As Ukraine Murders Multiply, Who’s The Lead Suspect?

In the muddle of insurgency, assassinations, false flags, and military confusion, the right-wing Pravy Sektor’s Dmitry Yarosh is a key player.

The recent high-profile murders in Kiev of opposition politician Oleh Kalashnikov and, the next day, of Ukrainian writer Oles Buzyna have made the scene in an already complicated and fractious Ukraine murkier than ever.

Both Kalashnikov and Buzyan were overtly and, for many in Kiev and western Ukraine, disgracefully pro-Russian. Both were active in the “Anti-Maidan” movement of last year opposing the pro-Western change of power.

The word "Maidan" comes from the Persian word for "the square" or the "open place." It means a public place. In Europe, cities have town squares or platz where the markets are or where people gather for social reasons. Think rock concerts and political rallies.

The group that wanted to be free of Putin's proxy president called the location where they gathered to protest President Viktor Yanukovych cave into Putin on European economic integration named the gathering point Euromaidan. It symbolized their commitment to Europe. And it is obvious to all of the countries near the prosperous parts of Europe that even the poor nations of Central and Eastern Europe that were once slaves of the Soviets have pulled way ahead of Ukraine and its economic dominance by the Putin crime family.

Putin didn't want Ukraine to have a closer trade arrangement with Europe. But most Ukrainians don't see themselves as governed from Moscow. Yanukovych started a war on his own people and killed them, like Assad in Syria. Assad and Yanukovych met peaceful assembly with premediated murder. The similarity of police snipers on rooftops shooting unarmed protesters is striking. In both countries, the people fought back with bravery and determination.

I know there are many on FReeRepublic who hate Europe. They associate Europe and its liberty and over-the-top welfare sates with homosexuality and paganism. However, would they give up their freedom to be dominated by Putin, his corrupted Church, and his phony demagogic war on fags? Some probably would. Some like Putin that much. They value the rule of law, property rights, the US Constitution, civil government, peaceful assembly, and common decency so little that they cheer on the thugs like Assad, Yanukovych, and Putin. At least they’re not Obama, they “reason.” Some cranks in the world admired Hitler the same way because at least he wasn’t Stalin. Better Hitler than Blum, they said in France before WWII.

The Putin propaganda machine branded everyone opposed to Putin's proxy control of Ukraine as a fascist. Now, there really are people in Ukraine, out of hatred for Russian chauvinism, who are fascist. Just as Assad created ISIS with his oppression of Syrians who wanted his crime family gone, just as Assad created ISIS by his alignment of al Qaeda to kill Americans in Iraq, Putin's undeclared war on a peaceful nation on Russia's borders; annexation without any legal authorities of part of that country, have created future monsters who will fight back with the same vile rationalizations.

The population is significant because Russia has plenty of land; it’s war on Ukraine is due to its arrogance and Putin’s need to keep his people focused away from his criminal empirt. As a gangster statesman, he cannot allow his own people to wonder why he rules without their consent, uses the public media for his own political purposes and propaganda, and why all their wealth goes to the new elite he created. He has said the collapse of the Soviet Empire was the worst thing to happen in the 20th Century. It was, then, in his mind, worse than both World Wars, the Holocaust, the Gulag, and Mao’s mass murder. Well, if that doesn’t mean he aspires to redress the loss, you must think it’s just a coincidence that he’s mistreated Georgia and Ukraine for chauvinist reasons and empire building.

I agree what’s happening in Ukraine is firstly about economics and trade with Europe.

If the U.S. is going to counter Putin in Ukraine, then it’ll have to be for the long run. And, the Russians will play, especially on their doorstep, Putin or not. The Europeans will leave that part to the U.S. - will add the Ukrainians aren’t exactly the innocent party in all this. So, I think it will be an ongoing and complex situation.

By the way, I’ve talked to Eastern Europeans, from former Soviet Bloc who assert their ‘liberation’ was their own doing, not due to any other intervention. True or not, that’s debatable; but that was what was expressed.

The comparison with Assad and ISIS is not quite relevant, since so far as ISIS is concerned we aren’t dealing with a nation or country, but much more an ideology which has the potential to mobilize over a billion people worldwide (Islam). Ok, not a billion, but consider a fraction of that; some won’t be muslim-born either. They aren’t country-bound.

Moreover, there is no basis to say Assad created ISIS. Of course Assad, like many in that region, has relations with ISIS, especially since ISIS gaining land and has controlled a portion of Syria. The same ‘relations’ can be said for a couple of others in that region. But, Assad, as bad as he is, is neither ideologically aligned with ISIS, nor is ISIS of any real benefit to him or his regime; in fact ISIS is much more of an existential threat to Assad than to USA or Europe.

My concern is that the more we ‘rattle’ and antagonize Russia, the more we’ll find opponents of our ‘cause’ than proponents, in Russia too.

It’s a fine line to wage war on a ‘dictator’ versus a nation and its people. End of the day, Putin for now represents Russia and has considerable support. In Russia, he is largely perceived as a nationalist, not a communist. He is still quite popular.

It is true 15 or 20 yrs ago, following the downfall of the USSR, some or many Russians felt demoralized, even if not communists or socialists. Some Russians more than others. It hurt their pride. Equally, I don’t see Russians turning their back on Putin just because we think or say they should. Actually if we say they should they most probably won’t.

In fact, I’ve seen so much Anti-Russian (not simply anti-Putin) propaganda on British media in the last few months that it has almost lost the impact it was probably aimed to have.

A simple and recent example was when Daily Mail posted an article about the birth of Kate and William’s new child, stating the Russian media and Russian people commenting had suggested the child was born to a surrogate, etc. The Daily Mail story was picked up by literally every single other newspaper in the UK, which published the story online, leading to very unpleasant counter comments by some Brits.

It turned out that the original Russian publication, in Russian language, had vastly different content, never made stated accusations; it was bogus, anti-russian propaganda spread by British newspapers. Point is this type of fabrication will only strengthened Putin’s popularity in Russia at least, and doubtful it’ll help resolve Ukraine issue.

I can't share some of what I know, but even in open sources you can read the truth about Assad and ISIS.

From Der Speigel:

"In 2003, the Damascus regime was panicked that then-US President George W. Bush, after his victory over Saddam Hussein, would have his troops continue into Syria to topple Assad as well. Thus, in the ensuing years, Syrian intelligence officials organized the transfer of thousands of radicals from Libya, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia to al-Qaida in Iraq. Ninety percent of the suicide attackers entered Iraq via the Syrian route. A strange relationship developed between Syrian generals, international jihadists and former Iraqi officers who had been loyal to Saddam -- a joint venture of deadly enemies, who met repeatedly to the west of Damascus."

"At the time, the primary aim was to make the lives of the Americans in Iraq hell. Ten years later, Bashar Assad had a different motive to breathe new life into the alliance: He wanted to sell himself to the world as the lesser of several evils. Islamist terror, the more gruesome the better, was too important to leave it up to the terrorists. The regime's relationship with Islamic State is -- just as it was to its predecessor a decade prior -- marked by a completely tactical pragmatism. Both sides are trying to use the other in the assumption that it will emerge as the stronger power, able to defeat the discrete collaborator of yesterday. Conversely, IS leaders had no problem receiving assistance from Assad's air force, despite all of the group's pledges to annihilate the apostate Shiites. Starting in January 2014, Syrian jets would regularly -- and exclusively -- bomb rebel positions and headquarters during battles between IS and rebel groups."

See the links:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html

From THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR:

"“The pictures were taken before they became emirs in ISIS, when they were all officers in the Syrian special service. There are documents sent by the special service to ISIS telling them to capture or kidnap people in Raqqa and Jarabalus, and these documents will be published. And you will see how the regime fabricated these extremist groups that did not exist in our country at the beginning of the revolution."

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/01/michel-kilo-syria-opposition-regime-terrorists-isis.html#

I fail to see how providing non-lethal aid to people being killed by Russian soldiers is saber rattling, which is all we've done so far. Nor do I see how supporting human liberty is saber rattling. The alternative, turning a blind eye, holds even more risk for world peace.

If the Russian people still desire to be a nation of drunks who die young and are ruled by a small clique of money-grubbing thugs, then they'll be the ones who suffer the consequences even if they conquer Ukraine.

THE DAILY MAIL, the last time I checked, is a privately owned paper; it's not the Queen's propaganda machine. I believe most Brits are smart enough to figure out the downscale news media among their flourishing press organs from the highbrow papers. I also believe the UK has a robust and politically divergent number of newpapers that that they should be proud of. I do not think the situation is the same in Russia and neither does anyone with any knowledge of their media. It is sophomoric false equivalency to compare what THE DAILY MAIL writes to what the Putin controlled RUSSIA TODAY does. It's the type of thing the Left liked to do during the Cold War.

>>>”A strange relationship developed between Syrian generals, international jihadists and former Iraqi officers who had been loyal to Saddam — a joint venture of deadly enemies, who met repeatedly to the west of Damascus.”<<<

I believe that. Those loyal to Saddam were mostly Sunni and Baathists. Many Saddam ‘officials’ found their way into Syria about 2003 and thereafter. Although Syrian Baathists have been a different grp to Iraqi ones under Saddam.

Noteworthy is during Iran-Iraq war, Syrian gov’t was the only Arab country which supported the Mullahs regime in Iran.

Today I am very sure there is a massive power struggle going on in that region. It’s a region where loyalties change daily and very quickly.

Here is piece from a British General:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

Like I said before, if we’re going to ‘help’ Ukraine we’ve to be there for the long run, non-lethal or otherwise. Beyond Obama or any other administration.

I say the above, because we’ve a habit of saying, it wasn’t what was planned. Like in Iraq, George W. Bush had a great plan and did well. But he must have known his plan couldn’t be limited to his max. 8 yrs of presidency, when his admin had control. It needed continuity. Next admin, may or may not follow what previous admin started. We’ve to be in Ukraine for the long run, following Obama.

Nothing to do with Queen’s propaganda. Like I said before, every single newspaper in the UK picked up on Daily Mail story, and published it. Many of the most vocal ones questioning and criticizing Daily Mail’s misleading piece were Brits themselves. Yes, the Brits are well aware, and happily there is still freedom of speech in the UK. But propaganda remains propaganda on both sides of the line.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.