than an installed puppet show organized by the West and in no way representing the Ukrainian people. The names and actors behind the coup are also no secret, as is the fact that the Right Sector is nothing but a gang of ruthless, lawless, nazi thugs yet there is no outcry, there is no backing off by western politicians who continue to support the lawless nazi killers and the western media continue marching in lock step aiding and abetting in what has become truly one of the single greatest disgraces for Washington and the western world.
Russia and China have just written to the United States asking it to respect the United Nations Charter and the word it has given. This approach, devoid of any aggressiveness, calls into question not only the functioning of the UN, NATO and the European Union, but almost all the US advances since the dissolution of the USSR. It is obviously unacceptable to Washington. But the US hyper-power is not what it used to be. It will have to begin its withdrawal.
by Thierry Meyssan, VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE) | 4 JANUARY 2022
The world today is ruled by the United States of America and NATO, which present themselves as the only global powers, while the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are more powerful than them, both economically and militarily.
On December 17, 2021, Moscow released a draft bilateral treaty with Washington providing guarantees for peace , as well as a draft agreement to implement it . These documents are not directed against the United States, they are only aimed at enforcing the UN Charter and complying with its own commitments.
On December 23, at President Putin’s annual press conference, a question from Sky News journalist Diana Magnay led to a spat. Vladimir Putin curtly replied that Russia’s remarks on US behaviour dated back to 1990 and that Washington not only ignored them, but persisted in going ahead. Now Nato weapons were about to be deployed in Ukraine, which would be an unacceptable fact for Moscow . Never before has a Russian leader expressed himself in this way. It is important to understand that placing missiles four minutes’ flight from Moscow poses an extreme threat and is a cause for war.
On 30 December, a telephone conversation was held between Presidents Biden and Putin. The US side put forward proposals for resolving the Ukrainian issue, while the Russian side brought the discussion back to the US violations of the UN Charter and of its word.
The US is considering showing its good faith by not welcoming Ukraine into Nato. This is an approach that only marginally answers the question posed and is only likely to prevent war if accompanied by withdrawal measures.
It is clear that we are entering a period of extreme confrontation that will last for several years and could degenerate into a World War at any moment.
In this article, we will examine this conflict, which is largely unknown in the West.
1- THE EXTENSION OF NATO TO THE BORDERS OF RUSSIA
During the Second World War, the United States deliberately made the maximum effort weigh on the Soviet Union. Between 22 and 27 million Soviets died (13-16% of the population) compared to 418,000 Americans (0.32% of the population). When this butchery ended, the US formed a military alliance in Western Europe, Nato, to which the USSR responded by creating the Warsaw Pact. Nato soon proved to be a federation that violated the principle of state sovereignty laid down in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter , which Third World countries denounced in 1955 at the Bandung Conference . Ultimately, the USSR also violated the UN Charter by adopting the Brezhnev Doctrine in 1968 and imposing it on the members of the Warsaw Pact. When the USSR was dissolved and some of its former members created a new military alliance, the Collective Security Treaty, they chose to turn it into a confederation in compliance with the UN Charter.
To be clear about the meaning of federation and confederation, let us take an example: during the Civil War, the Northerners formed a federation because the decisions of their government were binding on all its member states. In contrast, the Southerners formed a confederation because each member state remained sovereign.
When the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, the Germans wanted to reunite their nation into one country. However, this meant the extension of Nato into the territory of the German Democratic Republic. At first, the Soviets were opposed to this. A reunification with the neutralisation of GDR territory was envisaged. In the end, First Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to the expansion of Nato through the reunification of the two Germanies on the condition that the Alliance did not seek to expand to the East.
West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, his Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, and French President François Mitterrand jointly supported the Russian position: NATO had to commit itself to no further expansion to the East. US President George H. Bush Sr. and his Secretary of State, James Baker, made numerous public statements and commitments to this effect to all their interlocutors .
As soon as the USSR was dissolved, three neutral countries joined the European Union: Austria, Finland and Sweden. However, the EU and Nato are one and the same entity, one civilian and one military, both based in Brussels. According to the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Lisbon Treaty (Article 42, paragraph 7), it is NATO that ensures the defence of the European Union whether or not its members are also members of NATO. De facto, these countries are no longer neutral since their accession to the European Union.
In 1993, the Copenhagen European Council announced that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe could join the European Union. From then on, the process of NATO membership for the former members of the Soviet bloc went smoothly, apart from the traditional Russian remarks.
But by the 1990s, Russia was a shadow of its former self. Its wealth was plundered by 90 people, the so-called ’oligarchs’. The standard of living collapsed and the life expectancy of Russians dropped by 20 years. In this context, no one listened to what Moscow was saying.
In 1997, the Nato summit in Madrid called on the former Soviet bloc countries to join the North Atlantic Treaty. After East Germany (1990), but the next five times in violation of its word, it was the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999; then in 2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia; in 2009 Albania and Croatia; in 2017 Montenegro; and again in 2020 Northern Macedonia.
Ukraine and Georgia may soon join Nato, while Sweden and Finland may abandon their theoretical neutrality and openly join the Atlantic Alliance.
What was unacceptable in 1990 is still unacceptable today. It is not conceivable that Nato missiles are within a few minutes’ flight of Moscow. The same situation occurred in 1962. The United States deployed missiles on the USSR’s border in Turkey. In response, the Soviets installed missiles on the US border in Cuba. US President John Kennedy discovered in extremis the trap the Pentagon had put the US in. He managed to clarify the situation through his ambassador to the United Nations. The then Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer, was violently anti-Soviet and intended to provoke a nuclear war. Fortunately his current successor, General Mark Milley, is much wiser and maintains courteous relations with his Russian counterparts.
2- VIOLATIONS OF THE UN CHARTER
The UN Charter was negotiated by 50 states in 1945 at the San Francisco Conference, even before Soviet troops took Berlin and caused the Nazi Reich to surrender. It was adopted unanimously. Since then, another 147 states have signed it, bringing the total number of signatories to 197.
The Russian proposal of December 17, 2021 for a bilateral US-Russia Treaty to Safeguard Peace states in Article 2 that: “The Parties shall ensure that all international organisations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties participates adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations. For the reasons explained above, this implies the transformation of Nato or its dissolution.
The same proposal states in Article 4 that the former member states of the Soviet Union cannot join Nato. This implies that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should leave and that neither Ukraine nor Georgia should join.
Article 7 of the Russian proposal stipulates a ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons outside its borders. This implies the immediate withdrawal of atomic bombs illegally stored in, for example, Italy and Germany in violation of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Furthermore, respect for the UN Charter requires a return to the original functioning of the UN and the abandonment of the illegal practices that this organisation has been engaged in since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Insensibly, the UN is not only no longer fulfilling its statutory objectives, but is being transformed into an agency for implementing US decisions. For example, the Blue Helmets, which were once “interposition forces”, have become “peacekeeping forces” since the dissolution of the USSR. They no longer simply intervene when two parties are at war and manage to conclude a cease-fire. They used to intervene between the two sides, with their explicit agreement, and ensure that their commitments were respected. Today, they do not care about the agreement of the protagonists, or even the existence of an agreement between them. In practice, during the twenty years or so of Russia’s collapse, the Security Council endorsed a US decision. In practice, therefore, the peacekeepers were mainly at the service of the Pentagon.
The most glaring example is the Libyan affair. The US organised and financed false testimony before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that Muamar Gaddafi was bombing his own people  . These depositions were then passed on to the Security Council. Washington obtained a resolution allowing Nato to intervene in order to “protect the population” of Libya from its “dictator”. Once there, Nato forbade the African heads of state to come and check what was going on, threatening to kill them all. Then it bombed Libya, killing about 120,000 of the people it had supposedly come to “protect”. Finally, it split the country into three and installed terrorists in power in Tripoli .
In the case of Syria, a further step has been taken. The UN, which had asked the Arab League to carry out an on-site investigation to verify reports of a civil war, did not ask any questions when this mission was interrupted without explanation. This was because experts from 21 Arab countries had found in a preliminary report that the US information was false . The US then appointed Jeffrey Feltman, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy for the broader Middle East, as deputy to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who coordinated the Allied operations in the war economically, politically and militarily . Years later, while this gentleman is long gone to commit other crimes elsewhere, his directives to starve Syria are still being imposed on UN agencies .
This brings us to the question of UN agencies. Many of them serve as a cover for US actions. … The Security Council has passed numerous sanctions against states during the period of Russia’s erasure. Many senior UN officials are seeing on the ground that these sanctions are causing famine and killing civilians. But they have been voted on and can only be lifted by a vote that the US opposes. These so-called ’sanctions’ are not sentences passed by a court of law, but weapons against people wielded in the name of the United Nations.
Since Washington can no longer get them adopted, it unilaterally decrees them and forces the European Union, its vassal, to apply them. Thus the Europeans of the Union are murdering civilian populations, this time in the name of “democracy”. …
F. 7 January 2022, Matthew Lee & Lorne Cook
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States and NATO on Friday roundly rejected Russian demands that the alliance not admit new members amid growing concerns that Russia may invade Ukraine, which aspires to join the alliance.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Russia would have no say over who should be allowed to join the bloc. And, they warned Russia of a “forceful” response to any further military intervention in Ukraine.
Their comments amounted to a complete dismissal of a key part of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands for easing tensions with Ukraine. Putin wants NATO to halt membership plans for all countries, including Ukraine.
2 February 2022
Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia’s key demands for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.
According to documents seen by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow’s calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between Russian and Western diplomats. … The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy,” the written response said.
JANUARY 25, 2022 STATEMENTS AND RELEASES Via Teleconference 8:41 A.M. EST
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, thanks. Good morning, everybody.
You’ve no doubt heard us talk about how the United States, alongside allies and partners, continues to prepare a range of severe economic measures to impose on Russia if it further invades Ukraine. And, to repeat, we are prepared to implement sanctions with massive consequences that were not considered in 2014.
That means the gradualism of the past is out, and this time we’ll start at the top of the escalation ladder and stay there.
19 February 2022
MOSCOW, Feb 19 (Reuters) – Two regions in eastern Ukraine where government and separatist forces have been fighting since 2014 were hit by more than 1,400 explosions [virtually all fired from Ukraine’s side into the breakaway region] on Friday, monitors for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said, pointing to a surge in shelling.
The two Russian-backed, self-proclaimed republics in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions are at the centre of a surge in tensions between Moscow and the West over a vast Russian military buildup near Ukraine.
The OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission that is deployed in the conflict zone said it had logged 553 explosions in Donetsk.
A further 860 were reported in neighbouring Luhansk. Both numbers were valid as of 1630 GMT on Friday, it said in a statement released late on Saturday.
The monitoring mission confirmed one civilian casualty in a government-controlled area of Donetsk.
It put the total number of ceasefire violations on Friday at more than 1,500 compared with 870 the day before when monitors reported 654 explosions.
UK Special Services continue to provoke an aggravation of the situation near the Black Sea
Russian precision attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure are a necessary response to Ukrainian sabotage on Russian soil, including the bombing of the Crimean Bridge, President Vladimir Putin told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The two leaders spoke by phone at Berlin’s request.
Putin explained the logic behind Russia’s military operation against Ukraine which has started military aggression against Donbass in 2014 and later against Russia in 2022, and stated that the Western policy of arming and training Ukrainian troops was “destructive.”
“It was noted that the Russian Armed Forces had been refraining from conducting precision missile strikes on certain targets in the Ukrainian territory for a long time, but now such measures have become necessary and unavoidable as a reaction to Kiev’s provocative attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure, including the Crimean Bridge and energy facilities.” The “terrorist attack” against the Nord Stream undersea pipelines “stands in the same category” and requires a transparent investigation that would include Russia, Putin told the German leader.
– Belarusian and Russian troops will act as a unified force. The two countries don’t want war, but are preparing to “repel any aggression, – Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has announced amid heightened tensions with the West over the Ukraine large-scale aggression against Donbass in 2014 and later against Russia in 2022. “Today we are preparing like a single force, a single army,” Lukashenko said, adding that instructors from both countries were training each other’s troops.
Lukashenko underlined that the situation around Belarusian border is ‘tense’. The country’s security agencies have registered an increase in the number of “provocations.”
– Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu called Belarus a “trustworthy partner” for Russia during a meeting with Viktor Khrenin, his Belarusian counterpart. Two ministers signed a revised version of a Regional Security Treaty between the two governments on December 3.
– Western European states are creating a dangerous situation by trying to exclude Russian and Belarus from the continent’s security order, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned. He accused EU leaders of allowing the US to dictate policy, and surrendering their own interests to Washington, and claimed that EU policy is creating insecurity on the continent. The West “is already trying to build a security architecture [in Europe] without Russia and Belarus. We don’t need such security,” Lavrov said. “The whole security [architecture] in Europe now comes down to it being completely subservient to the USA,” he claimed.
– Kiev plotting provocation on ammonia transit from Russia. The grain deal, as a part of a UN- and Turkey-brokered agreement that unblocked exports of Ukrainian grain and Russian fertilizers in the Black Sea, did not reportedly cover exports of Russian ammonia via the Tolyatti-Odessa pipeline. However, earlier, a UN-aid chief said that the ammonia deal would likely be reached by the end of the week.
Kiev has been given a free passage of its grain deliveries abroad via the Black Sea under the multilateral deal reached last July, but is plotting a provocation to subvert the UN initiative on resumption of Russia’s ammonia transit abroad free of charge.
Guided by UK Special Services, and with help from Canada’s private military company (PMC) GardaWorld, the provocation is to echo the blasts carried out at Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea. The goal, like in the case of the September 2022 sabotage at the pipelines, is to prevent Russia from exporting its resources to other countries.
The Kiev regime’s plan reportedly presupposes blowing up ammonia storage facilities at Odessa Portside Plant, to subsequently blame Russia for the explosion.
From our partner International Affairs
It Is Possible To Live Peacefully In The Caucasus
The Caucasus is a geographical area inhabited by a number of peoples. This region with its beautiful nature has experienced complicated events throughout history. The South Caucasus, which is also the historical homeland of the Azerbaijanis, has gone through difficult periods over the past periods, which shaped the current map.
December 5th marks the Day of Deportation of Western Azerbaijanis from their native lands. The policy of ethnic cleansing systematically carried out against Azerbaijanis throughout the 20th century resulted in the forced deportation of the last Azerbaijanis from the territory of West Azerbaijan in 1988-1991.
The vast majority of our compatriots displaced from their native lands on the territory of present-day Armenia at various times died longing for their homes. About 250,000 of the Azerbaijanis, who were subjected to deportation in 1988-1991, are still longing for their homes and native lands. Those people are deprived of their fundamental rights – the right to live in the lands of their birth and to visit the graves of their relatives.
Unfortunately, the rich cultural and historical heritage of West Azerbaijanis was purposefully destroyed or alienated. The destruction of cemeteries belonging to Azerbaijanis is very heartbreaking. The destruction of a monument belonging to the world heritage means the destruction of a historical object and the infliction of damage to human history. International organizations, especially UNESCO, which should react sharply to such cases, are still keeping mum. A possible just position by UNESCO, its deployment of a fact-finding mission to the monuments, which belong to West Azerbaijanis and are in danger of being wiped out, as well as their registration and ensuring their safeguarding, would be very useful for human history.
Today, West Azerbaijanis are dreaming of returning to their homes and native lands, where they were deported, and reuniting with their homeland.
The community of those people declares readiness for peaceful coexistence in their native lands in Armenia. “We desire to return to our homes and visit the graves of our loved ones. Taking into account the ongoing positive processes for peaceful coexistence of 25,000 people of Armenian origin in the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and being inspired by it, we believe that coexistence in the territory of Armenia may be possible”, Western Azerbaijani Community members state.
What “Victory” and “Defeat” Would Mean in Ukraine’s War
In order to be able accurately to define “victory” in the war in Ukraine, the pre-requisite is to define whom the two sides are that wage this war. For example: when America fought in WW II, it was waging war in foreign battlefields and with its own troops and weapons, and even if America were to win in any of those battlefields, it still could have been defeated in WW II simply by Hitler’s winning WW II. Any given battlefield was only a part of the war itself; and that war, WW II, was not defined by any one of its many battlefields. There is a difference between a battlefield in which a war is being waged, versus the war that is being waged.
However: when America fought and still fights in Syria, it wages war on that battlefield against Syria, for regime-change in that nation; and ONLY by replacing Syria’s Government with one that the U.S. Government supports would America (and its allies in that war) “win” that war, in that battlefield (Syria), which is that war’s ONLY battlefield. In that instance, then, winning that battlefield is the same as winning the war there, by America and its allies, against that nation. America (unlike in WW II) does not wage this war against Syria by using its own troops and weapons but instead by hiring proxy armies — mainly separatist Kurds and Al Qaeda-led jihadists — in order to achieve there a regime-change that the U.S. Government approves of. Unless and until that is done, America will have lost the war that it is fighting in Syria. (Perhaps this is a reason why U.S. troops are not fully withdrawn from there though Syria’s Government has repeatedly ordered them to leave: America doesn’t want to lose in Syria, as it did lose in Afghanistan and in Vietnam.) However: the war in Syria is not between Syria’s Government and America’s proxy-armies there; it is instead a war between America and Syria, which is being waged by America in that battlefield, using foreign troops, to defeat Syria.
Similarly, the war in Ukraine is not a war between Ukraine versus Russia, but, in Ukraine’s case, Ukraine is only a proxy battlefield and proxy army on America’s side.
The war in Ukraine is a war that America initiated against Ukraine in February 2014 by America’s coup there that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected and neutralist Government and replaced it by a rabidly anti-Russian and pro-American one on Russia’s border in order ultimately to become able to place just 317 miles away from the Kremlin U.S. missiles which would be only a five-minute flight-time away from nuking Russia’s central command — far to little time in order for Russia’s central command to be able to verify that launch and then to launch its own retaliatory missiles.
For America to win that war, by Ukrainians, in the battlefield of Ukraine (i.e., by that proxy army, in that proxy battlefield against Russia) would be to checkmate Russia and so to transform Russia into another U.S. vassal-nation, regardless of what Russians might want — and this is what the U.S. regime demands: “regime-change in Russia.” That is America’s (and its ‘allies’ or vassal-nations’) goal there.
For Russia to win that war in the battlefields of Ukraine would be for Russia to defeat the U.S.-imposed government there and to establish in Ukraine not the neutralist Government that had been there before America’s take-over of Ukraine in 2014 but instead a Russian-imposed Government that will order all U.S.-and-allied troops and advisors — including from all of America’s vassal-nations and especially from NATO — out of the country, and close the door, seal Ukraine’s borders against all U.S. vassal-nations. That would mean telling all Ukrainians who want to leave for “The West” to go and never come back into Ukraine. At that time, Russia would invite the U.S. and its vassal-nations (or ‘allies’) to provide to any such Ukrainian any assistance, financial or otherwise, that the person might need in order to relocate into the U.S. empire. However, even if the U.S.-and-allied side refuse to provide any such assistance, the person must relocate and never come back — even if the person would then be stateless. Anyone who wishes to remain in Ukraine would be required to sign an oath of loyalty to the new, pro-Russian, Ukrainian Government. That would automatically entail the right to vote in the new Ukraine’s future elections.
The only alternative to there being a clear win of this war by either side would be for America to agree to Russia’s demand that America recognize the legitimacy of the then-existing line of separation between the two sides, and for Russia to relocate its own capital away from Moscow, to Novosibirsk (1,900 miles away from Ukraine) or some other city that would be far enough away from NATO so that America would not within the forseeable future any longer be able, at all realistically, to aspire to checkmate against, and grab control over, Russia. That would entail concessions by both sides, no win for either side. (Moving the capital to Novosibirsk would also place the capital near the center of Russia and within its Asian part — better suited for the future, nearer to China, Beijing being 1,865 miles away.) America would continue to be the world’s biggest threat to peace; the only way to stop that would be for Russia to win in Ukraine against America.
America is attempting to carry out the plan that Cecil Rhodes came up with in 1877, and that Harry Truman committed America to on 25 July 1945, and that GHW Bush, starting on 24 February 1990, committed America and its allies to continue at least until Russia becomes conquered. Barack Obama merely started the present phase of this Rhodesist plan, a phase that could produce a nuclear WW III and end everything, if Russia fails to achieve a clear win against the U.S. empire.
Why America Aims to Deindustrialize Europe
Imperialism has always been — and always is — control of foreign governments. This is especially control of those governments’...
When Mr. Xi comes to town
Pomp and circumstance are important. So are multiple agreements to be signed during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Saudi...
Russia’s Military Diplomacy in Africa: High Risk, Low Reward and Limited Impact
The South African Journal of International Affairs, a foreign policy think tank, has released a special researched report on Russia-Africa....
Renewable and Energy Transition: Towards a Stronger Future
One of the key UN programs under the SDGs is the energy transition and management of the current global energy...
Narratives and Discourses: Evaluating 75 years of Indian Foreign Policy
As India celebrates its 75 years of Indian foreign policy and its positioning in the global architecture, it needs to...
Historical Issue of Comfort Women and How It Remains a Thorn in Japan – South Korea Relations
Japan and South Korea are the neighboring states who are just 50 kilometers apart from each other from Tsushima to...
Women Participation in Workforce Of Pakistan: Is It A Gender Inequality?
There is a gender wage gap that disproportionately affects low-income women across a wide range of countries, industries, and occupations....
World News3 days ago
Douglas Macgregor: ‘Russia will establish Victory on its own terms’
East Asia3 days ago
Territorial Disputes Between Russia and Japan: Will They Ever End?
East Asia4 days ago
China: Past, Present and Future
Southeast Asia4 days ago
US-Bangladesh-Myanmar: Why US Rohingya rehabilitation announcement is appreciable?
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Serving the country and the King: The Constitutional Court Justice Chiranit Havanond
Eastern Europe3 days ago
UK Special Services continue to provoke an aggravation of the situation near the Black Sea
South Asia4 days ago
Is genocide against the Indian Muslims a myth or a tangible reality?
World News3 days ago
Politicians and journalists targeted by spyware to testify at Council of Europe parliamentary hearing in Paris