FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "Ukraine's neo-Nazis are not some urban legend. Their presence is real, as they swagger in their paramilitary garb through the streets of Kiev, displaying Nazi insignias, honoring SS collaborators from World War II, and hoisting racist banners, including the white-power symbol of the Confederate battle flag."

Neo-Nazis at Ukrainian protests. (photo: Drugoi)
Neo-Nazis at Ukrainian protests. (photo: Drugoi)


Ukraine's Inconvenient Neo-Nazis

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

31 March 14

 

he U.S. media’s take on the Ukraine crisis is that a “democratic revolution” ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, followed by a “legitimate” change of government. So, to mention the key role played neo-Nazi militias in the putsch or to note that Yanukovych was democratically elected – and then illegally deposed – gets you dismissed as a “Russian propagandist.”

But Ukraine’s neo-Nazis are not some urban legend. Their presence is real, as they swagger in their paramilitary garb through the streets of Kiev, displaying Nazi insignias, honoring SS collaborators from World War II, and hoisting racist banners, including the white-power symbol of the Confederate battle flag.

Over the past few days, the neo-Nazis have surged to the front of Ukraine’s unrest again by furiously protesting the killing of one of their leaders, Oleksandr Muzychko, known as Sashko Bily. The Interior Ministry reported that Muzychko died in a Monday night shoot-out with police in Rivne in western Ukraine.

But the right-wing paramilitaries claim that Muzychko was murdered in a cold-blooded contract hit, and these modern-day storm troopers have threatened to storm the parliament building if the interim Interior Minister is not fired.

This renewed disorder has complicated the storytelling of the major U.S. news media by challenging the sweetness-and-light narrative preferred by U.S. policymakers. The New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading news outlets have worked hard to airbrush the well-established fact that neo-Nazi militants spearheaded the coup on Feb. 22.

To dismiss that inconvenient fact, the major U.S. media has stressed that the extreme rightists made up a minority of the demonstrators, which – while true – is largely irrelevant since it was the paramilitary Right Sektor that provided the armed force that removed Yanukovych and then dominated the “transition” period by patrolling key government buildings. As a reward, far-right parties were given control of four ministries.

Some U.S. outlets also have picked up on the unsubstantiated U.S. government theme that Russia is dispatching unidentified “provocateurs” to destabilize the coup regime in Kiev, though it doesn’t seem like Moscow would have to do much besides stand aside and watch the interim government’s unruly supporters turn on each other.

But reality has stopped playing much of a role in the U.S. news media’s Ukraine reporting as the U.S. press continues to adjust the reality to fit with the desired narrative. For instance, the New York Times, in its boilerplate account of the uprising, has removed the fact that more than a dozen police were among the 80 or so people killed. The Times now simply reports that police fired on and killed about 80 demonstrators.

Fitting with its bowdlerized account, the Times also ignores evidence that snipers who apparently fired on both police and protesters before the coup may have been working for the opposition, not Yanukovych’s government. An intercepted phone call by two European leaders discussed those suspicions as well as the curious decision of the post-coup government not to investigate who the snipers really were.

Surrounding the Parliament

But most significantly, the U.S. mainstream media has struggled to downplay the neo-Nazi angle as was apparent in the Times’ report on President Vladimir Putin’s call on Friday to President Barack Obama to discuss possible steps to defuse the crisis. Putin noted that neo-Nazis had surrounded the parliament.

“In citing extremist action, Mr. Putin sought to capitalize on a tense internal showdown in Kiev,” the Times wrote. “The presence of masked, armed demonstrators threatening to storm the Parliament building offered the Russian government an opportunity to bolster its contention that the ouster of President Viktor F. Yanukovych, a Moscow ally, after pro-European street protests last month was an illegal coup carried out by right-wing extremists with Western encouragement.”

But the Times couldn’t simply let those facts speak for themselves, though they were all true: right-wing extremists did provide the key manpower and organization to overrun government buildings on Feb. 22 and there is no doubt that these right-wing elements were getting Western encouragement, including a shoulder-to-shoulder appearance by Sen. John McCain.

The Times felt compelled to interject an argumentative counterpoint, saying: “In fact, the nationalist groups, largely based in western Ukraine, had formed just one segment of a broad coalition of demonstrators who occupied the streets of Kiev for months demanding Mr. Yanukovych’s ouster.”

And, that has been a consistent pattern for the supposedly objective U.S. news media. If the Russians say something, even if it is clearly true, the point must be contradicted. However, when a U.S. official states something about the Ukraine crisis, the claim goes unchallenged no matter how absurd.

For example, when Secretary of State John Kerry denounced Putin’s intervention in Crimea by declaring, “you just don’t in the 21st Century behave in 19th Century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext,” mainstream U.S. news outlets simply let the statement stand without noting that Kerry himself had voted in 2002 to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

You might think that Kerry’s breathtaking hypocrisy would be newsworthy or at least a relevant fact that should be pointed out to readers, but no. The Times also has routinely distorted Crimea’s secession from Ukraine. The Black Sea peninsula, a longtime Russian province that was only attached to Ukraine for administrative purposes during Soviet days, asserted its independence after the coup ousting Yanukovych, who had won Crimea overwhelmingly.

No one seriously doubts that the vast majority of Crimean citizens wanted to escape the disorder and hardship enveloping Ukraine – and to return to Russia with its higher per capita income and functioning national government – but the Obama administration and the dutiful U.S. news media have pretended otherwise.

In New York Times speak, Crimea’s popular vote to secede from Ukraine and to join Russia was simply Putin’s “seizure” of Crimea. The Times and other mainstream news outlets dismissed Crimea’s March 16 referendum as somehow rigged – citing the 96 percent tally for secession as presumptive evidence of fraud – although there was no actual evidence of election rigging. Exit polls confirmed the overwhelming majority favoring secession from Ukraine and annexation by Russia.

IMF’s ‘Reforms’

And, really, who could blame the people of Crimea? As Ukraine’s acting Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has said, Ukraine “is on the edge of economic and financial bankruptcy” and the International Monetary Fund agreed to throw a financial lifeline only if Ukraine imposes “reforms” that Yatsenyuk has admitted are “very unpopular, very difficult, very tough.”

They will be toughest on average Ukrainians who will face severe public sector budget cuts, slashed pensions, soaring heating costs and rapid inflation due to changes in the exchange rate. The cumulative impact of these IMF “reforms” is expected to result in a 3 percent contraction of Ukraine’s already depressed economy.

Yet, much of the mainstream U.S. media ignores the understandable desire of the Crimean people to bail out on the failed Ukrainian state. Instead, the MSM pretends that Russia simply invaded Crimea and now is threatening to do the same in eastern Ukraine, or as the Times put it, Putin has engaged in “provocative moves punctuated by a menacing buildup of troops on Ukraine’s border.”

The bottom line is that the U.S. government and media have constructed a substantially false narrative for the American people, all the better to manufacture consent behind a $1 billion U.S. aid package for Ukraine and the launch of a new Cold War with the expectation of many more exciting confrontations to come – in places like Syria and Iran – all justifying fatter military budgets.

A more objective and less alarmist narrative on the Ukraine crisis would describe Putin’s actions as primarily defensive and reactive. He was distracted by the Winter Olympics in Sochi and was caught off-guard by the violent putsch that removed Yanukovych.

In light of Yanukovych’s democratic election victory in 2010 and his agreement on Feb. 21 to speed up new elections (a deal that was negated within hours by the U.S./EU-supported coup), Russia has a legitimate argument that the coup regime in Kiev is illegitimate.

The removal of Yanukovych not only was spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias but subsequent parliamentary actions to “impeach” him did not follow Ukraine’s constitutional rules. The putsch essentially disenfranchised the large ethnic-Russian populations in the east and south, where Yanukovych had his political base.

Then, the rump parliament in Kiev – reflecting the intense Ukrainian nationalism in the western section – passed punitive laws targeting these Russian speakers, including elimination of Russian as an official language. For Putin to be troubled by this crisis on his border — and to take action — was neither surprising nor particularly provocative.

If the New York Times and other leading U.S. outlets did their journalism in a professional way, the American people would have had a more nuanced understanding of what happened in Ukraine and why. Instead, the Times and the rest of the MSM resumed their roles as U.S. propagandists, much as they did in Iraq in 2002-03 with their usual preference for a simplistic “good-guy/bad-guy” dichotomy.

In the case of Ukraine, that happy dichotomy has been challenged again by the reemergence of those inconvenient neo-Nazis.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+52 # listentome 2014-03-31 14:25
What would we do without Robert Parry? He seems to be one of the few that will tell us 'how it is' in 'real time' in Ukraine when there are thousands of cell phones which could convey it and many more avenues.

That is how powerful those cold war years were, and now are again. There are few running the world's countries that are blazen enough to display Nazi geer and symbols, and all of our news medial is telling us to support them. Oh my god- what have we done. In an age of infinite information from all over the world, we have Robert Parry, and some of Amy Goodman and Stephen Cohen.
 
 
0 # RobertMStahl 2014-04-04 12:46
Parry and PCR (Paul Craig Roberts).
 
 
+36 # PABLO DIABLO 2014-03-31 14:37
THANK YOU Robert Parry
 
 
+29 # jsluka 2014-03-31 14:44
On the news last night I saw these neonazis marching in Ukraine, but they were wearing brand new uniforms, marching in ranks, and looked like troops; but you could still tell they weren't the Ukrainian army and were neonazi skin-heads because they weren't wearing hats and their "haircuts" gave them away. I wonder who gave them the new uniforms, and advised them to march in disciplined ranks rather than as a mob? "Perception is reality," as recent commentators on this news service have observed.
 
 
+35 # Anonymot 2014-03-31 14:52
It is interesting that the mainstream media complain bitterly that the Obama government is possibly the most secretive in modern times, yet they seem to swallow whole the clear falsehoods put out as government propoganda.

They did the same thing with the gross Hitlerian fabrications of the Bush administrations , but slowly, after it was revealed to be Cheney in fairyland even the media couldn't follow the fantasies as truth. What is intriguing is why such once excellent news sources as the NYT and Washington Post and Politico have moved to the right in the last few years under this "secretive" Obama. I'd love for someone to explain clearly what prompted that move? NSA skeletons in the closet of prime editors? Publishers? What?

After all, blackmail is a significant potential of what the PRISM and such spying programs are designed to dredge up. Hoover-style, McCarthy-style blackmail and illegal commercial negotiations advantages.
 
 
+20 # Salus Populi 2014-03-31 19:21
It is not just in the last few years under Obama that the Times and Post have moved to the right.

The Times, after all, agreed in 2004 to delay its expose of the illegal spying of the Bush regime so that it wouldn't help Kerry win the [fraudulent] election of 2004. And then there was Judith Miller, who stovepiped the Cheney neo-con cabal's lies directly onto the Times's front page with the full approval of the editors and publisher for years, and ignored completely such minor stories as the "Whitehall" revelation that the "intelligence was being fixed," according to British intelligence, by the Bushites. Nothing, obviously, that was of interest to the public, or at least not "fit to print."

As for the Post, it has been the CIA's favorite newspaper for several decades, and openly neo-con at least since Ronald Reagan took the helm.

It is a mistake to assume that the "quality" press does not reflect the needs of the power structure. An "adversarial" press, or a professionally journalistic one that took its responsibilitie s as the Fifth Estate seriously, is a mythical creature that, if it ever existed in substantial form, certainly has not been seen in the United States during the last half of the twentieth century, if not long before.

Powerful institutions, such as major news media, exist to serve the elites, and for no other purpose.
 
 
+2 # tabonsell 2014-04-02 16:46
Strange that you should mention Reagan, since I don't recall the NYTimes, Washington Post or any other members of the mainstream media going into any details of the mass slaughter occurring throughout Latin America during his time in office. Don't remember any of them calling the incidents murder at the time. That only came out many years after Reagan had departed this world. And it came out by people such as Robert Parry, not by the Times or Post.

The media, that I left in disgust years ago, often failed to mention the money funneled to murder squads to our south to combat a "communism" that Reagan didn't understand or usually didn't exist in the first place. How infants in diapers managed to become Marxist scholars was a puzzlement to me, but apparently Reagan thought he understood quite well, even though Marx is extremely difficult to read. I believe Reagan would be totally unable to comprehend anything Marx wrote so he figured any resistance to right-wing oppression had to be Marxist.
 
 
-4 # bmiluski 2014-04-01 12:04
The NY Times moved to the right because it was bought by Rupert Murdock.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2014-04-08 15:17
You're thinking of either the Wall Street Journal or the New York Post, both of which are Murdoch properties now, but neither of which can really be said to have moved to the right as a result. [The WSJ has always been far, far, crypto-fascist right on its editorial pages and stance, although with a fairly professional and independent news staff, if somewhat blinkered; the Post, once the flagship of New York Liberalism in the days of Pete Hamill, was iirc purchased by the neocons at US News in the seventies, and became even more right-wing and disreputable than the NY Daily News.]

But the Times is still, afaik, owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger clan, and has always served as a ruling class paper. It is, as such, a windsock of prevailing opinion in Washington, and the ruling class, since the time of Nixon, has fulfilled Attorney General John Mitchell's prediction [which he applied to the country, but that was essentially shorthand for his circle, which thinks of themselves as the country, since they have fundamental problems with democracy] that it would go "so far to the right that you won't recognize it."
 
 
+12 # Anonymot 2014-03-31 14:52
It is interesting that the mainstream media complain bitterly that the Obama government is possibly the most secretive in modern times, yet they seem to swallow whole the clear falsehoods put out as government propoganda.

They did the same thing with the gross Hitlerian fabrications of the Bush administrations , but slowly, after it was revealed to be Cheney in fairyland even the media couldn't follow the fantasies as truth. What is intriguing is why such once excellent news sources as the NYT and Washington Post and Politico have moved to the right in the last few years under this "secretive" Obama. I'd love for someone to explain clearly what prompted that move? NSA skeletons in the closet of prime editors? Publishers? What?

After all, blackmail is a significant potential of what the PRISM and such spying programs are designed to dredge up. Hoover-style, McCarthy-style blackmail and illegal commercial negotiations advantages.
 
 
+7 # Anonymot 2014-03-31 15:18
Excuse me. I hit the button twice.
 
 
+21 # Anarchist 23 2014-03-31 15:38
Didn't Yeltsin 'back in the day' surround the Russian Parliament building and shell it? He was 'our boy' in Moscow and we thoroughly approved of him! This country has always favored Fascists (which, according to a famous if misapplied as to author quote by Mussolini: Fascism should more properly be called 'Corporatism'!) ..there were quite a few who did not want to go to war against the Nazis and even more who wanted to 'continue marching' right on to Moscow! Of course, with Operation Paperclip, we took in lots of Nazi scientists after the war. Hey 'Greatest Generation'! Were Your ever suckered by Uncle! Now it's the present generations turn to be hollowed out and killed, one way or another by TPTB!
 
 
-20 # Patrice Ayme 2014-03-31 15:55
The collaboration, one could even say fabrication, of German and Italian fascists, by Anglo-American plutocrats, in collaboration with some of their German colleagues and friends, is a facet of occulted history.

Same with the collaboration with Stalin, and the collaboration of Hitler, Stalin, and American plutocrats (with quite a few Brits thrown in).

A similar phenomenon has blossomed with Putin. His plutocrats are also ours, and Mr. Parry their apologist.
 
 
+4 # FDRva 2014-04-01 02:28
Not sure what the author's point is but:

The Brits did collaborate with the Nazis and sought a separate pro-Reich peace. Churchill repeatedly praised Mussolini.

No wonder FDR considered Stalin honest and Churchill devious at their wartime summits.
 
 
-2 # Cassandra2012 2014-04-02 12:31
Yes, however, our acquiescence in the narcissistic self-serving KGB thug Putin's neo-'anschuss' (sp.) must also be seriously evaluated and (alas?!) perhaps eventually acted upon.
How does one say 'anschuss' in Russian?
 
 
-25 # Patrice Ayme 2014-03-31 15:43
Yanukovych was democratically elected – and then fully constitutionall y and legally impeached – same as Richard Nixon. That means, in particular, that there was no coup.

To claim otherwise is to be a “Putin propagandist”, a sort of plutocratic propagandist.

That Parry would build the death of one of the most notorious right wing extremists in a confrontation with the government as a proof that said government is run by said extremists, is a case of inversion of all logic.

I have been bombed by (European) Neo-Nazis in the past, so I am not particularly in love with them. But certainly the frantic nationalistic propaganda of Putin fits the "Na" part of Nazi.

In other news, what of the Tatars? Nobody is not paid to worry about Tatars? Did not Stalin holocaust them in 1944 to replace them with Ukrainians and Russians?
 
 
+21 # jdd 2014-03-31 18:40
You are completely wrong. As the article notes, Yanukovich was never impeached in accorgance with the terms of the Ukraine Constitution. In fact, neither was Richard Nixon, who resigned under threat of impeachment. Please check your facts, as you know not of what you speak.
 
 
+8 # Rick Levy 2014-03-31 19:28
Quoting jdd:
Please check your facts, as you know not of what you speak.


Yes, Nixon resigned, but only because he was about to be impeached. BTW impeachment is not the same as removal from office. It's the process of placing the officeholder on trial to determine whether that step should be taken.
 
 
+7 # FDRva 2014-04-01 02:34
Methinks, 'Patrice Ayme' is a Ukrainian Neo-Nazi trying very hard to sound like something else.
 
 
+8 # FDRva 2014-04-01 02:35
And failing.
 
 
+4 # Reyn 2014-04-01 08:06
Probably not - there are deep and serious divisions between reasonable people on this conflict. I for example don't like EITHER side. I know that, and it was difficult for me to come to terms with it.
 
 
0 # Rick Levy 2014-04-01 22:56
At last, a sane voice in the wilderness.
 
 
+4 # Reyn 2014-04-01 08:05
I believe that the issue is that he was NOT impeached, but removed in an extraConstituti onal manner - which would be called a coup in the West.

I do not trust Putin at all, but I also do not think that what is happening in 2014 had ought to do with what happened in 1944. The whole reference to the "Tatars" strikes me as specious to the conversation we are having now.
 
 
+4 # dsepeczi 2014-04-01 09:41
Quoting Patrice Ayme:
Yanukovych was democratically elected – and then fully constitutionally and legally impeached – same as Richard Nixon. That means, in particular, that there was no coup.

To claim otherwise is to be a “Putin propagandist”, a sort of plutocratic propagandist.

That Parry would build the death of one of the most notorious right wing extremists in a confrontation with the government as a proof that said government is run by said extremists, is a case of inversion of all logic.

I have been bombed by (European) Neo-Nazis in the past, so I am not particularly in love with them. But certainly the frantic nationalistic propaganda of Putin fits the "Na" part of Nazi.

In other news, what of the Tatars? Nobody is not paid to worry about Tatars? Did not Stalin holocaust them in 1944 to replace them with Ukrainians and Russians?


Sorry, Patrice, you're wrong on all counts. Yanukovych was not legally removed from office. A rush vote was put together by the coup but everything they did, including chasing Yanukovich's "would be" successor (Serhiy Arbuzov) out of parliament, does violate the Ukrainian constitution and international law. According to the Ukrainian constitution, a leader can only be impeached for treason. It takes a 2/3 vote to investigate treason, a 3/4 vote to agree that treason was committed, and then the ousted leader is to be replaced by the Prime Minister if he is impeached. None of that happened.
 
 
0 # liteguy 2014-03-31 15:45
So congress wa t-shirt to s err nd a billion dollars to Nazis ????
Just because.....
 
 
+5 # liteguy 2014-03-31 16:51
That would be "wants to send"
Sorry about my phone changing words. ..
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2014-03-31 17:22
Quoting Patrice Ayme:
Yanukovych was democratically elected – and then fully constitutionally and legally impeached – same as Richard Nixon. That means, in particular, that there was no coup.

To claim otherwise is to be a “Putin propagandist”, a sort of plutocratic propagandist.

That Parry would build the death of one of the most notorious right wing extremists in a confrontation with the government as a proof that said government is run by said extremists, is a case of inversion of all logic.

I have been bombed by (European) Neo-Nazis in the past, so I am not particularly in love with them. But certainly the frantic nationalistic propaganda of Putin fits the "Na" part of Nazi.

In other news, what of the Tatars? Nobody is not paid to worry about Tatars? Did not Stalin holocaust them in 1944 to replace them with Ukrainians and Russians?


Nixon wasn't "Impeached", he resigned to avoid it.
 
 
+12 # ericlipps 2014-03-31 18:19
Good point. It's amazing how many people miss that.

In U.S. history, only two presidents have ever been impeached, both of them Democrats and both by Republican Congresses: Andrew Johnson (who, although he ran with Abraham Lincoln on a national-unity ticket in 1864, came from the Democratic Party) and, of course, the modern GOP's Great Satan, Bill Clinton. Neither, of curse, was actually removed from office.
 
 
+4 # FDRva 2014-04-01 03:00
"Nobody is not paid to worry about Tatars?"

Absolutely. We Americans are too busy not being paid to work jobs we actually work to worry about Tatars in the employ of British intelligence agencies trying to screw Putin.
 
 
+4 # FDRva 2014-04-01 03:17
I apologize to the Ukrainian Nazi poster.

In America, EVERYBODY is "not paid to worry about Tatars."

And many British Intell stringers never get paid either.

MI-5 should have edited their poor tool's English.

The Ukrainian Billionaires' 'revolution' against Yanukovich was about as democratic as Chile 1973.
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2014-03-31 18:20
Er . . . that should be "of course." My kingdom for an edit button. . . .
 
 
+2 # Malcolm 2014-03-31 20:17
Your kingdom? I'll provide you with the edit button info for a single kilo of 85% cacao chocolate!

I don't have great computer skills, but I easily can tell you how to edit your posts!
 
 
0 # tabonsell 2014-04-02 16:52
You should have a little edit icon at the lower left side of your post.
 
 
+14 # ganymede 2014-03-31 19:09
It was clear from the beginning that Putin would not have annexed the Crimea if we hadn't created and abetted the destruction of the legal government of the Ukraine. It's that simple. Boy, are we dumb and is Putin smart. We created the 'revolutionary' movement that deposed Yanukovych. We gave Putin the excuse to do what he wanted to do, but I doubt he could have done it otherwise, and I doubt whether Obama really understood what the neocons in his administration (Nuland et al)were doing when they beefed up the opposition, including the neo-nazis, because they wanted to show the Russians that we rule the world, right up to the Russian border. Also, and Obama knows this, the Russians have helped him defuse our and the Israeli's desire to bomb Iran. Just imagine if the neocons and the Republicans were in full control of our government, we'd be in even deeper doo-doo than we are now.
 
 
-2 # tclose 2014-04-01 12:16
Very good points. We are seeing the unintended consequences of supporting revolutionary coups - on many fronts.

But it doesn't seem to me that there is enough info to conclude that this coup was fomented by "right-wing extremists", or due to genuine Ukrainian disgust at the thoroughly corrupt Yanukovych regime. And it is by no means clear to me that the supposed neo-Nazis were the main force behind what happened in Maidan square - evidence in another RSN article points to Yanikovych's own goon squad.

Too early to jump to the conclusions Mr. Parry insists on making, imo.
 
 
+3 # heraldmage 2014-04-01 16:41
I guess you missed the leaked conversation between the Estonian Ambassador & Baroness Ashton about forensic evidence of 1 gun.
The results of an investigation showed the snipers fired from opposition held building. Which BTW the upper floors were rented by the US Embassy.
 
 
+3 # dsepeczi 2014-04-02 11:21
Quoting ganymede:
It was clear from the beginning that Putin would not have annexed the Crimea if we hadn't created and abetted the destruction of the legal government of the Ukraine. It's that simple. Boy, are we dumb and is Putin smart. We created the 'revolutionary' movement that deposed Yanukovych. We gave Putin the excuse to do what he wanted to do, but I doubt he could have done it otherwise, and I doubt whether Obama really understood what the neocons in his administration (Nuland et al)were doing when they beefed up the opposition, including the neo-nazis, because they wanted to show the Russians that we rule the world, right up to the Russian border. Also, and Obama knows this, the Russians have helped him defuse our and the Israeli's desire to bomb Iran. Just imagine if the neocons and the Republicans were in full control of our government, we'd be in even deeper doo-doo than we are now.


Very true, ganymede. I think America's so pissed off at Putin because he makes our so-called leaders look like idiots (not that our leaders don't do a good job of that , themselves) at every turn. He beat out the EU in a trade agreement with the Ukraine ... an agreement I might point out was much better than the deal the US and EU were offering (think Greece austerity measures) So, once he beat them out fairly, they destabilized the region and implanted one of their own leaders. They never expected Putin then to beat them at their own game, again, by annexing Crimea.
 
 
+3 # FDRva 2014-04-01 02:13
Thank you for this.

It remains to be seen whether Wall Street's Barry Obama sides with the "pro-Western" Nazis--and their post-Soviet gangster Billionaire sponsors.

If he goes with the pro-EU gangsters Barry Obama will be last President of the USA.
 
 
+3 # FDRva 2014-04-01 02:37
Territorial integrity matters to nuclear-armed Russia as well as to the USA, after all.
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2014-04-01 12:09
Who is this Barry you keep refering to?
 
 
+1 # FDRva 2014-04-27 04:00
You are a slow learner bmiluski.

And obviously not well acquainted with the President.

Barry Obama and I did politics in Chicago long before you were hired to cover his butt on the web.
 
 
+5 # RMDC 2014-04-01 06:39
It is really weird to see Nazism coming back so heavily in Europe. I know the European Nazi parties have been encouraged by the US as a way to end the socialist programs there like universal healthcare, pensions, and holidays. Quasi Nazi parties swept the elections in France last week. Old Nazis are gaining power in the Baltic States. The US brought out the old Nazis to fight in Bosnia and Croatia.

It is just amazing how far to the right Euro/American politics have gone. Obama is far to the right of even Nixon and Reagan. When Hitler rose to power in the late 1920s, Nazism was still a minority party of thugs how -- just like in Ukraine -- blugeoned their way to power. But today, the Nazi parties are voted in by large majorities who see Nazism as a defense against global bankers and industrialists.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2014-04-01 12:10
It's not amazing at all. Where do you think all those child nazis went after the war? They grew up, raised families, and passed on the nazi indoctronizatio n they received when they were children.
 
 
+1 # FDRva 2014-04-27 04:11
And almost all of those second generation Nazis support President Obama's policy in Ukraine.
 
 
+5 # geraldom 2014-04-01 13:43
The bottom line here is that the United States doesn't really care who is running the new government of a country that it had recently overthrown, like Ukraine, as long as the new leadership is willing to jump through its hoops.

Unfortunately, with the new leadership of the Ukraine, there will be a conflict with Israel over the Nazis who help run the new government.
 
 
+1 # Activista 2014-04-02 12:10
This is future of "democratic" Ukraine:
rt.com/in-motion/greece-tear-gas-clashes-781/
"thousands of anti-austerity demonstrators clashed with riot police in the Greek capital of Athens on Tuesday, as European Union finance ministers met to discuss the disbursement of a further bailout aid to the debt-ridden country. Authorities banned all protests in a large section of central Athens for the Eurogroup meeting and a later meeting of all European Union finance ministers. Police dispersed protesters with tear gas and stun grenades"
rt.com/in-motion/greece-tear-gas-clashes-781/
 
 
+2 # geraldom 2014-04-02 23:17
Activista, what really pisses me off is the stupidity and the naiveté of those protesters who were suckered into the violent protests that took place before the overthrow of the Yanukovych government thinking that a better government lies in the wings.

Wait till they start demonstrating in the streets again as they did under Yanukovych, when their new master, their new government establishes the same austerity program that was established in Greece and in Spain.

If they think that the behavior of the government under Yanukovych was bad in how it treated the protesters, it will be so much worse under the dictatorship that now exists in Ukraine, and they're going to find out that the United States and its western puppets are not going to object or say anything against how they will be treated.

If they think that they were oppressed under Yanukovych, it will look like a cakewalk when compared to how they will be treated under their new Fascist regime if they even dare to protest in the streets. It will look more like what's happening in Egypt.
 
 
0 # ahollman 2014-04-05 11:16
Historically caught between two oppressors and pursuing their independence, some Ukranians have sided with Russians, others with Nazis. It is easy to condemn Ukranians for choosing either side. What far fewer condemn are those Ukranian attitudes and behaviors which are deserve condemnation regardless of circumstance:

1) Ukranians' ethnic and religious bigotry and hatred of Jews, Tatars, and other minority groups, and associated centuries of pogroms, massacres, and killings.

2) The extraordinary corruption of Ukranian government, regardless of who is in power, and most often perpetrated by Ukranians in government.

The presence of Nazis among those who helped get rid of Yanukovich is disturbing and undesirable, but does not invalidate his ouster; ditto the presence of various US-sponsored "pro-democracy" groups.

Debates between Yanukovich vs. Tymoshenko, or EU vs. Russian trade membership, are like Republicans vs. Democrats in the USA. One may be marginally less worse than the other, but both both are dominated by a elite primarily concerned with itself.

Ukraine is economically and morally bankrupt, and depends on Russia for natural gas and much trade. Ukranians will have to make a tough choice between the not-so-tender mercies of a Russian bailout or a western bailout. The support they deserve from the west, should they choose it, should mix carrot and stick to both allow and force Ukranians to tolerate minorities and to clean up their corruption.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN