In Part 1, we discussed the historical background of Technocracy Inc. that briefly found popularity in the US in the 1930s during the turmoil of the Great Depression. Technocracy was rooted in socioeconomic theories that focused upon the efficient management of society by experts (technocrats). This idea briefly held the public’s attention during a period of sustained recession, mass unemployment and growing poverty.
The technological capabilities required for the energy surveillance grid, essential for the operation of a Technate (a technocratic society), were far beyond the practical reach of 1930s America. Consequently, for that and other reasons, public interest in the seemingly preposterous idea of technocracy soon subsided.
However, in recent decades, many influential policy strategists—most notably Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger—and private philanthropic foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, recognised that advances in digital technology would eventually make a Technate feasible. As founding and leading members of the Trilateral Commission, a policy “think tank,” they saw China as a potential test bed for technocracy.
We will now consider their efforts to create the world’s first Technate in China.
These articles build upon the research found in my 2021 publication Pseudopandemic, which is freely available to my blog subscribers.
In the West we often have difficulty understanding or even conceptualising Chinese mores. We tend to see the world in our own terms and are able to describe it only in reference to the principles and philosophical concepts that we are familiar with. Perhaps we forget that the Western perspective is not the only one in the world.
For example, as pointed out by students of the Chinese political philosophy of tianxia, there is no ontological tradition in China. In the Chinese philosophical mind, the question is not “What is this thing” but “What path does this thing suggest?”
Datong lies at the heart of “the Great Way,” first described in the Liyun chapter of the “Book of Rites” (the Liji), written more than 2,000 years ago. Recounting the teachings of Confucius, the chapter depicted a utopian society of the ancient past this way:
When the Great Way was practised, the world was shared by all alike. The worthy and the able were promoted to office and men practised good faith and lived in affection. Therefore they did not regard as parents only their own parents, or as sons only their own sons.
The “Rites” (or “li”) are the formal etiquette and behavioural conduct that underpin Chinese social order. Li also compasses the ceremony and rituals that reinforce normative standards.
Datong, which can be translated as “the Great Unity,” represents the central political and moral philosophy of the ideal Chinese society. In datong, everyone respects “the li” and is imbued with the Confucian virtue of “ren.” This love and benevolence (ren) is founded in human empathy. It first manifests within the family but extends to the whole of society.
Datong implies a society where the most able and virtuous lead, with ren foremost in their hearts and minds. All resources are shared equitably for the common good. In the Liyun chapter, the expression “the world is shared by all alike” is written as “tianxia weigong.” This can be translated as “all under Heaven is held in common” or “all under Heaven is publicly held.”
There is no place for private property in datong, because communities meet the needs of all. There is no conflict of interest. The Great Way is one of “Universal Harmony.”
The opening passage of the Liyun chapter also described xiaokang, the “lesser prosperity,” in which society still maintained li and ren but differed from datong in an important regard:
The world is the possession of private families. Each regards as parents only his own parents, as sons only his own sons; goods and labour are employed for selfish ends.
While datong describes a world where resources are “shared by all alike,” in xiaokang resources are in “the possession of private families.” Xiaokang was not seen as opposed to datong but rather on the path toward it, for li and ren were still observed. But there is a warning in the Liyun chapter that private property and the control of resources by private interests present a risk:
Therefore intrigue and plotting come about and men take up arms.
Kang Youwei’s book “Datong shu” (The Great Commonwealth) was published posthumously in 1935. Kang wrote it as a series of lecture notes, the earliest dating to 1884. Rather than view datong only as a lost utopia, Kang proposed datong as a future society that could be constructed. He viewed ren as the path toward establishing the common good for all, attainable by eliminating suffering and creating happiness.
Kang noted that ren was applicable not only to humanity but to the universe and all within it, and he called this “jen.” Jen gave rise, he said, to creation and to the establishment of universal order. Therefore, order should be based upon the same principle of the “compassionate mind.”
He drew upon the work of the Confucian scholar He Xiu, whose Gongyang theory of history described sociopolitical development as a path consisting of incremental, progressive stages. Kang built upon Gongyang’s work to plot a course toward the Great Unity.
In essence, Kang suggested that society could be reverse-engineered to achieve datong in the future. He identified “nine boundaries” of human suffering that needed to be deconstructed in order to reach datong. He said that datong could be attained once nation-states, social class, racism, sexism, families, private property, injustice, environmental destruction, and poverty (the result of social inequality and oppression) were abolished.
“Sages” or “persons of jen” would be needed to lead, Kang maintained. He acknowledged that the sages had to operate in the social, economic and political circumstances of their day and that the resultant laws and institutions might be oppressive and cause suffering. Therefore, the objective of the “person of jen” (sage) should be to reform the laws and organisations of the state with a view to eradicating the nine boundaries of suffering.
With the abolition of the nation state, Kang’s proposed path toward the Great Way extended far beyond China. He favoured a global society where a world government would rule over a planet that was divided into regional districts.
In this global society, there would be no class or private property, and all would strive to deliver the common good and benefit everyone. Specifically, all resources would be deployed for the benefit and happiness of all. Public institutions, not families, would raise children. And the children would be trained to become citizens who would provide free services, such as health care and education, for all.
The only distinction between people would be the badges of honour worn by those deemed to have great ren, or knowledge—that is, the sages. Ultimately, once datong exists, there would be complete harmony with nature, which in turn would mean that all human beings are vegetarians and that euthanasia would be practised with ren, for the common good.
The ideology of datong, as Kang expounded it, and the hope of following the Great Way have strongly influenced Chinese political philosophy throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Xi Jinping has been heard on numerous occasions to repeat the phrase, “When the Great Way prevails, the world is for everyone.”
Seen from the Chinese philosophical perspective, the best anyone can hope for today is xiaokang. Thus, xiaokang sages must be free to reform the institutions of the state on the path toward removing the nine boundaries, achieving datong and leading the Great Way.
There are many parallels between this path and the socioeconomic theory underpinning technocracy. For those who wished to establish a global technate, China was a natural choice for their pilot project.
While there is a lot of debate about the extent of “legitimate” technocratic governance in the West’s supposedly liberal representative democracies, governance is just one aspect of technocracy. In other words, technocratic governance alone is not technocracy.
As discussed previously, a technocracy is a “governance of function.” The overarching goal is to run the whole of society as efficiently as possible. The Technocracy Inc. Study Course states:
The basic unit of this organization is the Functional Sequence. A Functional Sequence is one of the larger industrial or social units, the various parts of which are related one to the other in a direct functional sequence. Thus among the major Industrial Sequences we have transportation (railroads, waterways, airways, highways and pipe lines); communication (mail, telephone, telegraph, radio and television); agriculture (farming, ranching, dairying, etc.); and the major industrial units such as textiles, iron and steel, etc. Among the Service Sequences are education (this would embrace the complete training of the younger generation), and public health (medicine, dentistry, public hygiene, and all hospitals and pharmaceutical plants as well as institutions for defectives).
Each “Functional Sequence” is overseen by a directorate. For example, the Distribution Sequence collects all the data gathered from the “Energy Certificates,” which are allocated to the citizens to be exchanged for goods and services. The “Price System” is abolished. There is no private property. The entire Technate is controlled by one body: Continental Control.
Like Kang’s “sages,” and in a fashion similar to guidance of the population toward the Great Way, a technocracy creates a rigid hierarchical structure to ensure that all are working for the common good. In the language of technocracy, the citizen contributes toward the appropriate service function.
Effectively, this creates a pyramid-like sociopolitical structure:
The personnel of all Functional Sequences will pyramid on the basis of ability to the head of each department within the Sequence, and the resultant general staff of each Sequence will be a part of the Continental Control. A government of function! The Continental Director, as the name implies, is the chief executive of the entire social mechanism. On his immediate staff are the Directors of the Armed Forces, the Foreign Relations, the Continental Research, and the Social Relations and Area Control. [. . .] The Continental Director is chosen from among the members of the Continental Control by the Continental Control. Due to the fact that this Control is composed of only some 100 or so members, all of whom know each other well, there is no one better fitted to make this choice than they.
Class is abolished in technocracy. Child care is provided by the Technate. Rather than having “great ren,” the general staff of the Technate are said to possess “peck-rights.” That is, they are the most suited to be at the top of the pyramid because a “governance of function” works most efficiently when “the right man is in the right place” to serve the common good.
Like the ideas presented in “Datong shu,” the intention of technocracy is essentially altruistic. The small cluster of engineers, economists, sociologists and other academics brought together by the Rockefellers and Howard Scott wanted to construct a society that would deliver “lives of abundance” to all.
It must be admitted that the Technocracy Inc. Study Course made some valid criticisms of a number of social problems. Unfortunately, the offered solution of a Technate is both arrogant and naïve.
It assumes, much as does the notion of a Great Way, that authority can be exercised by some human beings over other human beings for the common good. Further, it imagines that there is some social or political mechanism that can produce leaders who are omniscient and capable of defining what that “common good” is.
Both datong and technocracy would require human nature to undergo a fundamental transformation. Avarice, malevolence, narcissism, psychopathy and every other deleterious failing would need to be expunged from humanity. Until they are, power will continue to be sought by those who want to control others. The most ruthless among us will ultimately succeed—often not because they are the most suited but because they are prepared to do what others won’t in order to gain the power they crave. This situation will persist for as long as we believe that someone or some organisation needs to have absolute authority over our lives in order for us to be able to cooperate effectively.
To imagine that concentrating all power in the hands of a tiny, select band of experts or sages will solve the problems caused by the unscrupulous and frequently violent and immoral use of authority is ridiculous. You can’t fix a kakistocracy by investing more power in the “kakistocrats.”
For the global public-private partnership (G3P), which operates a compartmentalised, hierarchical, pyramid-like power structure, the most enticing aspect of technocracy is the extreme centralisation of power and authority over vast swaths of the humanity. That is why, as soon as technological development permitted and the opportunity arose, the G3P set about assisting the development of a Technate in China.
Technate: governance of function
The formal story of Henry Kissinger’s “secret” 1971 discussions with Chinese Premier Chou En-lai—officially acknowledged in 2001—is that US President Richard Nixon sent Kissinger to normalise relationships with the Chinese government as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union. What is mentioned less frequently, though, is Kissinger’s relationship with the Rockefellers.
In 1956, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund commissioned Kissinger to convene its Special Studies Panels. The panels investigated emerging global challenges and trends and suggested how US foreign policy might adapt to meet them. In the 1961 publication of the six panel reports, Prospect for America (subtitled “The problems and opportunities confronting American democracy—in foreign policy, in military preparedness, in education, in social and economic affairs”), the Rockefeller Brothers Fund outlined how public-private partnership would be key to this projected future:
Corporations, whose operations extend through many nations[,] [. . .] through which a considerable and essential part of the world’s economic activities is carried on, must be able to compose diversities, adjust conflicts of interest, and adapt their operations to the needs of the country in which they operate. In doing so they represent a further example of multinational solutions to common problems.
The authors of these reports regarded private finance as essential not only for developing international markets but also for guiding the social and political development of the target nation:
Rapid economic growth can be achieved only if local savings and public foreign investment are supplemented by an increasing inflow of private foreign investment. Such investment performs two key functions: it adds to the capital resources of the host nation and it is the chief mechanism through which the managerial and technical skills and the creative and catalytic quality can contribute to economic development in less developed areas. [. . .] Private philanthropic capital can also play an important role in economic development.
The panels that provided the analysis for Prospect for America were convened in the aftermath of McCarthyism. They needed to appeal to a US polity still obsessed with the perceived threat of international communism. Thus, the reports eulogise so-called democracy throughout.
However, there are numerous indications that the Rockefeller foreign policy strategists were willing to diplomatically suggest alternatives:
The American pattern of private enterprise and voluntary association is not the only mold for a free society.
It is clear that these strategists sought to both exploit the differences between nation-states for their development potential and amplify the importance of global issues as a means of uniting nations, regardless of their model of government, under a system of global governance. They considered scientific and technological development one way to do just that:
In the field of science, international cooperation on a world scale is most readily achievable. [. . .] [T]he United States should, therefore, seek to develop a series of agreements, looking toward the stimulation of scientific interchange and the fostering of scientific progress on a world scale. [. . .] The Communist nations should be invited to participate.
The panels, which effectively formed a temporary Rockefeller-funded think tank, were not opposed to colonialism on moral grounds but they highlighted its tactical flaws. Inherent in their critique of colonialism was an acknowledgement that alleged democratic values have nothing to do with hard-nosed geopolitics or with expansive foreign policy ambitions:
While colonialism exacted a human and political toll, it also represented one of the greatest conversions in history. As the ideals of the British, French and American revolutions became diffused, partly through the very spread of colonialism, the seeds were sown for the destruction of colonialism itself. The more successful the teachings of the colonial powers, the more untenable grew their position. Almost without exception, the leaders of independence movements fought their rulers in terms of the rulers’ own beliefs. They asked them to live up to their own principles.
The Rockefellers, being one of the leading families at the head of the G3P’s compartmentalised hierarchy, had worked with the Chinese authorities for generations. John D. Rockefeller Sr. was trading kerosene in China in 1863. The family’s philanthropic foundation had long fostered strong ties with the Chinese government. For example, it helped advance the use of Western allopathic medicine in China by establishing the Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) and by making other philanthropic investments.
It’s safe to say that the Rockefellers were knowledgeable and enthusiastic supporters of the Chinese government. Not surprisingly, they were also knowledgeable and enthusiastic supporters of the technocracy movement in the US, maintaining their keen interest in it despite its lack of public support. They understood the potential of social engineering to create a governance of function (a Technate):
Changes in technology have always been a major cause of change in government, economic relations and social institutions. But technological innovation is no longer the work of isolated, ingenious inventors; it is the product of organised scientific enterprise and is constant, insistent and accelerating. One of its notable effects is upon the tempo of social change itself, which is enormously quicker than it has been, and which subjects every inhabitant of a technological society to its pressures. Technological innovation thus poses a series of issues with which our society will have to deal. [. . .] The growth of technological society has changed the traditional society in which men have enjoyed freedom. Large and complex organisations have become the order of the day. [. . .] Programs for the preservation and strengthening of individual freedom must assume the existence and the inevitability of such organisations.
The Rockefellers had a nuanced appreciation of the potential for technological development to act as the catalyst for change. Despite the report’s primary focus on the US relationship with the Soviet Union, the Rockefellers obviously recognised the ripe opportunities in China:
It [China] has a rapidly growing population, a shortage of resources, and a fanatical ideology. Around a large part of its perimeter exists “soft” situations, making infiltration, subversion, and outright conquest seem easy or inviting prospects. The present relations between Soviet Russia and Red China [. . .] may not always be drawn together by common interests. [. . .] We must avoid, wherever possible, courses that seem to drive China closer to the Soviets.
As founders of the Trilateral Commission, the Rockefellers’ and their fellow Trilateralists’ goal was to infiltrate China by extending the hand of cooperative friendship through public-private investment in technological and thus financial and economic development. The Sino-Soviet split was seemingly the window of opportunity they wished to lever open.
China’s society, its political history and government structure was already amenable to the introduction of technocracy, as it was to communism. The Trilateralists were apparently eager to avoid the mistakes of Western colonialists, who extolled the democratic ideals and associated legal concepts which had come back to bite them. These ideals were, in any event, antithetical to the Trilateralists’ project.
Following Mao’s death in 1976, Deng Xiaoping rose to power, becoming the Paramount Leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1978. Just two weeks after assuming power, on January 1, 1979, he became the first communist Chinese leader to conduct a formal state visit to the US.
He was received with full state honours by the administration of Jimmy Carter, whose National Security advisor was Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski—and who was himself a Trilateralist.
Deng Xiaoping immediately set about instigating a series of social and economic reforms, which were called “reform and opening up” in China and “the opening up of China” in the West.
Deng was one of a group of eight high-ranking Chinese officials who had survived the brutal repressions of cultural revolution. The reverently named “Eight Immortals” were credited with turning the Chinese economy from an unstable mess, riven with extreme poverty, into the thriving economic engine it is today.
Despite the hopes of datong, and far from being the sages that Kang Youwei dreamed of, the sons and daughters of the Eight Immortals, who are collectively known as the Princelings, hoovered up China’s state assets to effectively create a new dynasty, just as corrupt as its predecessors. Such is the nature of kakistocracy.
The scale and pace of the economic transformation in such a vast country would have been impossible without the considerable inward investment and the transfer of technology which China received from the G3P. This G3P investment was the initial source of China’s economic growth miracle. In late 2019, The World Economic Forum (WEF) reported:
High levels of government spending and foreign investment have enabled China to roughly double the size of its economy every eight years since the introduction of economic reforms in 1979.
CITIC (China International Trust & Investment Corp, renamed CITIC Group) was effectively China’s state–run investment arm. Kissinger’s visit to China had opened up investment banking opportunities for Rockefeller’s Chase Group (Chase Manhattan Bank at the time.) In June 1980, CITIC Chairman Rong Yiren attended a meeting with David Rockefeller and the representatives of 300 Fortune 500 companies in the Chase Manhattan offices in New York.
The purpose of the meeting between CITIC and the G3P representatives was:
[To] identify and define those areas of the Chinese economy most susceptible to American technology and capital infusion.
Kissinger and Rong reportedly established an investment company, with Trilateralist Kissinger appointed as a special advisor to CITIC. The initial phase of China’s economic transformation consisted of banking reforms that allowed much greater Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in China.
FDIs aren’t just capital investments. They typically come with a transfer or sharing of expertise, technology and even workforce. Common types of FDIs are mergers, acquisitions, management services and logistical and manufacturing agreements.
From the mid 1980s onwards the G3P began to pour into Beijing’s Central Business District (CBD). By 2009 there were 114 Western companies with a substantial presence and established investments in Beijing and beyond. By 2020 there were 238 Fortune 500 companies in Beijing. Today, Beijing CBD (called the Functional Area) now houses the regional headquarters of 105 multinational corporations and more than 4,000 foreign-invested enterprises. The CBD is one of six “high-end industrial functional areas in Beijing.”
According to Chinese state media, between 1983 and 1991 FDI in China went from a value of $920 million to $4.37 billion. By 2019 total FDI had risen to more than $2.1 trillion. At the same time, the transition economy of China, just like many other economies, rapidly expanded its money supply.
All of this monopoly money, a mixture of FDI and domestic (digital) currency printing, fuelled the economic and technological development of China. In exchange for access to its market, the Chinese government required that investors sign so-called Forced Technology Transfer (FTT) agreements. Simultaneously, the Western mainstream media (MSM) began constantly pushing the notion of the “rising threat” of China and frequently accused China of alleged industrial espionage and “technology theft.“
Like so much propaganda aimed at Western populations by their MSM, these charges were just a fabrication. In truth, no one was forcing anyone to transfer technology to China. In fact, Trilateralists like President Bill Clinton went to considerable lengths to make sure China could get hold of the technology, including military technology, it needed.
In 1994 the Clinton administration scrapped Cold War export controls, thereby enabling more sensitive technology to be transferred to China. Claiming that they would not allow defence technology, such as supercomputer or potential uranium enrichment technology, to go to China (or Russia), they soon lifted this restriction via a work-around that shifed oversight from the departments of State and Defense to the Department of Commerce.
One only has to look at the near identical design of US and Chinese defence systems and weaponry to see that a massive amount of “sensitive” technology is common to both countries. The asinine explanation we are given is that this is all the result of Chinese espionage, even though the US government has amended legislation to make such transfers possible.
The Israeli government and Israeli defence contractors have consistently acted as facilitators for the transfer of the most sensitive Western defence and surveillance technology to China. As soon as “reform and opening up” began in 1979, Israeli multibillionaire—then a humble billionaire—Saul Eisenberg flew a delegation of defence contractors to arrange military supply contracts with the Chinese government.
While the West’s MSM parrots the intelligence agencies’ overwhelmingly baseless claims that China represents an “immense threat,” the US government and others have maintained deep defence ties with the Israeli government for generations. In the full and certain knowledge that Israel is passing defence technology to China, the US and other NATO allies continue to provide Israel with the latest defence technology.
Occasionally a story surfaces claiming that Washingtion is “angered” by this habitual practice. If we look beyond the propaganda, the fables simply reaffirm that which is blatantly obvious. The Israeli government, its defence contractor and tech corporation partners, have consistently acted as a conduit for the transfer of “sensitive” defence, fintech, surveillance and communication technology from the West to China. Between 1992 and 2017 the volume of overall trade between Israel and China multiplied 200 times over.
Another Western propagandist myth is that China has “stolen” jobs from Western economies. While it is true that manufacturers took advantage of cheaper labour costs in China, leading to job losses in the West, the practice of offshoring jobs had been ongoing for decades. Companies are in the business of maximising profits for shareholders and staying competitive. No one was forcing Western corporations to offshore. It was simply an economic expediency, largely the consequence of G3P efforts to modernise China’s economy.
Often the focus of G3P investment in China has been Research and Development (R&D). In 1994 China ranked 30th in terms of US overseas R&D investment; by 2000 it was 11th. Between 1994 to 2001 multinational corporation (MNC) investment in China quadrupled. As a ratio of overseas R&D investment, the G3P were providing thrice the amount of “technology infusion” into China compared to anywhere else.
While the pseudopandemic sharpened the decline in total global FDI, that figure continued to rise in China. The 4% increase of FDI in China in 2020 saw it temporarily surpass the US as the world’s leading recipient of direct investment. In 2020, while FDI in other advanced economies collapsed, China benefited from FDI valued at $163 billion.
In addition to the huge growth stimulus pumped into the Chinese economy over the last four decades, a significant number of foreign/Chinese industrial R&D alliances were established. These were separate business organizations that targeted specific research or technological development projects. They were formed through collaboration between academic and scientific research establishments, NGOs, government institutions and private enterprise.
Between 1990 and 2001 the US government established 105 such alliances. In the same time period, Japan had the second largest number of R&D partnership alliances (26), followed by Germany (15), the UK (14), Singapore (12), and Canada (11). The overwhelming majority of these R&D collaborations operated in China.
From 2001, to the financial crash in 2008, both FDI in R&D and China’s own R&D investment really took off. While the explosive pace of FDI growth slowed from 2010 onward, by 2016 China’s own outward foreign investment had surpassed the FDI it received. That was an astounding economic turnaround in less than 40 years. A 2019 report by the World Bank stated:
China’s spending on research and development (R&D) rose to 2.18 percent of GDP in 2018, up from 1.4 percent in 2007[.] [. . .] Its spending on R&D accounts for around 20 percent of the world total, second only to the United States. Its number of patents granted annually for inventions increased from 68,000 in 2007 to 420,000 in 2017, the highest in the world. [. . .] China is also a hotbed for venture capital in search of the next technology. [. . .] China has evolved from being a net importer of FDI to a net exporter. [. . .] China remains an attractive destination for foreign investments due to its large domestic market. Foreign enterprises such as BASF, BMW, Siemens, and Tesla have recently announced new or expanded investments in China.
A focus of apparent Western concern has been China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This enormous infrastructure project, known in China as One Belt, One Road, or OBOR, is establishing a network of modern trade routes across Eurasia, linking Asia, Africa, Europe, South East Asia and Australasia, easing both international trade and, in particular, Chinese exports.
Beyond China’s borders there are 140 countries involved in the BRI to one degree or another. In its 2018 research paper looking at FDI in a BRI-related project, the World Bank referred to those countries directly involved in its construction as BRI nations. China’s own investment in BRI nations has grown, but the majority of its FDI goes to non-BRI nations. These, according to the World Bank, are nations that are not inviolved in the BRI.
China is the leading single nation investor in BRI nations but it does not account for the bulk of total investment. China took the lead after the 2008 financial crisis saw non-BRI nations (such as the US and the UK) pull back on their FDI deals in BRI nations. The investment from the non-BRI nations picked up again as quantitative easing (money printing) monetary policies in Western countries took effect post-2010.
The World Bank reported:
The majority of BRI countries’ [those who are part of the One Belt, One Road project] FDI inflow comes from non-BRI countries.
That is to say, BRI nations—Italy, Saudi Arabia, Austria, New Zealand, South Korea and Singapore, etc.—are net recipients of FDI from non-BRI nations, such as the US, UK, France and Germany.
The majority of the investment, expertise and technology that is building the BRI infrastructure comes from the non-BRI G3P partners. The notion that Western politicians, corporations and financial institutions are worried about the Belt and Road Initiative is just an MSM story. In reality, they are working hard to construct it in partnership with China.
China: The World’s First Technate
China has developed an overt system dedicated to the social engineering of society. As noted in Part 1, the definition of technocracy is:
The science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.
The focus of technocracy is to direct the population to maximise the efficiency of all “functions” of society, primarily through control of the allocation of resources.
Published in 2014, the State Council Notice for planning a Social Credit System (SCS) outlined the Chinese government’s rationale for its social credit system:
The social credit system is an important component of the Socialist market economy system and the social governance system; [. . .] its foundation is a complete network covering the credit records of all members of society and the credit infrastructure; [. . .] its reward and punishment mechanisms are incentivizing trustworthiness and restricting untrustworthiness. [. . .] The establishment of a social credit system is an important foundation for comprehensively implementing the scientific viewpoint of development. [. . .] Accelerating and advancing the establishment of the social credit system is an important precondition for promoting the optimized allocation of resources.
This is a description of pure technocracy.
Western commentators often focus upon the technological aspects of China’s social credit system. China certainly operates a dystopian surveillance society, but this complements the social credit system which, as the name suggests, is an overarching system for “implementing the scientific viewpoint of development.”
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) reported that the supposedly “terrifying system doesn’t exist” in China:
[T]he system that the central government has been slowly working on is a mix of attempts to regulate the financial credit industry, enable government agencies to share data with each other, and promote state-sanctioned moral values.
MIT and its funding partners, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, have consistently highlighted the potential merits of the social credit system (SCS). When reading that material, we must separate the rhetoric of the engineers of the social credit system from its practical application.
Like the Great Way or technocracy or communism, the political philosophy underpinning the social credit system is presented by its advocates as progressive, humanitarian and benign. Naturally, the people who impose this system would also need to be progressive, humanitarian and benign, right?
Yet, while the social credit system is effectively a massive bureaucracy, combining the digital sharing of information with legislation and various paper-shuffling exercises, there are many aspects of it that are extremely concerning. For one thing, it creates a public-private partnership that, by rewarding good behaviour, fosters public faith in the mechanisms of the state. For another, it punishes those who aren’t duly faithful.
The SCS removes access to “privileges” from people who have broken the law and even from those who haven’t. The concept of Joint Disciplinary Action in the SCS introduces the idea that, if found “untrustworthy,” a citizen or organisation so labelled will face broader social consequences, from having their right to fly removed to restricting their ability to book “high-class” tickets on trains to impeding their employment or business opportunities.
The SCS sets up a blacklist for those deemed to have committed “misdeeds.” Thus far it has predominantly punished those who have failed to pay court fines or those considered bad debtors.
Chinese state media have praised the courts’ partnership with tech giants like Sesame Credit—the credit-scoring system of the Alibaba Group subsidiary Ant Financial. Chinese government data, gathered from the courts and elsewhere, has been combined with private data, gathered from social media, for the purpose of lowering the financial credit score of millions of people who have been “blacklisted.”
Public humiliation and shaming are commonly used to change the blacklisted’s behaviour. The Supreme Court maintains a database of “discredited individuals” (laolai). Tech companies like TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance Ltd., publish laolai lists from the publicly available data to inform its users which companies and individuals have been “discredited.”
Technology enhances the social credit system. To register a SIM cards and new SMART phones, Chinese users must by law use face scan technology. This biometric data then informs China’s already extensive and rapidly expanding national network of facial recognition cameras. The surveillance grid, allowing entry to everything from bus depots to safari parks, is integrating with alleged emotion-recognition technology to assess an individual’s mood and “predict” their behaviour.
China’s internet is highly regulated via the “Measures on the Administration of Internet Information Services.” The government prohibits news bloggers from commenting on any policies or political developments without a license from the Cyberspace Adminstration of China (CAC).
Again, this system operates as a public-private partnership. There are eight licensed Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in China registered with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), but censorship largely occurs through the state’s partnership with fintech companies and social media platforms. The censorship is overseen by the Internet Information Office.
The Chinese have to register their personal details to use the popular social media platforms. The independent sale of SIM cards and network adapters is prohibited; the cards and adapters require similar registration upon purchase and prior to use. The Chinese authorities can block foreign websites, restricting citizens access to information from outside China, and it is a crime for anyone to facilitate the illegal flow of prohibited information into China. The Chinese authorities have effectively created the crime of information-smuggling.
Beyond inciting crimes or advocating violence or terrorism, Article 12 of China’s Cybersecurity Law outlines the other types of information that Chinese people are not permitted to share:
[Users] must not use the Internet to engage in activities endangering national security, national honour, and national interests; they must not incite subversion of national sovereignty, overturn the socialist system, incite separatism, break national unity, [. . .] create or disseminate false information to disrupt the economic or social order, or information that infringes on the reputation, privacy, intellectual property or other lawful rights and interests of others, and other such acts.
In other words, no one is permitted to question the state in China. This doesn’t stop the people from doing so, but the associated risks are high. Political dissidents can certainly expect to be censored by the social media platforms, and prison sentences are a distinct possibility for those who speak out too vociferously.
Among the major geopolitical powers, China is leading in the development of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). CBDC is “programmable money” and the issuer can insert “smart contracts” to control what can be bought, where it can be used and who can use it.
Bo Li, the former Deputy Governor of the Bank of China and the current Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), speaking at the Central Bank Digital Currencies for Financial Inclusion: Risks and Rewards symposium, clarified smart contracts further:
CBDC can allow government agencies and private sector players to program [CBDC] to create smart-contracts, to allow targetted policy functions. For example[,] welfare payments [. . .], consumptions coupons, [. . .] food stamps. By programming, CBDC money can be precisely targeted [to] what kind of [things] people can own, and what kind of use [for which] this money can be utilised. For example, [. . .] for food.
At the 2022 World Economic Forum’s Davos gathering, the president of the Chinese Alibaba Group, J. Michael Evans, announced that the global tech corporation would soon roll out its personal “carbon footprint tracker.”
We’re developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint [. . .] That’s where they’re travelling, how they are travelling, what are they eating, what are they consuming on the platform. [. . .] So, individual carbon footprint tracker, stay tuned! We don’t have it operational yet, but this is something we’re working on.
During the initial COVID-19 lockdowns, China’s government required all businesses and public services to install Covid status app scanners, connected to the internet. In order to access shops, restaurants, libraries, hospitals, etc., and to move between the newly created urban “zones,” the Chinese have to use their Covid app. In conjunction with the SIM and SMART phone registration requirements, combined with the biometric facial recognition technology, the public movements of the urban Chinese can be tracked 24/7 in real time by China’s public-private partnership.
The foundations for “the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism” have already been built in China. One of the major cities conducting some of its business in CBDC is Shanghai. In Shanghai’s Pudong “smart city” district, an AI integrated monitoring system is able to access the feeds from 290,000 surveillance cameras. The deputy director of the smart city, Sheng Denden, explained the systems value to the Chinese government:
For the government, this is a tool for more efficient administration in the city.
China is not communist. It is a technocracy. It is the world’s first Technate.
The China Blame Game
As we have already discussed, the idea that Western governments are “opposed” to China’s government is frankly ridiculous. This is not to suggest that there aren’t tensions, but these spring from competition not trenchant animosity. China’s government, and its tech giant partners, are as much a part of G3P as any other nation. The propaganda, from both the West and the Communist Party of China, serves as a surface narrative designed to divide and rule the global population, and to exert control over the respective domestic populations.
The Trilateralists who worked tirelessly to ensure that China was able to construct a Technate are seemingly proud of their claimed achievements. In 2001, Hedley Donovan, one of the founding members of the Trilateral Commission alongside Brzezinski and the Rockefellers, wrote:
It’s no exaggeration to describe the current regime as a technocracy. [. . .] You might say that technocratic politics is a natural fit with the Chinese political culture. [. . .] During the 1980s, technocracy as a concept was much talked about, especially in the context of so-called ‘Neo-Authoritarianism.’ [. . .] The basic beliefs and assumptions of the technocrats were laid out quite plainly: Social and economic problems were akin to engineering problems and could be understood, addressed, and eventually solved as such. [. . .] Scientism underlies the post-Mao technocracy, and it is the orthodoxy against which heresies are measured.
The self-congratulation was largely misplaced. That China’s government developed a Technate owes more to that nation’s circumstances and political and social history and belief systems than it does to the ambitions of the Trilateralists.
Technocracy is intended to be a sociopolitical system where individual rights are sacrificed to communitarianism. This is contrary to the Western liberal tradition. Technocracy represented less of a culture shock to the Chinese people. Certainly this fact was another impetus for the Trilateralists to pilot technocracy in China.
Just as we in the West generally believe in individual liberty and freedom from the state, so the Chinese people largely hold that the state should strive to rule with ren along the path to the Great Way and equality for all. In both cases, the people continue to be deceived and disappointed by the “kakistocrats,” who clearly have no intention of living up to any of those principles or expectations.
The mass and widespread Chinese demonstrations against the human cost of the government’s harsh Covid lockdown measures shows that the people are not willing to simply allow the state to do whatever it likes. While isolated protests in China are not unusual, the scale and coordination of these protests are testament to the Chinese people’s determination to resist oppression.
The Western investment in Chinese technocracy was made with a view to developing a global system, not one restricted to China. From the surveillance network and social credit to censorship and social control using CBDC, having seen what can be achieved in China, Western governments are busy trying to impose exactly the same model of technocracy upon their own people.
The Western political class cannot help but openly admire China’s technocracy. The only difference is that China’s system is publicly discussed—although rarely acknowledged as “technocracy” by name—while the rapidly emerging technocracy in the West is denied and concealed.
The G3P is ostensibly colonising Western populations yet remains eager to avoid the errors of 19th century colonialists. The Rockefellers’ research in the late 1950s highlighted the need to first justify the necessary destruction of democratic values—something all Western governments are working hard to do.
For its part, the Chinese government has had its own reasons for allowing technocracy to flourish. Technocracy fits well with China’s domestic policy ambitions. That said, there is no reason to think that the Chinese government ever intended to “export” technocracy to other nations.
Technocracy is being installed globally. This suits China’s oligarchy, accustomed as it is to operating a Technate. The Chinese government has no reason to stand in the way of the global adoption of technocracy. It is merely aligned with the global transformation, not leading it.
China’s government is not forcing other nations to adopt technocracy. Rather, all governments are collaborating to that end.
The Chinese people are not our enemy, and China is not a foe to be fought. We, the people of the Earth, are all under attack by our own G3P governments.
We are being rapidly transitioned into a new system of centralised, authoritarian global governance. This system is designed to be a technocracy, and, as such, it is truly totalitarian.
Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of citizens’ lives through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed. As a result, citizens succumb to being merged into a single unified movement. Totalitarian states typically pursue a special goal to the exclusion of all other goals. They direct all resources toward the attainment of that goal, regardless of the cost.
In the case of today’s totalitarian system, technocracy, that “special” goal is called “sustainable development.” In the pursuit of that goal, no cost, either financial or humanitarian, is too great.
Technocrats insist that sustainable development is the way we can successfully tackle the alleged “climate crisis” facing our planet. In reality, their charge that humans are causing climate change is simply an excuse for implementing sustainable development. It is through the technocrats’ global policy commitment to 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that technocracy is being installed.
A technocratic society is referred to as a “Technate.” In this two-part article, we will explore the world’s first Technate: China. We will look at how this system was constructed in China, who was behind it, and why technocracy is now being foisted upon all of humanity.
Global Technocratic Governance
In order for technocrats to roll out their vision of a global technocracy, they need to be in control of everything at the global level. In other words, authority has to be consolidated and centralized at the top of the pyramid of power. To achieve this goal, most of the world’s governments and intergovernmental organisations and multinational corporations have collaborated to form a global public-private partnership (G3P).
The G3P network has been knit together throughout the 20th and 21st centuries for the purpose of constructing a single system of global governance. For it is only through global governance that technocrats can distribute their influence worldwide. They count on the top government officials of each nation-state to convert their 17 SDGs into national policy commitments.
Many components of global technocratic governance have already been established.
- The World Health Organisation (WHO) now delivers global governance of public health.
- The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) metes out global access to technological development.
- The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) coordinates economic policies between nation-states.
- The World Trade Organisation (WTO) monitors and controls global trade through the international agreements it oversees.
- The Bank For International Settlements (BIS) coordinates global monetary policy and the flow of capital.
- The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) steers the direction of education, academia, the sciences and cultural development.
- Other UN bodies are responsible for the seizure of the global commons and the “financialisation” of nature—through natural asset companies and other mechanisms. These goals are nearing completion.
The 17 SDGs are primarily controlled by the UN Development Programme and the UN Environment Programme—UNDP and UNEP, respectively.
Meanwhile, the necessary global scientific consensus on climate change is centrally administered—and the appropriate research funding streams allocated—by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The powerful individuals who are pushing the G3P project forward include a motley crew of mass polluters, robber barons, land grabbers and the world’s leading exponents of worker exploitation, market manipulation, monetary extortion (usury) and oppression. They form what would otherwise be considered a criminal cartel, but they have greenwashed their reputations through their publicly proclaimed commitment to so-called “sustainable development.”
Though often referred to as “the elite,” a more fitting description of this collection of thieves is “the parasite class.”
The G3P has managed to convince billions of citizens around the world that it is committed to sustainable, “net zero” environmentalism and that its foremost desire is to “save the planet.”
In truth, though, the G3P is all about empowering global governance and enforcing technocracy upon humanity through the SDGs and associated policy agendas.
Regardless of what you think about the causes of climate change or the level of risk climate change presents, SDGs do nothing to address it. Rather, they are designed to serve only the G3P partners and their selfish interests.
In order to requisition, commodify, audit and ultimately divide up the Earth’s resources among themselves, the stakeholder capitalists who are at the heart of the G3P also need technocratic control of humans everywhere. Thus, even when the bulk of humanity finally figures out what has happened, technocracy will enable the G3P to shut down all resistance through literal population control.
Under this control, every human being will be individually monitored by Artificial Intelligence (AI) networks that will punish or reward them, depending upon their behaviour.
“How will the G3P get away with taking away human rights worldwide?” you may ask. The justifications for our enslavement have already been set in place: Biosecurity risks and environmental devastation that will result if we don’t obey our global overlords are the two main excuses. We have already seen these two excuses used in the pseudopandemic and the fake climate scare.
Much like the quack pseudo-science of eugenics, which many G3P “thought leaders” seem to believe, Technocracy, Inc., a movement spawned in the early 1900s, was the social science certainty of its day. Although it subsequently faded from public consciousness, technocracy, like eugenics, it is still avidly pursued by the G3P’s hierarchy. Most people don’t recognize technocracy in their lives because it has been purposely compartamentalised—that is, kept out of sight.
In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor, who was arguably the world’s first management consultant, published The Principles of Scientific Management.
Taylor’s work came at the culmination of the Progressive Era in the United States. This was a period marked by political activism of the middle class, who sought to address the underlying social problems, as they saw them, of excessive industrialisation, immigration and political corruption. “Taylorism,” fixated on the imminent exhaustion of natural resources and advocating efficient “scientific management systems,” was in the spirit of the age.
In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first. [. . .] The best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles. [. . . ] The fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations.
Taylorism advocated science-driven efficiency reforms across society. An efficient system should not be run by politicians or religious leaders but by “experts,” such as engineers, scientists, logistical experts, economists and other academics. The focus, according to Taylorism, should always be on systemic efficiency and the proper use of precious resources, including labour.
Though Taylor was influenced by Social Darwinism, he was not a eugenicist. However, his ideas were adopted by eugenicists, for they “fitted” with eugenicists’ belief in their unassailable right to rule.
Just as eugenicists—who are inherently technocrats—could optimise and control the human population, so could they employ experts to make socioeconomic and industrial systems more efficient. They could promote these systems as beneficial to “the public good” while at the same time consolidating their own power and reaping a greater financial harvest from a more efficient industrialised society.
Taylor’s principles of scientific management chimed with the theories of economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen. The latter proposed that economic activity wasn’t just a function of supply and demand, utility, value and so forth, but that economic activity also evolved with society and was thus shaped by psychological, sociological and anthropological influences.
Both Taylor and Veblen focused upon improving the efficiency of industrial and manufacturing processes. But they also recognised that their theories could be extended to the wider social context. Not surprisingly, it was the more expansive application of their ideas that beguiled the parasite class.
Veblen famously spoke of “conspicuous consumption”—a description of how the affluent displayed their social standing through their ability to engage in pursuits and buy items that were essentially purposeless and wasteful. This “conspicuous leisure” and “consumption” cascaded down through the class structure, as those aspiring to signal their own status emulated the wealthy.
He argued that this excess was a major contributor to unacceptable resource waste and inefficiency. A consumer society, he thought, ultimately produced more goods and services than it needed simply to meet the artificial demand created by extravagant social climbers.
In short, Veblen was strongly opposed to this inefficient use of resources, which he blamed on the “business classes” and financiers. Though he valued their contribution to the industrial age, he felt they were no longer capable of managing modern industrial society.
Initially, Veblen argued that the workers must therefore be the architects of the necessary social change that would create economic and industrial reform. Later, in the Engineers and the Price System, he shifted his focus away from workers towards technocratic engineers as the drivers of change.
He called for a thorough analysis of the institutions that maintained social stability. Once that analysis was understood, he opined, those with technological expertise should reform the institutions and thereby engineer society and improve efficiency. Veblen referred to these social change agents as a “soviet of technicians.”
In 1919, Veblen became a co-founder of the John D. Rockefeller-funded private research university in New York called the New School for Social Research. From there he create the Technical Alliance, a fledgling technocratic organisation composed of scientists and engineers—including, notably, Howard Scott.
Scott didn’t like Veblen’s description of a “soviet of technicians” and reportedly called it “a cockeyed thing.” He saw that the term’s association with communism wasn’t welcome from a PR perspective and felt it undermined what he was trying to achieve with the technocracy movement.
Veblen’s involvement with the Technical Alliance was relatively brief, and some have suggested that his contribution to technocracy was minimal, accrediting Scott as the great mind behind it. Regardless of the extent of Veblen’s personal involvement in the movement, though, his socioeconomic theories permeate technocracy.
In 1933, the Technical Alliance reformed after an enforced hiatus that was prompted by Scott’s exposure as a fraudster (he had falsified his engineering credentials). The group renamed itself Technocracy Inc.
Despite his public humiliation, Scott was a skilled orator and remained the spokesman for Technocracy Inc. He worked with, among others, M. King Hubbert, who would later become globally renowned for his vague and generally inaccurate “peak oil” theory.
Scott and Hubbert collaborated to write The Technocracy Inc. study course, a formal introduction of technocracy to the world. At the time, their proposals were technologically impossible to achieve, so sounded crazy.
Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate.
There’s the word used in the opening of this article: Technate.
The Technate, to Hubbert and Scott, was a technocratic society envisaged to encompass the North American continent. It would be administered by a central planning body formed of scientists, engineers and other suitably qualified technocrats. They believed technocracy would require a new monetary system based upon a calculation of the Technate’s total energy usage. People would be allocated an equal share of the corresponding “energy certificates” (as a form of currency) denominated in units of energy (Joule or erg, etc.):
[I]ncome is granted to the public in the form of energy certificates. [. . .] They are issued individually to every adult of the entire population. [. . .] The record of one’s income and its rate of expenditure is kept by the Distribution Sequence, [the envisaged ledger of transactions] [. . .] so that it is a simple matter at any time for the Distribution Sequence to ascertain the state of an unknown customer’s balance. [. . .] Energy Certificates also contain the following additional information about the person to whom issued: whether he has not yet begun his period of service, is now performing service, or is retired [where service to the Technate is rewarded with Energy Certificates] [. . .] sex [that is, gender], [. . .] the geographical area in which he resides, and [. . .] job at which he works.
They envisioned a new price system, with all commodities and goods valued according to the energy cost of their production. Purchases made with “energy certificates” would then be reported back to the appropriate department of the technocratic central planning committee. The transactions would be catalogued and analysed, enabling the central planners to precisely calculate the rolling energy balance—the balance between energy production and consumption—for the entire Technate.
In order for this system to work, all consumers’ energy expenditure (including all daily transactions) would need to be recorded in real time; the national inventory of net energy production and consumption would have to be constantly updated, around the clock; and a registry of every commodity and product needed to be scrupulously maintained, with every individual living in the Technate allocated a personal energy account. This would be updated to record their energy usage and personal net energy balance.
We are being rapidly transitioned into a new system of centralised, authoritarian global governance. This system is designed to be a technocracy, and, as such, it is truly totalitarian.
Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of citizens’ lives through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed. As a result, citizens succumb to being merged into a single unified movement. Totalitarian states typically pursue a special goal to the exclusion of all other goals. They direct all resources toward the attainment of that goal, regardless of the cost.
In the case of today’s totalitarian system, technocracy, that “special” goal is called “sustainable development.” In the pursuit of that goal, no cost, either financial or humanitarian, is too great.
Technocrats insist that sustainable development is the way we can successfully tackle the alleged “climate crisis” facing our planet. In reality, their charge that humans are causing climate change is simply an excuse for implementing sustainable development. It is through the technocrats’ global policy commitment to 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that technocracy is being installed.
A technocratic society is referred to as a “Technate.” In this two-part article, we will explore the world’s first Technate: China. We will look at how this system was constructed in China, who was behind it, and why technocracy is now being foisted upon all of humanity.
Hubbert and Scott made it clear that, for technocracy to work, an all-pervasive energy surveillance grid would be required. All citizens would be individually identified on the grid and every aspect of their daily lives monitored and controlled by the technocratic central planners.
Technocracy, as we can see, is a totalitarian form of surveillance-based, centralised, authoritarian governance that abolishes national sovereignty and political parties. Freedoms and rights are replaced with a duty to behave in the interest of a common good, as defined by the technocrats. All decisions about production, allocation of resources, technological innovation and economic activity are controlled by a technocracy of experts (Veblen’s “soviet of technicians”).
In 1938, in Technocrat Magazine Vol. 3 No. 4 (to give its technocratic specification), technocracy was described as:
The science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.
For the parasite class and its G3P stakeholder partners, technocracy was obviously an irresistible idea. Technocracy potentially enables the precise engineering of society through the control of resources and energy through the mechanism of a linked, centrally planned and monitored economic and monetary system.
Or, as the Technocracy Inc. Study Course puts it:
The significance of this, from the point of view of knowledge of what is going on in the social system, and of social control, can best be appreciated when one surveys the whole system in perspective. First, one single organization is manning and operating the whole social mechanism. This same organization not only produces but distributes all goods and services. Hence a uniform system of record-keeping exists for the entire social operation, and all records of production and distribution clear to one central headquarters.
To control everything, the only thing that members of the parasite class would need to do is whisper in the ear of a few hand-picked technocrats. There would be no need to corrupt politicians or orchestrate international crises anymore.
While in the 1930s the Technate was an impracticable proposition, it was still something to inspire the G3P and a goal toward which it has been assiduously working.
Scott Speaking at a Technocracy inc. Rally
The Technocratic Opportunity
Understanding that technological development would eventually enable the Technate to be realised, in 1970 Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928–2017) wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era. At the time, Brzezinski was a professor of political science at Columbia University, where Scott had first met Hubbert in 1932. He had already been an advisor to both the Kennedy and Johnson presidential campaigns and would later become National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977–1981).
Brzezinski was a significant influence on late-20th-century US foreign policy, far beyond his years in the Carter administration. Though he was the Democrat counterpart to Republican Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski was a centrist whose deep dislike of the Soviet Union often placed him on the right of Kissinger on related issues. He supported the Vietnam War and was instrumental in “Operation Cyclone,” which saw the United States arm, train and equip Islamist extremists in Afghanistan.
He was a member of numerous policy think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Le Cercle. And he was a regular attendee at the annual parasite class soiree, the Bilderberg conference. In 1973, Brzezinski and David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission, a policy think tank with members from the US, Europe and Japan.
In short, Brzezinski was very much part of the Deep State milieu and the G3P.
Zbigniew Brzezinski (March 28, 1928 – May 26, 2017)
Between Two Ages is a geopolitical analysis and practical set of policy recommendations born from Brzezinski’s view that digital technology would transform society, culture, politics and the global balance of political power. It also provides us with a clear view of the mindset of the parasite class.
Brzezinski didn’t reference technocracy directly. Perhaps he was wary of its rather sketchy reputation following Scott’s disgrace. However, he did describe it in detail throughout the book. For example, he wrote:
Technological adaptation would involve the transformation of the bureaucratic dogmatic party into a party of technocrats. Primary emphasis would be on scientific expertise, efficiency, and discipline. [. . .] [T]he party would be composed of scientific experts, trained in the latest techniques, capable of relying on cybernetics and computers for social control.
He theorised about what he called the “Technetronic Age” and offered a vision of the near future from the perspective of the 1970s. He predicted that the “Technetronic Age” would arise out of the Technetronic Revolution—the “Third Revolution” to follow the Industrial Revolution. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, would later call it the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Brzezinski also wrote:
The post industrial society is becoming a ‘technetronic’ society: a society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics—particularly in the area of computers and communications.
He then went on to describe what he thought life in the Technetronic Age would be like for ordinary men, women and their families. He foretold how political and industrial control would be replaced by psychological control mechanisms, such as the cult of personality, and that these new control mechanisms would steer humans towards behaviour change. Our lives, he predicted, would be managed through computing power and, in the parlance of today, led by science:
Both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction. [. . .] Masses are organized in the industrial society by trade unions and political parties and unified by relatively simple and somewhat ideological programs. [. . .] In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.
He also explained how technology would enable extensive behaviour modification and manipulation of the population. He foresaw (suggested) how this modification and manipulation could be weaponised:
It may be possible—and tempting—to exploit for strategic political purposes the fruits of research on the brain and on human behavior. [. . .] [O]ne could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote enthusiastically, through a paper-thin veil of caution, about how a “global scientific elite” could not only use extreme, all-pervasive propaganda and economic and political manipulation to determine the direction of society but could also exploit technology and behavioural science to genetically alter and brainwash the population.
Describing the form of this society and the potential for technocratic control, he wrote:
Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.
He claimed that the “Technetronic Age” he described was inevitable. Therefore, he asserted, the future of the United States (and the planet) must be centrally planned. These planners would eventually displace “the lawyer as the key social legislator and manipulator.”
Brzezinski warned that other nations—he meant the Soviet Union, which he hated—wouldn’t hesitate to embark on this dark social engineering path. Therefore, he urged, US geopolitical strategists needed to be the first to develop this network of planners—aka, technocracy. This would be done, Brzezinski wrote, by fusing government with academia and private corporations: the G3P.
His Between Two Ages made it clear that political parties would become increasingly irrelevant, replaced by regional structures pursuing “urban, professional, and other interests.” These could be used to “provide the focus for political action.” The author understood the potential for this localised, technocratic administrative system:
In the technetronic age the greater availability of means permits the definition of more attainable ends, thus making for a less doctrinaire and a more effective relationship between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be.’
He also suggested a redefinition of freedom. Liberty would be achieved through centrally planned public commitment to social and economic equality. The “public good” was thus defined by the technocrats.
The positive potential of the third American revolution lies in its promise to link liberty with equality, according to Brzezinski.
Brzezinski recognised that it would be impossible to impose world government directly. Rather it should be gradually constructed through a system of global governance comprised of treaties, bilateral agreements and intergovernmental organisations:
Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable. [. . .] It [global governance] attempts to create a new framework for international affairs not by exploiting these divisions [between nation-states] but rather by striving to preserve and create openings for reconciliation.
One “opening” that he was particularly interested in was China. Tensions between Russia and China had continued to rumble on, and, as Brzezinski wrote in Between Two Ages, they had spilled over into a border conflict. He saw that the Sino-Soviet split had created an opportunity to shape China’s modernisation:
In China the Sino Soviet conflict has already accelerated the inescapable Sinification of Chinese communism. That conflict shattered the revolution’s universal perspective and—perhaps even more important— detached Chinese modernization from its commitment to the Soviet model. Hence, whatever happens in the short run, in years to come Chinese development will probably increasingly share the experience of other nations in the process of modernization. This may both dilute the regime’s ideological tenacity and lead to more eclectic experimentation in shaping the Chinese road to modernity.
These ideas were firmly in Brzezinski’s mind when he and committed eugenicist David Rockefeller, whose family had been bankrolling technocratic initiatives for more than 50 years, first convened the Trilateral Commission. The two were eventually joined by other so-called “thought leaders”—namely, population control expert Henry Kissinger, Club of Rome environmentalist Gro Harlem Brundtland, US presidents (Bill Clinton, for one) and Council on Foreign Relations head Richard Haass, who more recently wrote World Order 2.0.
Rockefeller (left) and Brzezinski
Constructing The Technate In China
Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward” saw 40 million people brutalised and starved to death in just three horrific years (1959–1961). Apologists claim this was all a terrible mistake. But it was nothing of the kind.
In the certain knowledge that food supplies were running out, in 1958 Mao insisted that “to distribute resources evenly will only ruin the Great Leap Forward.” Later the same year, he asserted:
When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half the people die so that others can eat their fill.
In his zeal to create a communist utopia, Mao presided over a system that seized food from starving millions and exported it to fund his political reforms and support his determination to rapidly industrialise the economy. It wasn’t an error or an unfortunate oversight. While many were so terrified that they submitted fake reports of surpluses that didn’t exist, it is clear that the leadership of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) knew exactly what the human costs were. They just didn’t care.
Mao and Rockefeller’s view of the Great Leap Forward
Nor did David Rockefeller, as evidenced by his 1973 op-ed for The New York Times. He and his Chase Group banking empire delegation had visited Maoist China. In his account of the trip, Rockefeller dismissed the mass murder of millions as “whatever.” It was only the product of genocide that Rockefeller was interested in:
One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. [. . .] There is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese revolution it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing a more efficient administration, but also in fostering. [. . .] a community of purpose.
The Trilateralist Rockefeller could see the opportunity the Chinese dictatorship presented the parasite class. In full agreement with Brzezinski, he wrote:
Too often the true significance and potential of our new relationship with China has been obscured. [. . .] In fact, of course, we are experiencing a much more fundamental phenomenon. [. . .] The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a primarily inward focus. [. . .] We, for our part, are faced with the realization that we have largely ignored a country with one-fourth of the world’s population.
The “we” Rockefeller referred to was not us. He meant the G3P and his fellow “stakeholder capitalists” and Trilateralists.
The totalitarian order he saw in China impressed him, as he had hoped it would. Not that Rockefeller was the only Trilateralist to see the technocratic possibilities in China. So did others, naturally, for the sheer scale of the market was an enticing prospect, and the promise of the “Technetronic Age” raised the real potential to build the world’s first Technate.
Completely discounting the appalling loss of human life, Rockefeller wrote:
The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively China opens up and how the world reacts to the social innovation [. . .] is certain to have a profound impact upon the future of many nations.
A look at the Great Leap Forward
The G3P’s task was to crack open the Chinese market while supporting the country’s ongoing totalitarian rule. China would need help with its economic development and technical support to build the technological infrastructure necessary for technocracy to work. This process had already begun, but with Rockefeller, Brzezinski, Kissinger and other Trilateralists committed to the cause, the target of constructing a Technate was firmly in the Trilateral Commission’s sights.
The Trilateralists set about assisting China to develop both economically and technologically, while remaining careful to avoid applying too much pressure for political reform. Totalitarianism was a system they supported and wanted to exploit. In their 1978 Paper No. 15 on East-West Relations, they suggested:
To grant China favourable conditions in economic relations is definitely in the political interest of the West. [. . .] [T]here seems to exist sufficient ways for aiding China in acceptable forms with advanced civilian technology.
In the same paper, the Trilateralists announced that they weren’t entirely averse to helping China modernise its military capability, though they stressed this should be only for defensive purposes.
They accepted that a modern, militarised China might turn to expansionism and seek to regain territory it historically claimed as its own—in particular, Taiwan. They judged this was a reasonable risk to take.
They were playing the great game. Human lives—except their own and the lives of their families, of course—were of no concern.
In Part 2 we will look at how they set about constructing the world’s first Technate in China.
Please note: This research is available in my book – Pseudopandemic
Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine has been presented to us, in the West, as unprovoked and unjustified. We have not been told about Russia’s legitimate security concerns in the face of NATO expansionism. Nor has Ukraine’s significant Nazi problem been honestly reported, with some Western propagandist even promoting them.
The Russian government claims that its recognition and defence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) are born from “compassion” for the people who have been under siege for eight years. However, Russia also needs the new republics as satellite states, providing a foothold for its own national security as it opposes NATO’s advance.
It should be noted that Russia’s military actions, in trying to oust Nazis from their strongholds in Mariupol, Kharkiv and elsewhere, has led to the near destruction of many cities and towns in Eastern Ukraine. As of the 19th March the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR) estimate that 847 civilians were killed in three weeks, primarily as a result of shelling.
The OHCR noted that the “actual figures are considerably higher” but could not be verified. Credible eye witness reports and video evidence indicate that the Nazis in Mariupol and other besieged areas had stopped civilians leaving through humanitarian corridors opened by Russia. There are many reports of Nazi (Asov) atrocities, including the murder of fleeing civilians.
NATO has courted Ukraine as a future alliance member for decades, taking firm steps to admit Ukraine along the way. This has never been acceptable to Russia, whose national security concerns have been consistently ignored.
Only days prior to the Russian attack, the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference threatening Russia, not only with a nuclear armed Ukraine, but a NATO nuclear power on Russia’s south-western border.
Ukraine is a pinch-point for Russia’s natural gas trade with the European Union. The purpose of the Nord Stream pipelines, constructed in partnership with Germany, was to circumnavigate that problem. It raised the potential for greater EU independence from the US and, with an EU commitment to defence union, presented a possible threat to the US dominance of NATO.
Consequently, the US applied unrelenting pressure on the EU, including enforcing sanctions on German companies, to halt the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. In response to Russia’s official recognition of the DPR & LPR, German Chancellor Olaf Sholtz immediately announced that Germany would not certify Nord Stream 2 for operational use. Russia began it’s military operation in Ukraine three days later.
Please read Parts 1-3 of this series for an exploration of the evidence informing this analysis. This provides us with what we might call the “official-unofficial” explanation for Russia’s aggression. It is an appraisal founded upon the established, accepted concept of international relations.
However, any such investigation is necessarily incomplete. It fails even to describe the globalist forces that are both ripping Ukraine apart and propelling Russia to act. We will explore these in Parts 5 – 6.
Before we do it is important to appreciate just how far we, as supposed democratic societies, have strayed from democratic ideals. This can be understood if we consider the extreme propaganda and censorship our governments are using, hobbling our ability to discern reality.
The Propaganda Environment
There is little chance that the issues we have already discussed will receive fair coverage in the Western mainstream media (MSM) and none at all that it will cover what we are about to consider. The West’s propaganda, in a rapidly evolving conflict, has at times been absurd.
Immediately following the launch of Russia’s military operation the Western MSM reported the unbelievable bravery of the Ukrainian border guards defending Snake Island in the Black Sea. They stated that 13 died in their valiant defence against a Russian “air and sea bombardment.” Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said he would award the guards posthumous medals for gallantry. It soon emerged that this was a fabrication. None of them died and Russia took the Island without harming anyone.
The MSM reported that Russian forces deliberately targeted a Mosque in Mariupol where civilian woman and children were said to be sheltering. The Turkish media later revealed that the Mosque had not been struck by anything.
The BBC were among a wide number of Western MSM outlets that reported an alleged Russian airstrike on a maternity hospital in Mariupol. This apparent outrage, deliberately targeting pregnant women and their babies, led the BBC to report the comments of the Deputy Mayor who said:
We don’t understand how it’s possible in modern life to bomb a children’s hospital. People cannot believe that it’s true.
Indeed not, because there is considerable evidence to suggest it isn’t. When the claimed airstrike occurred the Russian state officials engaged in some ham-fisted disinformation themselves, alleging that the whole thing was staged using “crisis actors.” They also noted that the hospital had been occupied by the Ukrainian forces, thus presumably making it a military target and undermining their own propaganda.
A subsequent account from the most famous eyewitness, Mariana Vishegirskaya, who Associated Press (AP) publicised as the face of the alleged Russian war-crime, paints a very different picture. There were certainly explosions but no evidence of an airstrike, as no one heard or saw any planes. The hospital had been occupied by the Asov regiment three days earlier. Tellingly, Mariana stated that the Asov Nazis wouldn’t allow people to leave the city through the humanitarian corridors agreed by Russia.
There have been widespread Western reports of destruction of Mariupol and other cities by Russian forces. However, civilian witness testimony from Mariupol notes that Ukrainian forces also shelled Mariupol, causing much of the destruction. Mariupol civilians reported that Ukrainian forces placed their defences in civilian areas, occupied their homes and other municipal locations including kindergartens, hospitals and office buildings, and even blew up buildings with tanks.
Even the Western MSM acknowledged that the Ukrainian military (including the Nazis) were effectively using the civilian population as a human shields by placing their assets in civilian areas. The Washington Post noted:
Increasingly, Ukrainians are confronting an uncomfortable truth: [. . .] Virtually every neighbourhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses.
French Military – Map 27th of March 2022
Analysis by French military observers clearly showed that Russia had secured significant military control in eastern and north-eastern Ukraine. On March 29th 2022, during ongoing peace talks between the Russian and Ukrainian authorities in Turkey, Russia announced that it would withdraw its forces from around Kyiv as a sign of “good faith.”
A few days later video evidence emerged from town of Bucha, lying west of Kyiv, appearing to show the aftermath of a Russian war-crime. The horrific footage showed apparent carnage in the body strewn streets of Bucha. The Ukrainian government blamed this butchery on the retreating Russian forces. The Western MSM immediately reported everything that they were told, accusing Russia of the Bucha massacre.
There were some suspicious anomalies in the footage that required explanation. An unusually high percentage of the bodies were lying face down, ruling out identification, and there was an inexplicable lack of blood or other signs of obvious injury on the corpses. Most of the corpses appeared with hands bound behind their backs and many were wearing the white arm bands which Russia gave to civilians in order for them not to be confused with combatants.
In one of the four main videos, unquestioningly accepted as evidence of the Russian atrocity, an alleged corpse appears to get to its feet, observed in the wing mirror of one of the filming vehicles. It is possible that mirror distortion accounts for this. However, these unexplained inconsistencies weren’t the primary reason to doubt the Western MSM’s account.
The Mayor of Bucha gave a video interview which aired on April 1st where he appeared happy, praising the Ukrainian forces for the liberation of the town. He noted that the Russian forces had vacated Bucha prior to March 31st. As of the 31st there were no Russian troops left in Bucha. The Mayor said:
March 31st will go down in the history of our settlement, the entire territorial community as a day of liberation from the Russian orcs [. . .] a great victory in the Kyiv region.
Reporting his statement, the local media claimed that Russian forces had left unexploded mines in a local factory. Neither the Mayor nor the local news reports said anything about a massacre. Two days later Reuters reported the same mayor, Anatoly Fidoruk, this time alleging that Russia had engaged in the mass slaughter of civilians. Something he was either unaware of or forgot to mention two days earlier.
This unfathomable oversight by the entire population of Bucha, none of whom posted anything on social media even hinting at the supposed mass slaughter during the Russian occupation, casts significant doubt upon the story presented by the Western MSM. The “Bucha-Live” Telegram channel didn’t mention the massacre until the story broke internationally.
Initially it was reported across the West that 400 bodies were scattered throughout the streets and basements of Bucha. We know that Russian forces completed their withdrawal on the 30th of March. Yet the Western reports of the killing spree didn’t emerge for a further four days.
Following the agreed Russian exit, on the 31st of March it was reported in Ukraine that the first Ukrainian forces to enter Bucha were Ukrainian special forces (the SAFARIS.) They posted a video of their operation on the 1st of April. One body was observed in the video, no executions sites or any evidence of mass killings were filmed.
These “specialist units” were said to be tasked with clearing Bucha of “saboteurs and accomplices of Russian forces.” Again there was no mention of any massacre in the further reports published on the 2nd of April.
On the same day, the 2nd of April, the New York Times reported:
Ukrainian soldiers from the Azov battalion walked through the remnants of a Russian military convoy in the recently liberated town of Bucha. [. . .] For the past five weeks, photographers with The New York Times and other news organizations throughout Ukraine have chronicled the invasion.
Yet none of these reporters or photographers “chronicled” the Bucha massacre that allegedly occurred at least three days before they arrived in the town. The New York Times (NYT) then tried to double-down on their incomprehensible failure to spot the biggest story in the World, by changing it. They published purported US satelite images that allegedly pinpointed the position of the bodies. The NYT claimed they had lain there for more than three weeks.
It seems extremely unlikely that this story is true. The bodies had supposedly been lying in the streets, undisturbed for three weeks, and yet there was no sign of decomposition. The NYT article implied that neither human nor animal activity had disturbed the location of a single body for the best part of a month. It also required readers to believe that US officials and military personnel knowingly ignored an alleged Russian massacre, without saying a word, not just for 4 days but for weeks.
Regardless of which version of the story people may choose to believe, there is another incongruous aspect. The Russian military, having committed a war-crime either four days or more than three weeks earlier, left the scene without trying to hide any of the evidence. If the NYT’s second version of events is to be believed, they also exposed their own troops to the severe risk of disease for practically the entire period of their occupation of Bucha.
While there is no evidence that the Asov Nazis staged the alleged bloodbath, circumstantial evidence suggests that possibility. It is notable that no one reported the massacre prior to their arrival in Bucha.
On the 3rd April the world was suddenly regaled with fresh tales of Russian barbarity. It would be good to know what happened to the suspected “saboteurs and accomplices of Russian forces” that were “cleared” from Bucha by SAFARI and Asov troops.
Russian military actions have included heavy bombardment of cities like Mariupol and Kharkiv. There is no doubt that they have killed many Ukrainian citizens. However, if we discard the NYT’s rather silly claims, unless Russia commanders lost control of their troops in Bucha, the indiscriminate slaughter of unarmed civilians, following an agreed withdrawal and their identification as non-combatants, makes no sense either from a military or propaganda perspective.
It served only to undermine the peace negotiations. As we will discuss in Part 5, prolonging the conflict is in the US-led NATO alliance’s interests, not Russia’s.
This does not rule out the possibility that Russian troops were responsible, but further investigation is certainly necessary. This appeared to be the position of the Russian government who, having strenuously denied the Bucha allegations, requested an emergency session of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to discuss the matter. For some reason, the UK government blocked Russia’s request.
Initially it appeared that the US-led NATO alliance were less eager to discuss the evidence. However, acting as the president nation of the Security Council, the UK’s UN ambassador, Barbara Woodward, then announced that the UK would convene a session to discuss Bucha on the 5th. Woodward changed the story yet again. This time 800 people had been murdered.
Prior to examining any of the evidence, and relying solely upon videos provided by the Ukrainians, Woodward stated that the footage was evidence of war-crimes. This had in no way been established. No one knew what they were evidence of. Woodward clearly implicated Russia and predetermined the outcome of the discussions, so there wasn’t really any point in holding them.
This illustrates the problem we have discussed previously. The institutions, mechanisms and rulings that combine to form so-called international law are worthless. There is no justice to be found anywhere within a system that is shaped by nothing but hard-nosed realpolitik. It is just another weapon to be used in a global power struggle. International law, as it stands, is no law at all.
The US Bio-lab Conspiracy Theory
Initially the Western MSM furiously denied Russian reports of US controlled bio-labs and chemical warfare research facilities discovered in Ukraine. They said that this was part of an elaborate plot by Russia to stage a biological “false-flag” attack, to be blamed on the Kyiv government by Putin.
The presence of the labs was then ostensibly admitted by the US Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, in a Senate committee hearing. The 2005 signed treaty between the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Health, establishing the labs, is a public document. These are, or were, US funded labs conducting secret experiments. The 2005 treaty decrees:
Information marked or designated by the U.S. Department of Defense as “sensitive” should be withheld from public disclosure by the Government of Ukraine.
These labs were managed by the DoD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Obviously a partnership between a US defence agency and a Ukrainian public health agency appears, on its face, to be an unusual arrangement. The DTRA’s own training material states that they are “a combat support agency.” They add that their role includes:
Developing, testing and fielding [using] offensive and defensive technologies
Other documents have exposed years of U.S. led biological and chemical warfare experiments on Ukrainian soldiers. Yet we are supposed to believe that US and Ukrainian documents, statements confirming the presence of the labs, their funding, their clandestine nature and the objectives of the Pentagon directorate overseeing them, is somehow evidence of Russian “disinformation.”
Perhaps so, but Occam’s Razor would suggest a different conclusion: the Russian’s have exposed US funded Ukrainian bio-labs engaged in secret bio-weapons research. If this claim by Russia is true then the US and Ukraine have broken so-called international law. Not that it matters.
As we have already discussed, Nazis control Ukrainian national security infrastructure and, as we will discuss, The US-led NATO alliance have a history of working with Nazis to run false-flag terrorist attacks in Europe. If the unthinkable happens and there is a biological or chemical weapons attack in Ukraine, which is then automatically blamed upon Russia, all of us should insist upon a thorough investigation before we believe anything we are told about it.
In a fairly typical example of the Western MSM response to this evidence, the UK based Guardian published How ‘Ukrainian bioweapons labs’ myth went from QAnon fringe to Fox News. Alleging the claims were Russian disinformation, or part of “far-right” conspiracy theories, the Guardian opined:
The Russian propaganda machine is so engaged in sowing disinformation [. . .] The conspiracy theory began in seeming obscurity. [. . .] [T]his theory was just a remix of an allegation that Moscow has made for years. [. . .] This disinformation laid the groundwork for the QAnon-linked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian bio-labs.
It may be the case that the evidence substantiating the presence of US funded illegal weapons programs in Ukraine (and elsewhere) is all just the product of Russian disinformation or so-called “conspiracy theory.” However, the only way to find out is to examine that evidence and investigate it further.
Nuland Acknowledges Presence of Labs
The Guardian chose not to report any of the facts we have just discussed. Instead it dismissed all of it as a Russian “propaganda effort.” In an attempt to deal with all of the documents, freely available in the public domain, the Guardian added:
The very core of the story is true: the Department of Defense funds biological research and laboratories in Ukraine. [. . .] Washington insists that it does not fund biological weapons research anywhere.
That was enough for the Guardian to conclude its investigation and claim that the whole story was just Russian nonsense. Sadly, this is the standard of journalism that epitomises the Western “free press.” Simply repeating a denial from the Pentagon is not journalism and nor is failing to honestly report the facts to your readers while covering them up with a slew of unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo.
Certainly China weren’t convinced by the Guardian’s argument. Seemingly taking a more deliberative approach, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian, said:
[W]e call on relevant sides to ensure the safety of these labs. The US, in particular, as the party that knows the labs the best, should disclose specific information as soon as possible, including which viruses are stored and what research has been conducted. [. . .] The US has 336 biological labs in 30 countries under its control. [. . .] What is the true intention of the US? [. . .] [T]he US has kept stonewalling, and even dismissing the international community’s doubts as spreading disinformation. Besides, the US has been standing alone in obstructing the establishment of a Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) verification mechanism and refusing verification of its biological facilities [. . .] This has led to deeper concern of the international community. Once again we urge the US to give a full account of its biological military activities at home and abroad and subject itself to multilateral verification.
The US has declined to engage with the any UN-led BWC verification mechanism. For example, the US government blocked attempts to establish one in 2001. The US has continued to delay the development of an independent, UN oversight for more than 20 years. Rather than allow international investigators to rule out the existence of the suspected US bio-weapons programme, the US has established its own verification process and has found itself to be in full compliance:
There are processes and controls within the U.S. Executive Branch [. . .] that operate to ensure that plans and programs under those departments’ and agencies’ purview remain consistent with U.S. international obligations. [. . .] All U.S. activities during the reporting period were consistent with the obligations set forth in the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). [. . .] Russian accusations are groundless.
While this public statement is more than enough to convince the “journalists” at the Guardian, it is perhaps understandable that the international community, outside of the US-led NATO alliance, still has its doubts. The US government’s behaviour is suspicious, to say the least.
In an amusing irony, the Guardian stated that the Russian news agency, Tass, was “a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.” It’s true, Tass often is a mouthpiece for the Kremlin, just as the Guardian is often a mouthpiece for the White House, Brussels and Downing Street.
The propaganda in the Western MSM, spread by the likes of the CNN, CBC, the BBC, the Times and the Guardian, is just as thick as anything disseminated by Pravda or the Xinhua News Agency. The key advantage the Western MSM had previously enjoyed, over its Eastern propaganda counterparts, was that western populations were “educated” to believe they had a free and pluralistic media. However, that advantage is diminishing rapidly.
The frankly bizarre attempt by Western leaders, and their MSM propagandists, to turn Russia’s probable exposure of US bio-labs into a suggested Russian plot to justify a false-flag attack, was encapsulated by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Speaking to Sky News on 10th March he said:
The stuff that you’re hearing about chemical weapons, this is straight out of their [Russia’s] playbook.
Johnson’s claim followed a previous statement by UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace who said that he was seeing “elements of the Russian playbook;” Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO, also preceded Johnson’s comment by saying that he too could “foresee the playbook of Russia;” Josep Borrel, the EU’s High Representative (effectively the EU Defence Minister), similarly preempted Johnson by noting that developments in the Ukraine were part of “the Kremlin’s playbook.”
These remarkably similar comments indicate a coordinated, scripted narrative. It could be a coincidence, but there are other reasons why we might suspect that Western politicians are working to a pre-approved script.
The Rapid Response Mechanism & the Trusted News Initiative
The rhetoric about Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, pouring out of the western establishment, is a product of the G7’s (including the EU) Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM). It is designed to ensure that designated hostile state and non-state “actors” face a rapid and unified response. The purpose of the RRM was outlined in the 2018 Charlevoix G7 Summit Communique:
“We commit to take concerted action in responding to foreign actors who seek to undermine our democratic societies [. . .] We recognize that such threats, particularly those originating from state actors, are not just threats to G7 nations, but to international peace and security and the rules-based international order.”
Announcing the RRM, the UK Government added:
Hostile state activity will be met with a rapid and unified G7 response. [. . .] The move will also see hostile states publicly ‘called out’ for their egregious behaviour – with coordinated international attribution of cyber and other attacks.
The purpose of the RRM is to defend the current, US-led international rules-based order (IRBO). It has nothing to do with protecting democracy. Quite the opposite, the RRM works to undermine democratic principles.
The RRM is an agreement to respond to global events with a fixed narrative designed to promote the interests of the G7’s unipolar world order. Through the RRM, Western governments attribute blame to state or non-state actors and, where there is insufficient evidence to support their proclamations, they work with their MSM “partners” to produce the necessary propaganda and disinformation.
Commercial media is owned by a small handful of global corporations. For example, a 2021 report from the Media Reform Coalition found that just three companies (News UK, the Daily Mail Group and Reach) owned and controlled 90% of the UK national newspaper and 80% of the online news market. Similarly, the US media landscape is controlled by just five media corporations. Often local and state news readers, across the US, deliver the same, single script, word for word.
In 2019 The UK’s state broadcaster, the BBC, launched the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). This represented a further consolidation of Western media. The BBC joined AP, AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Reuters, Twitter and The Washington Post to form the TNI.
The TNI demands that readers and audiences trust its members. They say that they are “a unique global partnership” and that their role is to “tackle the harmful spread of disinformation.” The TNI have essentially claimed to be the arbiters of all truth. Were he alive today, George Orwell would almost certainly have called them the “Ministry of Truth.”
The TNI is a partnership between the Western MSM and the social media giants whose aim is to remove free speech and silence dissent. They state:
The partnership focuses on moments of potential jeopardy. [. . .] Partners alert each other to high risk disinformation so that content can be reviewed promptly by platforms, whilst publishers ensure they don’t unwittingly share dangerous falsehoods.
In July 2020, the UK government’s Select Committee for Culture Media and Sport noted:
Resources developed by public service broadcasters such as the Trusted News Initiative show huge potential as a framework in which public and private sector can come together to ensure verified, quality news provision. [. . .] The Government and online harms regulator should use the TNI to ‘join up’ approaches to public media literacy and benefit from shared learning regarding misinformation and disinformation. It should do this in a way that respects the independence from Government.
The TNI has no independence from government. All of its leading members are partner organisations of government.
The TNI: Neither trustworthy nor independent
The BBC are funded by the UK government and receives further money, for its international charity BBC Media Action, directly from the UK, US, Swedish, Canadian, Norwegian, EU governments and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Google, another TNI core member, was a start up funded by the CIA’s venture capital company In-Q-tel and is a UK government precurement partner. Another, Microsoft, proudly announces how it is a “partner with government,” helping them to protect democracy .
Reuters has a long history of working directly with institutions of the state. For example, during the 1960’s and 70’s it was paid to spread anti-Soviet propaganda by the UK government. The Washington Post is owned by Geoff Bazos (Nash Holdings) and his AWS (Amazon Web Services) competency partnership works with governments around the world.
The RRM denies the most essential of all democratic principles, namely questioning government authority. There is no room in the RRM for the foundational democratic conventions of free speech and expression. It is an anti-democratic project and a commitment, by G7 and EU governments, to destroy democracy and establish totalitarian rule.
Totalitarianism can be defined as:
A political system in which those in power have complete control and do not allow people freedom to oppose them.
The RRM and the TNI are totalitarian. Combined with censorship legislation, the existence of this nexus demontrates that the G7 political establishment is pursuing policies of intolerance and despotism. It is opposed to democratic accountability.
The TNI are providing the “verified, quality news provision” that supports Rapid Response Mechanism declarations. When Russia stated that “denazification” was one of the goals of its military operation, the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, called Russia’s claim a “grotesque lie;” US President Joe Biden said, in regard to the same, that “it’s a lie” and Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, again in reference to Russian denazification claims, said “it’s a lie.”
The RRM narrative was set. Russia’s stated concerns were totally groundless and nothing more than an excuse for unprovoked, naked aggression. Therefore, it was the role of the TNI to push this disinformation. This necessitated the whitewashing the Nazis and the downplaying their control of the of Ukraine’s national security.
Among many examples of the TNI doing precisely this, the Financial Times (FT) published Don’t Confuse Patriotism With Naziasm: Ukraine’s Asov Forces Face Scrutiny. The FT claimed that the Azov Regiment were a “diverse” crowd who had gone “mainstream.” Engaging in Holocaust revisionism, the FT added that Stepan Bandera was a “nationalist figure” who had only been “accused” of collaborating with Nazis.
The BBC depolyed the baseless argument that Nazi influence was impossible without electoral success. They highlighted that the election of a Jewish President was “proof” that the Ukrainian Nazis had no power. The BBC then wheeled out some “experts” who were willing to claim that the Nazis were an inconsequential minority within the Ukrainian military and that their ideology had been “watered down” by new recruits.
Fellow TNI founding member, the Guardian, produced Is There Any Justification for Putin’s War? They also exploited the Nazis lack of electoral success, in a country that voted for a Jewish President, to deny that they had any real power. The Guardian added commentary suggesting that the Nazis were suffering from a reputation problem and that the OUM and UPA were simply “nationalists” who came to be “seen as aligned with the Nazis.”
In order to “protect democracy,” other founding members of the TNI are seemingly happy to promote Nazis. Meta (formerly Facebook) banned the Azov Regiment from their platform in 2019 because they are Nazis who publicly incite appalling crimes, such as genocide, on social media. However Meta has now changed its policy to allow its users to show their support for Nazis. Meta condones calls for violence against Russians, including advocating assassination of Russian officials and promoting the killing of Russian soldiers.
While Google, another TNI founder, have censored leading scientists and doctors for questioning COVID-19 policies, Nazis are welcome to host their propaganda channels on YouTube. The Asov Regiments, who murder Ukrainian citizens and use them as human shields, can post as many videos as they like.
This is not to suggest that lawful content, that does not directly incite a crime, should be censored. It merely illustrates that the founding members of the TNI are hypocrites who have no moral compass. The TNI is a propaganda and surveillance cartel whose role is to sell Rapid Response Mechanism “truth” to Western populations. It is undeserving of anyone’s “trust.”
Rampant Censorship And the End of Representative Democracy
Democracy is the best form of government ever devised. Unfortunately, it is not a system of government any of us are familiar with. The word “democracy” (demokratia) derives from “demos” (people) and “kratos” (power). Literally translated as “people power,” democracy means government by trial by jury.
Instead we have something else called “representative democracy,” which is not democracy at all. Representative democracy is a so-called “democratic system” where the people are permitted, by the state, to select their political leaders once every 4 or 5 years.
In the intervening period this tiny group of “special people” exercise executive power and rule over everyone else. This is called an oligarchy and it is the antithesis of democracy. However, as the vast majority call this oligarchical system “democracy” that is how we shall reference it here.
People in the West have been told to believe in, what they call, democracy and have consequently become attached to the idea. The Western oligarchy supposedly maintains some foundational principles which are, in and of themselves, valuable and worth protecting. These are often referred to as democratic ideals.
Democratic ideals have been shaped over thousands of years by political leaders and philosophers. The British sociologist T. H. Marshall, in his 1949 essay Citizenship and Social Class, described democratic ideals as a functioning system of civil, political and social rights.
Civil rights include the right to individual freedom (liberty), exercised through freedom of speech, of thought and faith, etc; political rights enable all the opportunity to participate in and exercise political power, from standing for election to universal suffrage, and social rights afford every citizen basic economic security (welfare) and opportunities (healthcare, employment and education).
To erode any of these rights is to undermine representative democracy (nominally democracy). Both the Western hegemony and the Eurasian alliance between Russia and China, which we will cover in some depth, lay claim to models of democracy.
Neither practice democracy in any recognisable form. Both operate oligarchical political structures and both rule be force. Neither have any commitment to democratic ideals.
Russia is a representative democracy of sorts, but it is certainly not a democracy. In 2019 the Russian state Duma passed its initial “disrespect” and “fake-news” laws. This legislation means that Russians could face a large fine or up to 15 days in prison for showing “blatant disrespect” to the Russian state or its leaders. The “fake-news” laws empower the Roskomnadzor (the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media) to act as Russia’s “Ministry of Truth.”
These anti-democratic censorship laws, information control systems and suppression of Russian’s inalienable rights to free speech and expression, have progressed. The 2020 law, effectively outlawing public dissent against Russia’s draconian COVID-19 measures and, more recently, the 2022 law silencing opposition to Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, are typical examples.
The Russian government’s opposition to free speech, freedom of thought and expression includes the blocking of social media companies and the expulsion of foreign journalists. It’s harsh penalties, of up to 15 years in prison for inconvenient journalists, effectively made it impossible for many foreign new outlets to operate in Russia.
In one of the most stunning examples of rank hypocrisy written in recent years, the NYT wrote that Russia had taken censorship to “new extremes.” Perhaps Russian government disdain for democratic ideals could be considered “extreme,” but it is no more so than the equal disregard exhibited by western governments.
Through the totalitarian RRM and TNI the West operates a propaganda operation unparalleled in human history. While the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea and other tyrannies have deployed overwhelming propaganda campaigns, nothing compares to the scale of the RRM/TNI. It is trans-continental, covers print, broadcast and online media and is led by private corporations, working in collaboration with government, who exercise their control through the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P).
Censorship in the West is just as severe, if not more so, than anything seen in Russia. In 2021 the US Department of State shut down a number of US-based middle-eastern news outlets. Emphasising the propaganda strangle hold, in response to this attack upon the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution by the US government, the US so-called free press didn’t even mention the constitutional implications.
In 2017, to be able to continue its broadcasting and online publishing operation in the US, serving a Russian community of around 3 million US citizens, the Russian Media outlet RT was compelled to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). In March 2022 US and Canadian cable providers effectively banned Russian media in their respective countries.
The censorship in Europe, in both the EU and especially in the UK, is even more oppressive. The EU has banned a number of Russian outlets outright. They are also surging ahead with their plans to censor the Internet. The Digital Services Act (DSA) will see the EU work with their social media “partners” to remove whatever Brussels’ bureaucrats identify as “disinformation.”
The most anti-democratic countries among the former western liberal democracies is the UK. It has gone further than any other to create a dictatorship.
Having already passed legislation to give itself unlimited authority to commit any crime, the UK government is pushing through with laws to end the right of protest, it is removing the defence of “in the national interests” from whistleblowers and investigative journalists, and it is planning a new Bill of Rights that will enshrine the authority of the state over and above everything else, including citizen’s inalienable rights.
Like the EU the UK has banned Russian media. Justifying the decision the chief executive of the Ofcom (the UK’s broadcast regulator) Dame Melanie Dawes, said:
Freedom of expression is something we guard fiercely in this country [. . .] [W]e have today found that RT is not fit and proper to hold a licence in the UK. As a result we have revoked RT’s UK broadcasting licence.
Vacuous platitudes from the nobility are meaningless. This becomes even more evident when we consider the UK government’s plan to completely shut down freedom of speech online.
Ofcom has been appointed as the regulator for the UK’s Internet under the imminent Online Safety Act. It is nothing less than a government plan to control our ability to communicate and freely share information and ideas online. The UK state’s equivocation about protecting freedom of speech is a damnable lie.
The Western political establishment has no intention to uphold democratic ideals. Freedom of speech and expression, and the liberty that representative democracy is supposedly based upon, means nothing to the ruling class. It is no longer convenient and now they are simply casting it aside.
Representative democracy is itself a sham, but at least there was some vague promise to uphold democratic ideals. We, in the West, can now put aside any lingering, childish notion that we live in democratic societies.
The Ukrainian government have not only banned all Russian media but also outlawed political parties. Ukraine is no democracy either. The absurd suggestion, propagated by the likes of Ursula Von der Leyen, that the West is defending democracy from autocracy, is pure disinformation. There is no such thing as democracy to be found in any nation-state.
We are seeing a struggle for supremacy between global power blocs in Ukraine. The political structure they each hope to rule is a single, cohesive system of global governance. No matter who wins, it’s implementation is assured, unless we act on a population wide scale to stop it.
Ukraine is the current focal point for this struggle. World War III started in 2001 and 2030 is the first waypoint along the path to true global governance.
The West is exploiting the conflict to deliberately speed up the planned destruction of its own economy, a process that began in earnest with the policy response to the pseudopandemic. The East is seeking to establish itself as the driver for the New World Order.
The globalist forces overseeing this struggle care little for the outcome. What matters is that the war is fought, because it is the conflict itself that will deliver the global governance they desire. It is this global confrontation that we will explore in Part 5.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is technically illegal under international law. In Part 2 we discussed why international law means virtually nothing: it does not apply equally to all states and is therefore no law at all. We also talked about why Russia also had legitimate security concerns and yet the United Nations did nothing to alleviate them.
Russia’s position in the global and specifically the European energy market gave it the leverage it is using to counter NATO expansionism. This is contrary to US interests, since the European Union could potentially threaten US dominance of the NATO alliance. Ukraine, as the main transit hub for Russian gas supplies to Europe, was a choke point.
The US and Russia engaged in a diplomatic mini-Cold War. As NATO raced eastward, Russia and Germany constructed the Nord Stream pipelines with a view to ending their mutual over-exposure in a politically unstable Ukraine. By circumnavigating Ukraine, both EU aspirations and Russia’s security vulnerabilities could be addressed. Those goals were unacceptable to the US.
Going back further, in Part 1 we looked at Ukraine’s turbulent history and the deep divisions in its political landscape. Despite Ukrainian people consistently voting for socialism, we noted that it was the National Socialists who, due to their willingness to use extreme violence, seized disproportionate political power as a result of the Euromaidan coup.
The National Socialists (Nazis), did not achieve this power without international support. The US, seeking to scupper Russia’s bid to have a closer relationship with the EU, was willing to work with the Nazis to facilitate their planned coup. The ramifications for Ukraine were disastrous.
Ukrainain Nazis Rise To Power With Western Support
The far-right political movement, predominantly constructed from Svoboda, the Right Sector (RS) and affiliated groups, does not enjoy widespread popular support in Ukraine. In the 2019 parliamentary elections, the people overwhelmingly voted for the Servant of the People (SN) and the Opposition Platform (OP) parties.
The SN is a centrist party in Ukrainian politics and, on the surface, appears to be similar to other European neoliberal, progressive parties. Meanwhile, the pro-Russian OP formed the official opposition in the Verkhovna Rada.
The far-right was practically wiped out in the election. The Russian allegation that the Ukraine is practically a Nazi state is propaganda. Sadly, this does not mean that the Russian military objective of “denazification” of Ukraine is groundless.
Unfortunately for the Ukrainian people, the far-right, largely through SN, remains a powerful force in the nation’s politics. To understand how this is possible in the absence of any Nazi electoral support, we must look at the influence of foreign governments and globalist oligarchs. We’ll consider the oligarch capture of SN in Part 4.
After the Euromaidan coup of 2014, Russia completed its so-called “annexation” of Crimea without firing a shot. The move angered some Ukrainians, who viewed their security services as next to useless. But when volunteer battalions of the RS went to the front in the Donbas war, with the assistance of the Ukrainian media, they were praised for being defenders of the state.
Most Ukrainians remained opposed to the RS. Nonetheless, the increasing support the RS received further emboldened all the neo-Nazi groups. In 2015, they held a Torchlight march in Kyiv, which was well-attended and well-received.
We must remember that the RS, Svoboda, C14, White Hammer, the National Corps and other neo-Nazi incarnations would not have been able to pull off their power grab without the support of the US-led NATO alliance.
Victoria Nuland, acting first as US special envoy on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (2010–2011) then as a State Department spokesperson, was a key figure in the US support for the Euromaidan coup and for the neo-Nazis who led it.
She liaised with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, to orchestrate the neo-Nazi takeover. By 2013, the US had established so-called TechCamps in Ukraine. Speaking in the Rada on 20 November 2013, the day before the Euromaidan protests began, pro-Russian MP Oleg Tsaryov revealed that US TechCamps had been established in Ukraine to foment revolution.
Tsaryov claimed that these TechCamps schooled activists on how to use information warfare techniques to undermine government institutions. His revelations could perhaps be dismissed as uncorroborated and partisan were it not for the fact that the revolution he was predicting took place a couple of months after he delivered his warning.
The now-infamous phone call between Nuland and Pyatt has largely been reported in the West with a focus upon Nuland’s “fuck the EU” comment. But that was perhaps the least interesting aspect of the call.
Their bugged conversation was leaked on 4 February 2014, more than two weeks before the Maidan square massacre and the formal transition of power. It revealed that the form of the new government had already been drawn up by the US and that the plan was sanctioned at the very highest level of the US administration.
Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey R. Pyatt visit the Maidan protesters
It also showed that the US State Department knew it was working in partnership with the neo-Nazis—the very groups who slaughtered fellow citizens to give the coup its final push. Their conversation made it clear that Nuland and Pyatt had absolutely no respect for Ukrainian democracy or for democratic principles in general. Thus, the current US-led Western alliance’s reprimand of Russia for ignoring democratic values is nothing but rank hypocrisy.
There are some notable excerpts from the transcript of the conversation. Nuland asked Pyatt, “What do you think?” His reply, “I think we’re in play,” clearly indicates that the US administration had a preconceived plan. Pyatt then acknowledged that the US had already decided that Vitali Klitschko wouldn’t “be in the government,” despite his being a prominent Maidan leader and the proposed Deputy Prime Minister.
Prior to the completion of the coup, Klitschko announced he was going to run for president. But having been offered no government role after the coup, he withdrew his presidential candidacy and suddenly announced he was running for Mayor of Kyiv instead. He was elected in June 2014. All as ordained by Nuland.
When Nuland stated, “I think Yats is the guy,” she was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Sure enough, following the coup, he was appointed as the Prime Minister of the Maidan government, exactly as planned. Pyatt advised Nuland that “the problem is gonna be with Tyahnybok and his guys.” This was a reference to Svoboda, the Right Sector, White Hammer, C14 and the other neo-Nazis.
Although Nuland didn’t want Tyahnybok to be in the government, she clearly envisioned the neo-Nazis remaining a powerful political force in Ukraine. In order for the Maidan government to operate as required, Nuland advised Pyatt that the chosen Prime Minister, Yatsenyuk, needed:
Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week.
The new US-appointed Maidan government would go on to work closely with the neo-Nazis. This relationship provided the neo-Nazis with the power and authority they could not hope to gain from the Ukrainian ballot box.
The White House was undoubtedly behind the plan for the new government. Though there is no direct evidence that the US-led NATO alliance actually directed the Maidan massacre, we can see it served the US agenda precisely. It is no surprise that after the coup the Maidan neo-Nazis were rewarded [with what?] by the newly imposed Yatsenyuk government.
Pyatt indicated he was eager to employ some political heavyweights to make the undemocratic overthrow of an elected government “stick.” Nuland suggested Joe Biden, who was then the Vice President of the United States, as someone who would do the job. “Biden’s willing,” she added. Indeed, Biden’s numerous subsequent visits to Ukraine in the early years of the Maidan government underscore the reason for Nuland’s confidence.
McCain & Tyahnybok
It wasn’t just Democrats, like Biden, who supported the neo-Nazi led coup. Republican Sen. John McCain was an avid proponent, too. Like Nuland, who literally gave bread to the Maidan protesters, McCain visited the scene of the crime. So did then-US Secretary of State Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat. Both sides of the US political establishment were pushing for revolution.
Oleh Tyahnybok was a well-known neo-Nazi. In 2004, he was thrown out of then-President Viktor Yushchenko’s parliamentary faction after delivering a ranting speech in which he called upon Ukrainians to fight the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia”—a racist slur against both Russians and Jews.
He followed this up in 2005 by signing an open letter to the Rada urging the government to tackle the corruption of “organised Jewry.” These are just two examples of his many anti-Semitic, Russophobic and generally racist statements.
From a PR perspective, the many photographs of McCain meeting with or standing on stage with Tyahnybok were problematic. Addressing the Maidan crowd in December 2013, McCain said:
We are here because your peaceful process and peaceful protest is inspiring your country and inspiring the world. [. . .] We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe. [. . .] Ukraine will make Europe better and Europe will make Ukraine better.
According to Reuters, US officials dealt with the PR problem by brushing aside the fact that Nuland, Kerry, Biden and McCain were working with or supporting Nazis like Tyahnybok. They made it sound as if the only reason McCain met him was that he just happened to be one of the Maidan leaders.
An unnamed US official claimed Svoboda was heading towards becoming a “European mainstream political party.” That was not true.
It is highly likely the US administration struck a deal with the neo-Nazis through Tyahnybok. Just as Nuland suggested, he was not given a position in the Yatsenyuk’s Maidan government. Nonetheless, the National Socialist Svoboda was handsomely rewarded, and Tyahnybok became a kingmaker.
Prior to the coup, Svoboda could not have dreamt of the political power it would achieve. Oleksandr Sych was named Vice Prime Minister, Ihor Tenyukh was made Defence Minister, Ihor Shvaika was appointed as Minister for Food and Agriculture and Andriy Mokhnyk became the Minister for Ecology and Natural Resources.
R-L: Yatsenyuk, Tyahnybok, McCain
Tyahnybok remained Svoboda leader. Thus Yatsenyuk, with so many Svoboda ultras in his cabinet and in other key state positions, had no choice but to consult with Tyahnybok and other influential far-right leaders on a regular basis. The Western-backed Euromaidan coup may not have created Ukraine’s Nazi problem, but the US-led NATO alliance was, at the very least, exploiting their violent fanaticism.
Ukrainian party politics is not as clearly defined or stable as elsewhere in Europe. Parties frequently change their names and split or merge as politicians shift their allegiance. It is easier to think of Ukraine parties as blocks (blocs) formed from various factions.
The Maidan-appointed interim President was Oleksandr Turchynov, and the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine (MVS) was Arsen Avakov. Andriy Parubiy, in another win for the neo-Nazis, was given the role of Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine. Together with Yatsenyuk, the three formed the People’s Front (originally People’s Action) in March 2014.
The People’s Front fully emerged in September 2014, when Arsen Avakov and Andriy Parubiy split from Yatsenyuk and Tuchynov. Yatsenyuk then joined the Petro Poroshenko bloc (subsequently named the European Solidarity party).
The game of musical chairs and the eventual 2014 presidential and parliamentary elections left Poroshenko as the elected President and Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister. Tellingly, it also left Avakov and Parubiy, the “commandant of Euromaidan,” with a firm grip on Ukrainian national security.
The Maidan government, established by Nuland, Pyatt, Kerry, Biden, Obama, McCain and others, empowered the far-right politically. After the coup, President Obama made a speech that reaffirmed his administration’s treachery. Echoing McCain’s words, he said:
Throughout this crisis, we have been very clear about one fundamental principle: The Ukrainian people deserve the opportunity to determine their own future.
Nothing could have been more deceitful. The Ukrainian people were being manipulated and robbed of the chance to “determine their own future”—to live “freely and independently.”
The Re-emergence Nazi Military Power In Europe
Given its experience during WWII, Russia’s hatred for Nazis is natural. That being said, the Russian Federation has its own far-right problem which, initially, the government tried to shape and control for its own purposes. The most well known of these groups was Russian National Unity who were banned in 1999. However, that attempt didn’t work. Thus, much like every other state in the global north, Russia has necessarily suppressed its domestic far-right groups.
The Russian Federation has been more amenable to foreign far-right and nationalist groups. For example, following the “annexation” of Crimea, Putin wooed Marine Le Penn, the leader of Rassemblement National, in exchange for political support and promotion of Russian foreign policy objectives. Le Penn is notably opposed to both the EU and NATO.
Russia uses these foreign far-right groups for its own ends. In 2015, it permitted the International Russian Conservative Forum in St. Petersburg to convene. Far-right and even extreme-right groups from across Europe met to discuss strategy. Putin’s government has also provided military training to overseas neo-Nazi groups. The Russian oligarchy is not averse to supporting any group that could potentially cause problems for it foreign adversaries.
Many nation-states use Nazis in this way. They are violent fanatics and therefore useful. For example, America House Kyiv hosted C14, where its young spokesperson, Serhiy Bandar, explained how C14 had been working with Kyiv police to carry out pogroms against the capital’s Roma community.
The Russian government does not support the Ukrainian neo-Nazis, though, because it is not in its interest to do so. How ironic, therefore, that perhaps the most extreme of all neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine are Russian.
One such group is Wotanjugend. Led by Alexei Levkin, these so-called “esoteric Nazis” worship Hitler as a deity. They are the sworn enemies of Putin. Having been exiled from Russia to Ukraine, they fight against the Russian separatists in Donbas. Members of Wotanjugend are part of Ukraine’s Azov Regiment, which has been trained, armed and equipped by the NATO/EU alliance.
Alexei Levkin (front) marches with other RS members
Ukraine’s Nazi problem is unique. It is the only post WWII European state to have incorporated neo-Nazis into its national security infrastructure. It is also the only state where neo-Nazis hold the balance of power. Their position is not a result of the minority popular support they have among some Ukrainians but is, rather, the product of other factors: Ukraine’s political history, oligarch support for the Ukrainian far-right, and outside interference.
In the immediate aftermath of the Euromaidan coup, Yatsenyuk offered the leader of the Right Sector (RS), Dymitro Yarosh, a number of positions, all of which he declined. Though Svoboda was well rewarded by the new government, the RS, perceived as more militant, wasn’t afforded the same degree of political power.
This probably explains why the RS continued to occupy Kyiv streets and government buildings after the Yatsenyuk Maidan government was installed. With the RS militias under his command, Yarosh still had considerable power in Kyiv. Consequently, in the 2014 parliamentary elections, Yatsenyuk’s bloc stood aside in Dnipropetrovsk, giving Yarosh and other RS candidates a free run into the Verkhovna Rada.
In response to the Euromaidan, the eastern Ukraine oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk rapidly tilted towards separatism. Interior Minister Arsen Avakov referred to the separatists as “terrorists.” By categorising millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians with this inflammatory term, he set the tone for the Donbas war that followed. He also lent faux legitimacy to the neo-Nazis, who would be instrumental in perpetuating the war.
Avakov also immediately set about supporting a fascist group called Patriot of Ukraine. As the former paramilitary wing of the Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), Patriot had been co-founded by Andriy Parubiy in 1996 and was led by him between 1998 and 2004.
Avakov released Patriot leader Andriy Biletsky from prison and gave him a role in the Interior Ministry. Biletsky had previously been the leader of the Kharkiv branch of the Tryzub, founded by Dmytro Yarosh. Avakov had been the governor in Kharkiv during this period, and Biletsky’s volunteer militia had worked closely with the Kharkiv police and security services.
Biletsky had opposed the 2003 renaming of the SNPU to Svoboda and [when?] had reformed Patriot of Ukraine as an independent volunteer militia. In 2013, Patriot joined with Tryzub to form the Right Sector. During the Euromaidan protests, [Patriot? RS?] operated as the core component of the Maidan Self-Defence, led by Andriy Parubiy.
In April 2014, three months after the coup [?], Avakov formed the Special Task Patrol Police to protect “public order” in the Donbas and elsewhere. In May he granted official status to Patriot of Ukraine as a “specialist” volunteer battalion under the auspices of the MVU. Biletsky took command of the new unit, called the Azov Battalion. In 2016, Biletsky formed the National Corps party as a political front for the Azov Regiment.
A number of such specialist militias, such as the Aydar and the Dnepr Battalions, were brought together at that time. They were effectively controlled by oligarchs, such as Avakov and Ihor Kolomoyskyi, rather than by the Kyiv government. Supposedly, they received their orders from the MVU, although it seems that the oligarchs had more influence on them than did the ministry.
The regular regiments of the Ukrainian army (ZSU) were acting under the direction of the Ukraine Ministry of Defence, but the newly formed specialists were not. With oligarch money behind them and better training and equipment than the ZSU, the neo-Nazis made an effective fighting force. They were used as shock troops in forward positions as soon as the separatist uprising began.
Biletskey, who once wrote that Ukraine should “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade [. . .] against the Semite-led Untermenschen,” led the Azov Battalion when it took Mariupol from the separatists. Avakov and Andriy Paruby consequently issued the order to establish the Azov Regiment.
In October, the pair was also behind the regulation of the Azov Regiment as part of the Ukrainian National Guard (NGU). The NGU was also nominally under the command of the MVU, but, in reality, oligarchs were pulling the strings.
From this point onwards, the RS and the far-right coalition were no longer a militant political movement seeking to revive Nazi ideology. They were armed combatants in a conflict in which they intended to enforce that ideology. Under Avakov’s and Parubiy’s guidance, they had been transformed from mere neo-Nazis to outright Nazis.
The Wolfsangel symbol had been adopted by numerous Nazi regiments and units, including the SS, during WWII. Its public display is now illegal in Germany. In Ukraine, even though the SNPU dropped the Wolfsangel when it transitioned to Svoboda in order to improve its public appeal, it did not abandon the National Socialist ideology.
The original Azov Regiment emblem was constructed from pure Nazi iconography. It shows a Wolfsangel standing before Himmler’s quasi-mystical Nazi black sun. The new version has dropped the black sun but retains the Wolfsangel.
It must be stressed that the Nazis are primarily concentrated in the Azov Regiment. Biletsky said of them:
I am sure, the majority of the lads see themselves as nationalists. The same goes for the Aydar, but they do not have such monolithity as in Azov where 90% of the fighters call themselves, with certainty, Ukrainian nationalists.
It is difficult to know precisely how many Nazis are currently active within Ukrainian forces. Though concentrated in Azov, they’re also present, to varying degrees, in the other “specialist” regiments and in units such as Aydar, Dnepr, Kyiv-2, etc. National socialism is unusually popular in Ukraine, and there are certainly Nazis dispersed throughout the military. However, they only act as a united military or security force in the specialist battalions of the National Guard and selected MVU police units.
In 2014, the Ukrainian political analyst Mykhaylo Minakov stated that there were 38 such battalions, drawn predominantly from the RS militias, with approximately 13,500 military personnel in total. Of these, not all were hardcore Nazis. Now, as regiments and specialist police forces, the Nazis have increased in strength. But it seems unlikely that they account for more than 10,000–15,000 of the estimated 260,000 Ukrainian military personnel across all services.
Regrettably, their ideological fervour and willingness to die for the cause makes them formidable soldiers eager to be deployed on the front lines. This point was highlighted by Yevhen Karas, a former leader of C14 and a member of the Kyiv-2 Battalion:
We perform the tasks set by the West because we are the only ones who are ready to do them. Because we have fun, we have fun killing and we have fun fighting. [. . .] [T]hat’s the reason for the new alliance: Turkey, Poland, Britain and Ukraine. [. . .] We have the most Javelins (anti-tank missiles) on the continent, maybe only the UK has more. [. . .] We (Ukraine) are a huge, powerful state and if we come to power it will be both a joy and a problem for the whole world. [. . .] [T]his is about new political alliances on the global level.
There was probably a considerable amount of hubris in his statement. Nonetheless, the West’s arming and equipping of these maniacs presents, first and foremost, an incredible danger to the Ukrainian people as well as to Europe and thus to the world.
Russia’s attack on Ukraine is equally dangerous. If idiots like US Sen. Lindsay Graham, who openly called for Putin’s assassination, convince enough members of NATO to try to impose no-fly zones or to get involved in the war in some other way, things could get worse very quickly.
Regardless of Russia’s aggression, it is seems insane of the West to have once again encouraged the rise of a Nazi military power in Europe. Worryingly, there is a mendacious motive to this apparent madness, which we’ll cover in Part 4.
In 2015, a powerful Washingtion lobby led by Sen. McCain pressed the Obama administration to send offensive weapons to Ukraine. NATO senior command also advocated lethal military assistance, but the Obama administration officially stood firm, refusing to give “lethal aid” to Ukraine. Instead, the US claimed it would only “train” Ukranian troops.
A 2021 Congressional Research report revealed that the US had been providing $2.5 billion in “security assistance” to Ukraine since 2014. Part of that sum was the Trump administration’s 2018 approval of the sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Prior to that permit, the State Department had already facilitated US armaments exports to Ukraine, according to the Atlantic Council, an American think tank that is NATO’s de facto lobbyist in Washington. A researcher for the Council said that “the US Embassy did absolutely help facilitate this transfer, and I’m not sure if they were aware that Azov would be the first to train with them.”
No one knows how much military support came from the Pentagon’s “black budget.” However, it appears funds were used to train of Ukrainian “paramilitaries” in secret CIA training camps.
This “assistance” also seemed to include standing by while the US private mercenary outfit Blackwater sent men to fight in the Donbas. This remains unconfirmed, but Eric Prince, the founder of Blackwater (renamed Academi), reportedly had extensive plans to profit from the war.
According to open-source intelligence (OSINT) investigators at Bellingcat, US mercenaries weren’t the only ones working with so-called Ukrainian paramilitaries. They reported that the European Security Academy had trained numerous far-right paramilitaries, including the Azov Regiment, which thanked them for their support.
British military assistance for the Ukrainian Nazis is also evident. Operational Orbital, the UK’s training mission to Ukraine, began in early 2015. While denying the training of the Ukrainian NGU, the NGU’s own website reported a 2021 meeting between British Army and Ukrainian NGU commanders and said “the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the expansion of further military cooperation.”
The Canadian-led Operation Unifier, which brought together trainers from a number of European militaries, began in 2015. Training has been provided to around 33,000 regular Ukrainian military personnel and nearly 2,000 members of NGU. A June 2018 meeting between Canadian officials and Azov commanders led to some embarrassment and a “review” of the Operation, but it continued anyway.
As early as December 2021 it was confirmed that the US had been providing weaponry to Ukrainian forces. It is clear that between 2014 and today there has been a steady build-up of foreign arms, military expertise and independent contractors in Ukraine. All this aid contributed toward fuelling the war in the Donbas. It was implicitly understood that some of the recipients of this “lethal aid” were Nazis.
In response to the recent Russian attack, the US has passed the 2022 Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act. The $13.6 billion package includes $3.65 billion in weapons transfers. Likewise, the UK government has said it will not stop sending arms to Ukraine. And the EU has made the same commitment, as have a number of member states, including France and the Netherlands, which had already independently pledged to arms shipments.
For many observers, it is Germany’s decision provide the Ukrainians with weapons that presents the most unsavoury prospect. Every Western nation has a far-right problem to some extent, and Germany is no different. Yet few nation-states have done more, in the post WWII era, to thoroughly reject the twisted ideology of National Socialism.
Notwithstanding, the arms that Germany is currently supplying to Ukraine will be used by Nazis. Despite the promised safeguards, once weapons are in Ukraine, it is the “specialist” NGU operators who have their pick of them.
The Azov Regiment receives training from what appears to be British forces instructors
The Western propaganda machine has sought to downplay the Nazi influence in Ukraine. Often it points to the fact that many leading Ukrainian politicians, such as Yatsenyuk and the current president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, are Jewish.
The MSM insist that Nazis could never support Jewish leaders and nor could Jewish leaders tolerate Nazis. Therefore the Western public can safely discount “Putin’s denazification propaganda.”
The election of Jews as national leaders shows that the majority of Ukrainians are not antisemitic. It does not signify, as many in the West have claimed, that the Nazis have no influence or power in Ukraine.
The two dimensional narrative, suggesting the impossible contradiction of Jews leading a country with a significant Nazi problem, conceals the complexities of the political situation in Ukraine. The antisemitic statements by Tyahnybok, Biletsky and others are public record. There is no doubt about their views.
Nazis with political aspirations, such as Dmytro Yorash, have been very careful to distance themselves from antisemitism. However, the Right Sector (RS) he co-founded and led are openly antisemitic. They have even adopted the flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).
In 2018 at a rally celebrating the 2014 Odessa massacre, where the RS burned pro-Russian separatists alive and beat others to death, the leader of their Odessa chapter, Tatyana Soykina, said “We will restore order in Ukraine, Ukraine will belong to Ukrainians, not Zhids and oligarchs.” Using the term “Zhid” for Jews couldn’t be more antisemitic.
As we will discuss shortly, Jewish political leaders, like Zelenskyy, have to work with the Nazis whether they like it or not. Thanks to the support they have received from the U.S. led NATO alliance, Nazis are embedded in the heart of the Ukrainian establishment.
The Ukrainian Nazis’ cultural and political icon, Stepan Bandera, was an instrumental figure in the Holocaust in Ukraine. He oversaw the Lvov pogroms and pledged his support to the 4th Reich.
Yet the world now finds itself in the preposterous position where, in the midst of an increasingly ludicrous propaganda war, even the international Jewish NGO the Anti-Defamation-League (ADL) are seemingly engaged in Holocaust revisionism. The ADL published an interview where Dr David Fishman reportedly claimed:
[S]ome members of these ultra-nationalist groups have used Nazi insignia, made Hitler salutes, and used antisemitic rhetoric, but they are politically insignificant and in no way representative of Ukraine. [. . .] For Ukrainian nationalists, UPA and Bandera are symbols of the Ukrainian fight for Ukrainian independence. The UPA allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union for tactical – not ideological – reasons.
The historian Prof. John-Paul-Himka was able to access 1800 testimonies of Holocaust survivors from the Archive of the Jewish Historical Institute and cross referenced those with official documents from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Himka’s painstaking research, published in 2009, catalogued the UPA’s war crimes. He concluded:
[The] UPA participated actively in the destruction of the Jewish population of Western Ukraine. It had reasons of its own to kill Jews, and did so even when in open revolt against the Germans. [The] UPA had clear ideas about what the Ukraine they were building should be like. As the song they sung said: “We slaughtered the Jews, we’ll slaughter the Poles, old and young, every one; we’ll slaughter the Poles, we’ll build Ukraine.” [. . .] Although what UPA did to the Jews may not have been, in the larger scheme of things, a major contribution to the Holocaust, it remains a large and inexpungible stain on the record of the Ukrainian national insurgency.
Zelenskyy has recently been on a virtual global tour addressing national legislatures, drumming up support for Ukraine’s struggle. In the UK he evoked Churchill, in the US Martin Luther King jr. and in Germany the collapse of the Berlin Wall. He has successfully used emotionally resonant moments in the subject nation’s history to build parallels with the current Ukrainian plight.
When Zelenskyy addressed the Knesset, seeking Israeli support, he utilised the same approach and compared Ukraine’s plight to the Holocaust. This did not work as intended.
For Israelis the Holocaust is fundamental to their sense of national identity. Many Israeli Jews possess an extensive and thorough knowledge of Holocaust history. This includes a clear understanding of what happened in Ukraine. The Knesset did not react well when Zelenskyy suggested that they should save Ukrainians today as Ukrainians had saved Jews during the Holocaust.
The attempted revisionism did not endear him to his audience whose thoughts were seemingly summed up by the former Israeli cabinet minister, Yuval Steinitz, who said:
If Zelensky’s speech was given [. . .] in normal times, we would have said it bordered on Holocaust denial [. . .] Every comparison between a regular war, as difficult as it may be, and the extermination of millions of Jews [. . .] is a total distortion of history. The same is true for the claim that Ukrainians helped Jews in the Holocaust [. . .] The historic truth is that the Ukrainian people cannot be proud of its behaviour in the Holocaust of the Jews.
The Western propagandists’ argument that the election of Jewish leaders somehow nullifies the disproportionate political and military power of Ukrainian based Nazis is total nonsense. The related attempts to whitewash the history of the OUN, UPA and other Ukrainian WWII Nazis, who are revered by the current crop, are a disgrace.
Fishman was correct when he said that the Nazis don’t represent Ukraine, but he was conspicuously incorrect about everything else. His alleged “conclusions” about the UPA, and the publication of his opinion, appears to be politically motivated. Unimaginable though it may be, some are now seriously suggesting that Nazis aren’t really antisemites.
The War In The Donbas
During the Euromaidan coup (November 2013–February 2014) anti-Maidan protests in the Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk were widespread. Collectively referred to as the Donbas (Donetskyi Basein), it was a thriving industrial region and mass producer of steel, coal and other vital resources from the late 19th through the 20th centuries. Many Russians settled in the Donbas following WWII.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a lack of investment saw the industrial economy of the Donbas wane. Wages collapsed and industrial unrest grew, notably with the coal miners’ strike in 1993.
The sense of unease for the Russian-speaking populations of eastern and southern Ukraine was heightened when one of the first acts of the new Maidan-controlled Verkhovna Rada was to repeal the 2012 language law that permitted Russian to be an officially recognised language of Ukraine. Fearing what the coup would mean for them and encouraged by the apparent success of the Crimean Self-Defence Force (SDF), a popular uprising followed.
The oblasts where the anti-Maidan protests occurred closely mirrored the electoral divisions in Ukrainian politics. The pro-Russian, anti-Maidan activists always stood against the Euromaidan coup. In Donetsk, Luhansk and elsewhere, protesters stormed Ukrainian government buildings and called upon Russia to come to their defence.
Less than two weeks after the Svoboda-and-RS-led the uprising to take the presidential offices in Kyiv, on the 5th March 2014 anti-Maidan protestors seized the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) building in the Luhansk. What followed was a period of escalating violence across the oblasts during which local Russian-backed militias and protesters clashed with Ukrainian security forces. Government buildings changed hands back and forth as the situation deteriorated.
On 21st April, a large protest group gathered outside the regional state administration (RSA) building in Luhansk. They demanded the creation of a people’s government and independence from the Kyiv regime with a view to becoming a republic of the Russian Federation.
As tensions increased, Russia promised to hold its forces on the Ukrainian border. It also requested that Kyiv halt its military operation against the separatists and that representatives of Luhansk who supported federalization of the country suspend their planned referendum. However, Luhansk leaders ignored the entreaty and on 11 May 2014 held the referendum. After the votes were counted, they declared that the Luhansk People’s Republic a sovereign entity. While there were no international observers to verify the result, even the displaced Luhansk regional council acknowledged:
An absolute majority of people voted for the right to make their own decisions about how to live.
Similarly, in early April 2014, protestors in Donetsk occupied their RSA building and other government premises across the oblast. Like their Luhansk neighbors, they ignored Russian requests and held their referendum on the same day, 11th May. The result was the same, and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) was declared. The DPR immediately requested to become a member of the Russian Federation. Both the LPR and DPR insisted they would not participate in the forthcoming Ukrainian national elections.
These referendums were followed five days later with elections and the appointment of interim governments in the two newborn republics. Full elections were held in both oblasts in November 2014.
NATO-and-EU-aligned politicians in Ukraine and internationally refused to acknowledge either the referendums or the new states. The US State Department, the EU and political spokespersons across the West condemned the referendums and the subsequent elections. The EU’s High Representative, Federica Mogherini, said:
I consider today’s ‘presidential and parliamentary elections’ in Donetsk and Luhansk ‘People’s Republics’ a new obstacle on the path towards peace in Ukraine. The vote is illegal and illegitimate, and the European Union will not recognise it
Considering the unconstitutional and violent Euromaidan coup that brought the Western-backed Maidan government into power in Kyiv, the hypocrisy of the Western representatives was off the charts.
Following Avakov’s lead, on the 7th April then-acting President of Ukraine, Oleksander Turchyov, designated the DPR and LPR terrorist movements. Speaking on Ukrainian national TV, he said:
We will carry out anti-terrorist activities against armed secessionists[.]
Turchyov formally announced the “anti-terrorism-operation” creating the Ukrainian Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone (ATO zone). Casting the people of the LPR and DPR as terrorists allowed the small contingent of Nazis within the Ukrainian forces to claim justification for their atrocities.
The war in the Donbas is no less subject to international propaganda than any other violent incident. In the West, the shooting down of Malaysian Airways Flight MH17 was firmly blamed on Russian-backed separatists and Putin. This led to the imposition of further sanctions against Russia.
The evidence does not support the conclusions of the seriously flawed investigation carried out by the Dutch-based Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The then-Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, wasn’t convinced. He asserted that the NATO alliance-led JIT investigation was “politically motivated.”
On 2 June 2014, a Ukrainian Air Force airstrike hit the Luhansk Regional Administration Building, killing at least eight civilians. Though it was clearly an attack on the civilian population, the BBC maintained Kyiv’s lie that the strike was justified as part of an operation against a military target.
The eight-year war was punctuated with sporadic ceasefires, followed by periods of sustained fighting. Throughout, the degree to which the Kyiv government either controlled or wished to control the Azov and other Nazi units is debatable. There have been two internationally brokered ceasefire agreements: the June 2014 Minsk Protocol and the February 2015 Minsk II—collectively known as the Minsk Agreements.
The sides came to the table after Ukrainian forces lost to Russian-backed separatists forces in the city of Debaltseve. The protocol was established by Ukrainian, Russian and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) negotiators and was brokered by France and Germany (the Normandy Format).
The initial agreement called for a bilateral ceasefire, prisoner exchanges and a general amnesty for all combatants. The OSCE was made the monitors for the ceasefire and eventually for the Ukrainian/Russian border. It also established a 30km-wide de-militarised buffer zone along the agreed borders of the DPR and LPR.
The Minsk Protocol also provided, within Ukrainian law, further decentralised autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Under the “Temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts,” elections would be held. The DPR and LPR held elections in November 2014, but OSCE representative Didier Burkhalter, who refused to recognise the legitimacy of the Crimean referendum, also refused to recognise those two elections, claiming they breached the protocol. Russia disputed this.
The ceasefire never happened, and although the ferocity and extent of the fighting reduced for a few months, skirmishes continued. The conflict re-escalated, and, after the separatists inflicted a defeat of Ukrainian forces at Donetsk International Airport, the sides returned to negotiations.
Minsk II was facilitated under pressure from the US, which had proposed, but not formally agreed, to send arms to the Kyiv government. Building upon the Minsk Protocol, the DPR and LPR elections were to be permitted in Ukrainian law. Constitutional reform, guaranteeing decentralisation, was required. The DPR and LPR would be free to maintain their own security through the People’s Militia and locally controlled law enforcement.
Minsk II coincided with both sides withdrawing from the area around Debaltseve. However, heavy artillery exchanges continued, and the fighting was intense in and around Mariupol, as the Russian backed separatists fought the Azov Nazis.
In March 2015, the Kyiv parliament approved a law granting “special status” to the DPR and LPR. This afforded the separatists three years of relative autonomy. But, crucially, the elections would be overseen by Kyiv. And the special status also came with a statement that the regions were “under occupation.”
Parliamentary Nazi Oleh Lyachenko, an Azov commander, said that it was a vote for Russian occupation. His fellow Nazi, Andriy Parubiy, then vice-speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, insisted that the law was opposed to the “occupiers.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the so-called “special status” was not in keeping with the Minsk agreements. Alexander Zakharchenko, the elected Prime Minister of the DPR, said that before any status could be agreed to, the DPR and the LPR must have full control (occupation) of their territory and enter discussions with Kyiv as equal partners. That meant removing the Azov Regiment from Mariupol.
Despite periods of relative calm and 29 ceasefires, the Donbas War has continued. The fiercest fighting occurred earlier in the war, prior to 2017. There have been months when fighting has subsided. Yet the conflict has never ceased, and heavier exchanges have frequently occurred.
Both sides—the Ukrainian forces armed, trained and equipped by the NATO alliance and the separatists of the DPR and LPR, armed trained and equipped by the Russians—have broken the numerous ceasefire agreements. While the Minsk Agreements were seen as the way forward by both sides they were never implemented by the Kyiv government, who were the only side with the authority to do so.
Russia has considerable influence over the DPR and LPR. They are, to a great extent, satellite states of the Russian Federation. However, as shown by both regions’ refusal to follow Moscow’s request to withhold elections, both are also independent in their own right.
According to a January 2022 UN report, from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021, based upon OHCHR figures, between 14,200 and 14,400 people were killed, including at least 3,404 civilians. This was widely reported in the West.
What was less well reported was the UN’s finding that, since 2018, more than 81% of the casualties have been in the separatist regions and only 16.3% in Ukrainian-held territory, with the remaining few were in the demilitarised zone. The OHCR’s 2015 report found that more than 62% of civilian casualties were in separatist territory.
Even Human Rights Watch (HRW), which is in no way pro-Russian, has highlighted numerous atrocities carried out by the “Ukrainian government.” This has included the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas and the use of unguided rockets against civilians. HRW noted that the Kyiv was “treating its human rights obligation as though they were optional.”
HRW also found the separatists, too, were using unguided rockets and had placed their artillery and other positions in civilian areas. HRW found that the separatists violently beat and intimidated anyone they suspected of collaborating with Kyiv. It is clear, nonetheless, that the Ukrainian forces, including and most particularly the “specialist” Nazi regiments, have inflicted considerably greater civilian losses than have the separatists.
U.S. troops working with Azov troops
The practical occupation of Kyiv by the RS following the Euromadan coup demonstrates that the Nazis have their own agenda. Atakov, Parubiy, Lyachenko and others are vehemently Russophobic and anti-Semitic, and it is they, not Kyiv, who, with oligarch backing, have had a controlling influence over the Nazi “specialists.”
The Nazis have consistently been a destabilising force. When Amnesty International reported that the Aydar Regiment had committed war-crimes, it noted:
Our findings indicate that, while formally operating under the command of the Ukrainian security forces combined headquarters in the region, members of the Aydar battalion act with virtually no oversight or control.
In 2019, newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the Azov Regiment front lines near the Donbas town of Zolote. Zelenskyy had made an election promise to deescalate the situation in eastern Ukraine and was pursuing a policy of reinstigating Minsk-style OSCE-monitored elections in the DPR and LPR (the Steinmeier Formula). The response from the Azov Regiments and its National Corps was to instigate a “No to Capitulation” campaign.
Zelenskyy was confronted by a hostile reception of Azov commanders who refused to end their assault, despite the President’s request. In an embarrassing, petulant moment, Zelenskyy cried:
I’m the president of this country. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a loser. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons[.]
Biletsky responded by threatening to send thousands of fighters to Zolote and warned Zelenskyy to back off. While the Azov Regiment initially complied, within a matter of a few weeks its members had restarted their military campaign.
Zelenskyy’s problem is that he is merely the puppet of his billionnaire backer, Igor Kolomoisky. In turn, Kolomoisky is one of the main sources of funding for the Azov, Aydar and Dnepre regiments. Consequently, Zelenskyy was forced, or ordered, to negotiate his plans with the far-right.
In November 2021, Dymitro Yarosh announced that he had accepted a position as advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This move epitomised Ukraine’s real Nazi problem.
Senior positions within the Ukrainian political establishment are held by committed Nazis. They have, to a large extent, captured pivotal government roles despite having virtually no electoral mandate. Zelenskyy’s SA government cannot function without their approval.
Despite their relatively small numbers, the Nazis are also the best trained, best equipped and most highly motivated ground troops in the Ukrainian armed forces. Its military could not operate without them.
They are not supporters of the Kyiv government. They are Ukrainian ultranationalists, loyal to private backers, whose dream is an ethnically pure Ukraine. In short, they have the Ukrainian state over a barrel. What’s worse, as evidenced by the comments of Karas and others, they have global ambitions and, as we shall see, have already been assisted in forming a global network.
Vladimir Putin has been ridiculed in the West for calling the attacks upon the separatist populations a “genocide.” The 1948 UN Genocide Convention describes genocide as any aggressive act which is intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Under this definition, “genocide” is not an inappropriate description of the war in the Donbas.
The Nauseating Unofficial-Offical Story
The phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt was preceded, in December 2013, by Nuland’s address to an International Business Conference, sponsored by US oil and gas companies. In her speech, Nuland claimed that the US had invested $5 billion over two decades to help Ukraine achieve its dream of joining the EU. There is no clear record of this spending nor is there any record of the US Congress ever approving it for the purposes claimed by Nuland.
This isn’t surprising, because the US operates at least two separate economies. There is the money raised through taxation and borrowing (future taxation), where spending is officially approved by legislatures, and then there is the black economy, operated off the books.
The Pentagon, home of the US Department of Defense, has never completed a successful audit. In 2020, the black hole in its accounts amounted to $35 trillion. This is more than five times the total “official” amount spent by the federal government in 2021.
Nuland was simply plucking that $5 billion figure out of the air to impress her audience. We have no way of knowing how much money the US has actually spent in pursuit of its foreign policy objectives in Ukraine. But we can guess it is practically limitless.
In 2012, the US enacted the so-called Magnitsky Act. This was based upon the unverifiable and highly suspicious claims of just one man: American-born British financier Bill Browder.
The Magnitsky Act enables the US to seize Russian assets, ban Russians from entry to the US and sanction Russian business as it chooses. It serves as a clear signal to the Russian government that the US represents a distinctly hostile state, committed to undermining its interests.
In light of what we know about US support for an undemocratic, unconstitutional coup to depose an elected government in Ukraine, Nuland’s words, spoken at that 2013 business conference, are nauseating:
The Euromaidan movement has come to embody principles and the values that are the cornerstones for all free democracies. [. . .] Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991 the United States has supported Ukrainians, as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.
The Ukrainian population as a whole did not have a clear European dream. And nothing could contradict the “principles and the values” of free democracies more than the Western-backed Euromaidan coup.
Sadly not the Revolution of Dignity
Ukraine, left to develop unhindered by the US, EU and Russia, would not necessarily have elected to join the EU or aspire to become a NATO member state. The divisions in Ukraine are so deep that it is difficult to know if it would have remained peaceful or would have collapsed into civil war.
What is certain is that the Ukrainian people have been played by two “great powers” engaged in a long-standing global confrontation. Neither has any respect for democratic principles, international law or the welfare of the Ukrainian people, regardless of their ethnicity or international allegiance.
In their power struggle, both have exploited Nazis. The US/NATO alliance has trained, armed and equipped those Nazis, and elements within the Ukrainian government have deployed them to foment revolution and fight a bloody war.
On 16 December 2021, the 53rd meeting of the 76th session of the UN General Assembly adopted the draft resolution on “combating glorification of Nazism.” There were just two nations that voted against: The United States and Ukraine.
The Russian Federation has exploited the same Nazis as a means of justifying, in part, its attack on another sovereign nation. It is thus illegitimate for Russia to castigate Ukraine for being a Nazi regime.
Parts 1–3 have hopefully provided you with what we could call the “official-unofficial” explanations of Russia’s military operations in Ukraine. It is a perfunctory, nationalist analysis which, if taken as a full account, maintains our belief in the primacy of nation-states.
In truth, the forces that are currently ripping Ukraine apart see nations, and the governments that rule them, as junior partners in their internecine feud, as they position themselves to rule the world. It is this more thorough appraisal that we will discuss in Part 4: Ukraine War! What Is It Good For? The Globalist Reset
Please feel free to share anything from In This Together. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting In This Together. Many thanks.
Please subscribe to the ITT RSS feed
Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine has been reported by the Western establishment and its mainstream media (MSM) as an unprovoked act of naked aggression. Writing in The New York Times the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said:
Never in my life have I seen an international crisis where the dividing line between right and wrong has been so stark.
This story has been presented to us in order to maintain our trust in the institutions of our government. The Russian people have been given a different story, but for the same reason.
As discussed in Part 1, what we are told about the social, political and ethnic tensions in Ukraine by the Western hegemony isn’t accurate. This article will explore the wider geopolitical context within which Russia’s military action military action can be at least understood, even if we regard then as illegitimate.
Some of the terms used in this article, such as “Euromaidan coup,” directly contradict the Western MSM narrative. Please read Part 1 to familiarise yourself with some of the historical background and the named individuals and organisations.
Only Fools Rush In
In the West, the public is expected to accept the given narrativ without question. Anyone who challenges it is accused of being a Putin apologist or a far-right conspiracy theorist. Most Brits appear to have gone along with Johnson’s proffered fairy tale. This is unfortunate, because the reality is far more complex than he would have us believe.
To see celebrities and social media influencers uniformly demonstrating their compassion for the Ukrainian people is touching. But when reports of these virtue-signalling displays are used as propaganda to convince the public that they, too, should jump on the West-approved bandwagon, swaths of the population are at risk of forming a potentially dangerous opinion based upon nothing but pretension.
Currently the UK government, with celebrity assistance, is encouraging us to welcome Ukrainian refugees with open arms via its Homes For Ukraine scheme. The government has said that the Ukrainian applicants “will be vetted and will undergo security checks.”
Most of the people applying for refugee status will be in desperate need, and we certainly should do everything we can to assist them. However, there is also good reason for very careful vetting and security checks.
Stephen Fry has “open arms”
Ukraine does have a Nazi problem, and it is the Nazis who have most to fear from the Russian forces. In 2013, five days after his arrival in the UK, Ukrainian Nazi Pavlo Lapshyn murdered by an 82-year-old man before embarking upon a bombing campaign of British mosques. It was only thanks to sheer luck that he didn’t murder many more British people.
Lapshyn is only one man out of approximately 44 million people living in Ukraine. Unfortunately, he is also one among hundreds of thousands who share his extremist views. Then there’s the small minority of Ukrainians—which can nonetheless be measured in the millions—who have a degree of sympathy with those views.
For reasons we will discuss in Part 4, the UK government’s commitment to security checks is highly questionable. We are being asked to trust the UK government, but doing so is unwise, given its record. Of course we should act compassionately and help suffering people, but only fools rush in.
For those who believe the propaganda of the Western establishment, Russian president Vladimir Putin is a comic book villain whose evil intentions will stop at nothing short of creating a new Russian empire. The West’s propagandists depict Ukraine as the victim of Putin’s allegedly insane bloodlust and portray Russian military actions as unjustified and unlawful.
Swallowing their story leads us to believe that the US-led NATO alliance and the Kyiv government are the defenders of democracy. Russian actions, perceived as an attack on Ukrainian democracy, are therefore an assault upon the principle of democracy. This view is essentially the single version of the truth being peddled in the West.
The alternative view of Putin as some sort of bogatyr (heroic warrior) is equally callow. It wrongly assumes that Putin embodies Russia, thus ignoring a nation of 146 million people and the globalist forces that maintain Putin’s power for their benefit.
Initially, currently, and most acutely, it is the people in Ukraine who suffer as a result of this conflict. Ultimately however, we all will.
When the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, listed Russia’s claimed reasons for the invasion of Ukraine, he stressed NATO expansionism. Russia has repeatedly warned that Ukrainian membership in NATO, which would almost certainly see US troops and offensive weapons deployed on Russia’s southwestern border, was a redline that Russia would not allow NATO to cross. Putin said:
I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. [. . .] [T]he North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.
Russia has warned repeatedly that it would “react” if Ukraine joined NATO. As yet, Ukraine has not done so. Russia’s attack is preemptive, and, despite Putin’s claimed “compassion” for the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR & LPR), Russia’s primary concern is for its own security and that of its ruling class. Even prior to Russian recognition, the DPR and LPR were de jure Russian satellite states and pawns in a greater game seemingly played out between Russia and NATO.
Equally, there has been a genuine humanitarian crisis in the DPR and LPR for eight years. Russia’s military operation has come as a relief to the people of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Regrettably, Russia has also escalated the conflict beyond Donbas borders, killing more innocent people.
In February 1990, during the “perestroika” reformation of the USSR, then-US Secretary of State James Baker met with the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. He famously gave Russia assurances that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” At the time, that meant no eastward expansion—except for by Turkey—in mainland Europe beyond Germany’s border.
Baker’s words weren’t the only reassurances the Russians received. In 1990, then-West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher gave a keynote speech with regard to German reunification, during which he said:
[T]he changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’
Prior to signing the Two-Plus-Four Treaty reunifying Germany, the Russians sought and were given explicit commitments regarding NATO expansionism. In the rounds of diplomacy leading up to the agreement, Russia was offered assurances by political leaders from the US, France, the UK, Germany and other NATO aligned states. Russia agreed to German reunification only after German Chancellor Helmut Kohl convinced Gorbachev that NATO would not expand toward Russian borders.
This was an opportunity for the US, Europe and Russia to capitalise on the new, relatively open and transparent (glasnost) USSR as it transitioned to become the Russian Federation. In retrospect, it is now clear that the US-led NATO alliance took a triumphalist view. It embraced its own unipolar world order as the bipolar Cold War order evaporated.
From 1991 onwards NATO completely ignored both the assurances it had given and Russia’s security concerns. It systematically rolled eastward, and by 2005 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria had become members of NATO.
In 2007, in response to NATO’s obvious expansionism, Vladimir Putin delivered a cutting speech at the Munich Security Conference:
[W]hat is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. [. . .] And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. [. . .] I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. [. . .] [T]he model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation. [. . .] We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. [. . .] [F]irst and foremost the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. [. . .] [O]f course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! [. . .] I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. [. . .] [W]e have different points of view. [. . .] The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. [. . .] I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. [. . .] [W]e have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? [. . .] I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?
In response, the NATO Council, as if to validate everything Putin said, issued a statement at the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit. Clause 23 of the statement read:
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.
In the decade-long lead-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO had been pushing for Ukrainian membership. Indeed, in 2018 NATO added Ukraine to its list of so-called aspiring nations. In 2019, then-President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko signed a constitutional amendment committing Ukraine to membership in both the EU and NATO. This was swiftly followed in 2020 with the decision by NATO and Ukraine to enhance their partnership.
The current invasion of Ukraine by Russia has been presented by Western governments to their respective electorates in disingenuous and puerile terms. The West’s narrative was encapsulated by Johnson in his New York Times piece:
This is not a NATO conflict, and it will not become one. [. . .] The truth is that Ukraine had no serious prospect of NATO membership in the near future. [. . .] I and many other Western leaders have spoken to Mr. Putin to understand his perspective. [. . .] It is now clear diplomacy never had a chance. [. . .] Mr. Putin is attempting the destruction of the very foundation of international relations and the United Nations Charter: the right of nations to decide their own future, free from aggression and fear of invasion.
Contrary to Johnson’s deception, NATO and its member states have not only enticed, cajoled and encouraged Ukraine’s “aspirations” to join, they have taken firm steps to make it a reality. They did so in the certain knowledge that Russia could never countenance the move. This fact in no way excuses Russia’s actions, but it goes some way in explaining them.
From an official military perspective, NATO has seemingly abandoned Ukraine to its fate. We will discuss in Part 4 why what NATO is doing is not quite as it seems.
Thus far, NATO has ruled out any attempt to establish a no-fly zone (NFZ). As pointed out by 80 foreign policy experts who have written to advise the Biden administration, any attempt to impose an NFZ would necessitate NATO or US forces shooting down Russian military planes. This would almost certainly trigger a global war.
It is mind-blowing that this letter was written in response to a similar endeavour from 27 foreign policy experts who advocated the physically impossible concept of a “limited” NFZ. Judging the risk to be worth it, they suggested the West should call Russia’s bluff. This pro- NFZ lobby has close financial ties to the military-industrial complex. What these lunatics imagine they will spend their money on in the smouldering rubble of a post-nuclear holocaust is difficult to say.
Johnson’s point that the Ukraine has the right to determine its own future with regard to NATO membership is childish—and, from an international law perspective, wrong. Nation-states are not free to do whatever they like if their actions threaten the security of neighbouring states.
Article 2.3 of the United Nation’s Charter states:
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
With NATO membership distinctly possible, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, speaking at the 2022 Munich Security Conference just before the Russian invasion, said:
Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security. [. . .] Therefore, we have something. The right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to ensuring security and peace guarantees. Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. [. . .] I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. [. . .] If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum was a security assurance given to the Ukraine (and others) by the existing nuclear powers, including the Russian Federation, that their integrity and sovereignty would not be threatened in exchange for them giving up their nuclear arsenals. In Ukraine’s case, theirs was potentially the third largest in the world as they were left with more than 2000 strategic nuclear warheads after the dissolution of the USSR.
Zelenskyy was claiming that Russia had already breached the Budapest Memorandum when it “annexed” Crimea and supported the separatists in the Donbas. Therefore, he was threatening Russia, not only with a nuclear armed Ukraine, but a nuclear armed NATO power on its border.
Regardless of the intricacies of the Budapest deal, this was a clear threat to Russian security and an obvious provocation. One has to ask why Zelenskyy thought this wise.
Ukraine and Russia had been in international dispute for at least eight years but realistically for more than thirty. From both the Russian and the Ukrainian side, the manner of that dispute had consistently endangered international peace and security. Zelesnkyy’s threat appeared to take that risk to a new level.
In addition, NATO member states have been in dispute with Russia since 1991. Their total disregard for Russia’s security concerns also endangered international peace. Moreover, NATO expansionism was not in keeping with the principles of the UN Charter.
The Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, has unequivocally condemned the Russian invasion. This appears to be a reflection of the UN’s partisan bias toward the US-led NATO military alliance and the EU rather than any genuine attempt to faithfully interpret the UN Charter. Guterres said:
The use of force by one country against another is the repudiation of the principles that every country has committed to uphold. This applies to the present military offensive. It is wrong. It is against the Charter. It is unacceptable.
Yet when the US decided it had the right to launch preemptive wars in the “war on terror,” the UN did not condemn that claim of right. For example, when the US-led coalition launched a “preemptive” invasion of Iraq in March 2003, in contravention of the UN Charter, the UN said little and did nothing.
In 2004, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged that the invasion and subsequent war in Iraq was illegal. Yet the UN has consistently ignored Article 39 of the UN Charter that would allow it to rule on the legality of the Iraq war. No one has ever imposed sanctions on the US or its allies for the war crimes they have committed.
Who Cares About International Law?
Lex iniusta non est lex is a fundamental principle of law. Translation: unjust law is not law. If we are going to suffer the violence of governments, then the concept of international law is certainly welcome. Unfortunately, that’s all it is: a concept.
The UN’s formal and public condemnation of preemptive wars is reserved for the actions of some nations but not others. Consequently, international law, partly encapsulated by the UN Charter, is practically meaningless.
Because it is applied neither equally nor reasonably, it has become little more than a big stick, currently in the hands the Western-led international rules-based order, used to beat opponents. This is what happens when juries are excluded from alleged justice. There is no “law.”
Prior to the Secretary-General’s statement, the globalist foreign policy think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, had already ruled that Russia’s military action in Ukraine violates international law. The CFR pointed out that the action contravenes Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter, which states:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Russia has certainly breached Article 2.4. Its war in Ukraine is therefore “illegal.”
However, Article 1.1 of the UN Charter also places an onus on the UN “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.” Persistent NATO expansionism and the threat of a NATO nuclear power on Russia’s border are breaches of the peace and a direct threat, from a Russian perspective. The UN has done nothing either to prevent or remove this threat.
US President Joseph Biden, upon announcing sanctions in response to Russia’s military action, said:
Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries on territory that belonged to his neighbours? This is a flagrant violation of international law, and it demands a firm response from the international community.
But Russia did not “declare” DPR and LPR territorial legitimacy. Biden was deceiving his international audience.
In his speech on the 21st February, Putin said that the Russian Federation had decided to “immediately recognize the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic.” Under international law, recognition is distinct from declaration.
There are two schools of legal thought on statehood. The “constitutive” approach suggests that a state can only be a state if it is recognised as such by other sovereign nations. In that case, with Russian recognition, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) are now “legal” states.
However, the “declaratory” notion of a state usually takes precedence in international law. It defines a state as any autonomous territory that meets the criteria necessary for the formation of said state.
As defined by the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of a State, a sovereign state must have a population, a defined territory and a government able to engage in dialogue with other states. This makes the state a “sole person” in international law, and its existence is independent of recognition by other states. Such a state has the right to defend itself, irrespective of recognition.
On 7th April 2014 the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) declared itself a state. Its territory, within the Donetsk Oblast, extends for just under 9,000 square kilometres. Its capital is Donetsk. At the time, its population was approximately 2.4 million. The Donetsk People’s Militia is the military force that defends it. In 2018 the people of the DPR elected Denis Pushilin as the DPR’s head of state and 100 delegates were elected to form a government in the People’s Council in Donetsk.
Similarly, the Luhansk (or Lugansk) People’s Republic (LPR) consists of 17 administrative regions and encompasses just under 8,400 square kilometres inside the Luhansk Oblast. Its capital is Luhansk (Lugansk), and in 2014 the population was approximately 1.6 million. Leonid Pasechnik is the head of state, and 50 delegates form the government of the People’s Council in Luhansk.
Following the LPR independence referendum, held on 11th May 2014, Pasechik and the People’s Council were subsequently elected to form a government in November 2018. The Luhansk Peoples Militia defends the LPR.
Today approximately 1 million people have fled the region to escape the war. As a result, the combined population of both oblasts is probably closer to 5 million, down from 6.2 million. The populations of the DPR and LPR combined represent a percentage of the total population of the Donbas.
Recognition of a nation-state is ostensibly a political act that clarifies the official view of the nation-state (or nation-states) that are conferring that recognition. In this case, Russia was stating to the international community that it supported the right to independence of the DPR and LPR. Both new states have met the criteria for recognition under international law. Of course, the decision to not recognise them is equally a political act.
In 1992, the United States and the European Community “recognised” the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina without declaring Bosnia-Herzegovina an independent state. What followed was US—and later NATO—bombing as well as the training, arming and equipping of Islamist extremists—all part of a concerted effort to balkanise the entire European region previously called Yugoslavia.
Similarly, Russia acknowledges the independence of the new unitary republics of DPR and LPR but has not declared them independent states. Following recognition of their status, Russia launched a military attack on Ukraine. Truth be told, neither the Russian nor the US/NATO actions show any particular respect for international law.
Biden’s words were nothing more than propaganda. His legal interpretation was, at best, incomplete. So was Putin’s when he claimed that Russian military action was in keeping with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.
An armed attack had not been launched against Russia, and the DPR and LPR are not members of the United Nations. Putin’s citation of Article 51 doesn’t legitimise Russian military actions under international law. So what?
Claims and counterclaims concerning international law are merely attempts by global military powers to gain public support for their wars. Combined with propaganda and censorship, these claims convince some of the people some of the time.
The supposedly binding bilateral agreements between nation-states, the UN Charter, and the decisions of international courts and treaties form so-called international law. Unless this alleged “law” is applied equally and fairly, it is not law.
Nation-states like the US, UK, EU member states and Russia use international law merely as weapon of convenience to justify the killing and maiming of human beings or to berate other states when carnage doesn’t suit their objectives. This is the reality of nominal “international law.” It is no law at all.
Exactly the same can be said for the “morality” on display from most of those who now pontificate about welcoming Ukrainian refugees “with open arms.” This appears to be due either to ignorance or acceptance of the unconscionable concept of moral relativism.
While they proudly signal their moral virtue in regard to Ukraine they have said nothing about the horror that continues to unfold in Yemen, which is wholeheartedly backed by the US-led western alliance they continue to support. Just as law applied unfairly is no law at all, so morality that chooses a cause, while ignoring suffering elsewhere, has no value at all.
Gas, Gas, Gas
When Barack Obama became the 44th US President in 2009, Russia had been using its economic influence as the world’s largest crude oil and second largest dry gas producer to push back against NATO expansionism. Ukraine was the main transit hub for Russian gas pipelines to Europe, but it was politically unstable.
The political divisions in Ukraine, broadly pro-EU and anti-Russian on one side and pro-Russian and anti-EU on the other, became the focus of a tug of war for European influence between the US and Russia. The Obama administration wanted to maintain the transatlantic alliance, affording U.S. dominance and NATO cohesion in Europe, while Putin’s clique aimed to enhance Russian control of the European energy market to strengthen Russian security and weaken NATO.
For its part, the EU hierarchy was eager to establish its bloc as an independent military superpower. The 2007 Treaty of Lisbon came into force in December 2009, effectively creating the European Union and its Common Security and Defence Policy. The EU were then able pursue military defence union, potentially undermining US control and bolstering the EU’s hold on NATO.
Russia openly declared its support for Yanukovich in the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election. Its access to the Ukrainian pipelines and retention of its Sevastopol naval base were crucial to its—and, to a large extent, the EU’s—interests. In exchange for below- market, subsidised Russian gas, the Yanukovich government extended Russia’s Sevastopol lease until 2042, resulting in physical fights breaking out in the Verkhovna Rada.
In 2011, Russia and Germany opened the first Nord Stream gas pipeline, which runs under the Baltic Sea and supplies Russian gas to Germany. Nord Stream 1 runs from Vyborg to Greifswald. The proposed Nord Stream 2 will run from Ust-Luga. The purpose of Nord Stream pipelines was to enable Russia to sell much cheaper gas to the EU, via Germany, while eliminating both the EU’s and Russia’s 80% reliance upon the precarious Ukrainian pipelines. For obvious reasons, this aim had wide support among other EU member states.
The Nord Stream pipelines were not in the interest of the US, however. Consequently, its foreign policy objectives were to stop Nord Stream 2 (which would double the pipelines’ gas flow to Europe from Russia) and install a Ukrainian government amenable to Washington’s demands.
If the US could break the EU’s blossoming trade relationship with Russia, it would not only secure US dominance over Europe, both in economic and collective defence terms, but would also open up the EU market to the US’ pricier Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports—an added bonus.
Initially, the US feted the Yanukovich government in hopes of convincing Ukraine to join NATO and the EU. Then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was dispatched to Kyiv, where she held discussions with Yanukovich. Among her comments:
We discussed ways that Ukraine and the United States can deepen and expand our strategic partnership. [. . .] [We hope] Ukraine will pursue close, constructive relationships with the United States and countries of the European Union. [. . .] We discussed energy reform and its potential to transform Ukraine into an energy producer and becoming more energy efficient. [. . .] We also discussed the importance of protecting Ukraine’s democracy. [. . .] [W]e thank Ukraine and the Ukrainian people for your important contributions to NATO and other international security operations.
The diplomacy failed. Despite fluffy rhetoric about “protecting Ukraine’s democracy,” the US turned to distinctly undemocratic methods when it decided to back a Ukrainian coup. In order to achieve this goal, the US empowered the darkest forces in Ukrainian politics: the neo-Nazis.
Something we will explore in Part 3: Ukraine War! What is It Good For? The Ukrainian Nazi Agenda
Please Note: The PDF (Book) will be available following publication of Part 4
Russia has launched military operations inside Ukraine. This has been called an invasion by western mainstream media (MSM), the politicians loyal to the trans-Atlantic alliance, the EU and NATO.
Currently it appears that there have been clashes in Eastern Ukraine, around Kharkiv in the north and Odessa in the south. However, it isn’t clear that the fighting is anywhere near as extensive as reported by the western MSM.
Russia has certainly targeted air bases and military infrastructure with air-strikes. At this stage, Russia’s intentions appear to be reasonably straightforward. Russia has reiterated that it has no intention of occupying the Ukraine.
Speaking on 24th February President Vladimir Putin outlined the objectives of Russia’s so-called “special military operation:”
[W]ith NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. [. . .] Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. [. . .] [T]he leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia. They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbas. [. . . ] The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation. It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force.
From what little is known in the West, which has seen a remarkable lack of reporting from inside the country, as of 4th March 2022 Russian forces have seemingly engaged in operations in the DPR and LPR, in territory north of the Crimea, are close to surrounding the northern cities of Kharkiv and Kyiv and have moved north-west from Odessa to secure territory along the border between the Odessa oblast and Moldova.
Claimed Russian incursion 04-03-2022
This military action by Russia is part of a much larger geopolitical, economic and globalist picture. We will explore this in detail in Part 2.
The conflict is rapidly evolving and there is no way to accurately predict what will happen. The risks couldn’t be higher. By the time you read this, the situation on the ground may be radically different.
NATO’s rejection of Ukrainian calls to attempt to establish a no-fly zone has perhaps assuaged fears of the conflict spreading beyond Ukrainian borders in the immediate to short term. Vladimir Putin stated that Russia would view this as an act of war. Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, said:
We are not part of this conflict, and we have a responsibility to ensure it does not escalate and spread beyond Ukraine because that would be even more devastating and more dangerous, with even more human suffering [. . .] NATO is not seeking a war with Russia.
In this two part series we will first explore some of the modern historical influences in Ukraine leading up to the Russian attack. In Part 2 we will consider the wider implications within the context of a globalist transformation of the international rules-based order (IRBO).
It is left to us to explore the evidence, The western MSM is a partner of western governments and serves as nothing but its propaganda machine. The eastern MSM’s objectives are identical but, from a western perspective, it sells the official, alternative narrative.
Necessarily, in trying to discern reality, we have to rely upon both the western and eastern aligned MSM to some extent. Contrasting their depiction of events may be helpful but neither are trustworthy and we should treat both of these imposters the same.
Ukrainian Recent Modern History
Ukraine is an ancient land with a rich history. However, the boundaries of the nation state we recognise today first emerged with the Ukrainian Peoples Republic (1917 – 1920). Civil war with the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (Eastern Galicia) saw a brief period where the south eastern Ukraine broke away.
The anarchist free territory of Makhnovshchina (Makhnovia 1918 – 1921) was established. Defended by the Black Army of Nestor Makhno, in 1918 he wrote a public letter to the people and announced:
Together we will destroy the slave system in order to bring ourselves and our comrades onto the path of the new system. We organize it on the basis of a free society, the content of which will allow the entire population, not exploiting the labor of others, to build their entire social and social life in their own communities, completely freely and independently of the state and its officials
Liberation by the Black Army was liberation in the true sense of the word. When a town or city was won, they would post notices that read:
This army does not serve any political party, any power, any dictatorship. [. . .] It strives to protect the freedom of action, the free life of the workers, against all exploitation and domination. The Makhnovist Army does not, therefore, represent any authority. It will not subject anyone to any obligation whatsoever. Its role is confined to defending the freedom of the workers. The freedom of the peasants and the workers belong to themselves, and should not suffer any restriction.
Despite functioning perfectly well without any government, in relative peace and enjoying a busy catallaxy, the regional powers were utterly opposed to Makhnovia and the Bolshevik Red Army crushed it in 1921. With government back in control, what followed was the inevitable violence and destruction.
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR) Was formed in 1922. Due to the Soviets agricultural policies (collectivism) between 1931 – 1934 more than 5.5 million people starved to death in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – Soviet Union). This entirely government-made famine was at its worse during 1932 and 1933, particularly in Ukraine. An estimated 4 million people perished during the Holodomor.
In June 1941 the German Army opened up the eastern front with Operation Barbarossa. Their invasion of the USSR created suffering on an unimaginable scale. Losses of such magnitude are difficult to quantify but Germany lost approximately 5.5 million troops and nearly 2 million civilians, Polish civilian losses were similar.
The Soviet Union lost between 25 – 35 million soldiers and civilians. Nearly 14% of the entire population. In Ukraine an estimated 4 Million people were killed.
Following WWII, in 1945 the UkrSSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations. In 1954 its territory expanded when then USSR President Nikita Khrushchev ceded the Crimea to the UkrSSR.
The Crimea had become Russian territory in 1783 when the Ottoman Empire, who were decisively defeated by Russian Tsarist forces at the 1774 Battle of Kozludzha, lost the peninsula to Imperial Russia (1721 – 1917). In 1944 the Tartar, Armenian, Bulgarian, and Greek populations were forcibly deported by Stalin and further Russian settlement was encouraged.
Up to 1945 the Crimea was an independent republic of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). With the forced relocation of the Tartar population the Crimea became an RSFSR oblast (region). By 1954, approximately 75% of the then 1.1 million people living in the Crimea were ethnic Russians and 25% Ukrainian.
In January 1991, in anticipation of the forthcoming Ukrainian independence referendum, approximately 93% of Crimean voters chose to retain Crimean independence. With an 80% turnout, this represented 74% of the electorate. This was subsequently recognised by the UkrSSR Rada who, on the 12th February 1991, passed a law establishing Crimea as an autonymous republic within the borders of the Ukraine.
In December 1991 the Ukraine wide referendum declared Ukrainian sovereignty. The lowest turnout of 65% was in the Crimea where 54%, just 35% of the Crimean population, supported Ukrainian independence.
In March 1994, as political turmoil between the Kyiv and Simferopol (Crimean capital) governments became increasingly heated, another referendum again saw the people of Crimea overwhelmingly choose further independence from Kyiv and closer ties to Russia. Tensions between Kyiv and Simferopol rumbled on for the remainder of the 20th century and into the first two decades of the 21st.
The ethnic mix in Crimea has changed as many Tartars returned after the dissolution of the USSR. Approximately 68% are ethinc Russian, 16% Ukrainian, 13% Crimean Tartars with the remaining 3% comprised of Belarusians, Armenians and Jews. The population has grown to an estimated 2.4 million.
Map of Ukraine between 1654 and 2013
The Ukrainian Neo-Nazis
In 2010 then Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko honoured one of the WWII leaders of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), Stepan Bandera. Yushchenko declared Bandera to be a “Hero of Ukraine.”
In 1922, the modern Ukrainian oblasts of Lviv and Volhyn were part of the Second Polish Republic. Consequently, during the 1920’s and 30’s, a Ukrainian nationalist movement emerged in eastern Poland. They formed the Ukrainian Military Organization (UVO) who waged a terrorist campaign in the region.
Between 1929 and 1934 the UVO gradually transitioned to become the foundation of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Following the outbreak of WWII the OUN split into the OUN-M, under the leadership of Andriy Melnyk, and OUN-B under Stepan Bandera.
Stepan Bandera was a Nazi collaborator, ultra-nationalist and rabid antisemite. In 1941, working with the Nazi death squads (Einsatzgruppen) Bandera embarked on coordinating a series of pogroms, starting in the city of Lvov, massacring 4000 Jews in a few horrific days. A death threat pamphlet, authorised by Bandera prior to the slaughter, read “we will lay your heads at Hitler’s feet.”
Bandera’s OUN-B hoped to create and ethnically pure Ukraine. Poles, Jews and the Russians were their targets for extinction.
The northern and particularly the western Ukrainian oblasts welcomed the Nazis as liberators from Soviet rule. Many ethnic Ukrainians joined the German “liberators.” Military units such as the 14th SS-Volunteer Division (Galician) and the Nachtigall and Roland Battalion were largely formed from followers of the OUN and UPA (more on them shortly).
An estimated 1 million Jewish Ukrainians, alongside Poles and Ukrainian Russians, were systematically murdered during the years of the Holocaust. On just two days in September 1941 at the Babi Yar ravine in Kyiv, approximately 34,000 Jewish men, women and children were put to death.
Though arrested by the Germans in July 1941, after declaring Ukrainian statehood and pledging to support the 4th Reich, Bandera continued to inspire his Banderite followers. The OUN-B formed the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). Between 1941 and 1945 it systematically tortured and massacred an estimated 100,000 Poles in the western oblasts of modern day Ukraine.
CIA documents released in 2007 revealed that, after the war, Bandera worked with British intelligence, running agents inside the UkrSSR. The relationship between the western powers and the Ukrainian far-right has continued ever since.
The CIA didn’t work directly with Bandera but instead worked with other members of the OUN and its splinter organisations. Eventually, while collaborating with West German intelligence (the BND), which was heavily infiltrated by the KGB (the foreign intelligence service of the USSR), Bandera was assassinated by the Soviets in 1959.
Following the USSR’s victory in Ukraine in 1944, the OUN continued to resist, most notably in the Eastern Galician oblasts of modern Ukraine. They fought a guerilla war until the mid 1950’s. Ironically Bandera was neither the most prominent nor powerful of the OUN leaders. However, his assassination made him a martyr for Ukrainian nationalists and a symbol for their neo-Nazi ideology.
In 1991 Oleh Tyahnybok was one of the founding members of Svoboda, the Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU). He urged the Ukrainian ultranationalists (ultras) to rid the country of Jews and Russians. In 1998 there was sufficient popular support for Tyahnybok to be elected to the Ukraian Parliament (the Verkhovna Rada) where he served as a member of the Peoples Movement of Ukraine faction. Following his re-election in 2002 he became Svoboda leader in 2004.
Svobodo and Tyahnybok inspired others neo-Nazis such as Dmitro Yarosh who co-founded Trizub (Trident) in 1994, becoming its leader in 2005. In 2013 Yarosh became the assistant-consultant to the deputy leader of the opposition in the Verkhovna Rada (Rada), Valentyn Nalyvaichenko. This coincided with Yorosh’ elevation to the leadership of the ultra neo-Nazi Right Sector, with Trizub at its core.
Nalyvaichenko had previously served in Washington from 2001 – 2005, first as Consul advisor and then as director of the Consular service in the Ukrainian embassy. He was the head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) between 2006-2010 and was appointed to that position again in 2014.
The other founder of Trizub was Andriy Parubiy. Between 1998 and 2004 he was a prominent figure in the paramilitary wing of Svoboda, the Patriots of the Ukraine. Parubiy’s political career included his appointment to Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine in 2014 and he was elected Chairman of the Rada (speaker) in 2016.
Many in the EU were outraged when Viktor Yushchenko officially recognised Bandera. It was Parubiy who appealed to them to support the move.
Perhaps Yushchenko was considering his future political prospects and was garnering support. The neo-Nazis are a powerful force in Ukrainian politics as epitomised by the comments of Bandera’s namesake and grandson who, on hearing the news of his grandfathers deification, reportedly said:
[T]he president acted wisely, he could have done it earlier, but that would have been perceived as an attempt to win votes.
This in no way suggest that the majority of the Ukrainian people or its government are fascists. Politically, despite some relatively minor electoral successes, the Ukrainian far-right remains on the electoral fringes of Ukrainian politics.
Ukrainian electoral history shows that traditional socialism and democratic-socialism, rather than national-socialism, is the dominant political ideology on the whole. Nonetheless it is disingenuous to pretend that Ukrainian ultra-nationalism doesn’t have significant popular support. Especially in the western oblasts.
The neo-Nazis’ political influence in Ukraine exceeds their electoral reach due to the significant support they receive from the NATO aligned, western hegemony. The Ukraine only became a truly independent state in 1991 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Ethnically, politically and culturally it is a nation of two halves.
The predominantly Russian speaking populations in the southern and eastern oblasts have consistently voted for socialists or communist candidates and have staunchly advocated maintaining a close relationship with Russia. On the grand chessboard of geopolitics both sides have been exploited by the foreign great powers.
Russia’s current military action in the Ukraine is born out of that international, political struggle. The western MSM and its political class are wholly complicit in precipitating the current crisis.
In Part 2 we will explore this in depth. First we must look to the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the civil unrest of the Euromaidan coup, the alleged anexation of Crimea and the subsequent war in the Donbas.
Right Sector & Svoboda Flags
The Euromaiden Coup
In 2004 presidential elections saw the western backed Viktor Yushchenko vie for head of state against the Russian backed Victor Yanukovich. The election was extremely close and illustrated the deep division in Ukrainian society. Yanukovich was initially announced the winner by a narrow margin.
However, amidst widespread and credible allegation of electoral fraud, Yushchenko supporters wouldn’t accept the result. On the 22nd November 2004 they began to amass in the central Maidan square in Kyiv, waving orange banners and demanding a re-run of the election.
The entirely peaceful protesters maintained their vigil for a month, electoral reforms were made and the re-run election saw Yushchenko duly elected. He failed to make the promised economic reforms and the Ukraine elected Yanukovich in 2010. Despite a protest to the Supreme Administrative Court by his opponent Yulia Tymoshenko, Yanukovich took office.
The 2010 presidential election was deemed to be free and fair by international observers. The parliamentary elections in 2012 consolidated the political authority of Yanukovich’s Party of Regions as they increased their seats to 185. Indicating the ongoing divisions in Ukrainian society, the 2012 election also saw Svoboda, under Tyahnybok, increase it seats to 37, making it the 4th largest party in the Rada.
2010 Election Results
At the time of the Euromaiden coup in 2013/14 Yanukovich was the democratically elected leader of the Ukraine. This is a crucial fact to retain as we move on to discuss the subsequent events that have, in part, led to the current Russian military action.
Following the 2012 elections, the Yanukovich government approved the draft of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement. In response Russia heaped pressure on the Ukrainian government warning of a breech of their existing agreement signed in 1997. As Ukraine’s largest creditor and trade partner, Yanukovich wavered on signing the trade element of the deal called the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA.)
The Ukrainians had reason to question the EU’s offered DCFTA deal. Their existing main trade agreements were with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and it wasn’t clear how they would be compensated by the EU for the loss of this trade. Concerned about a potential dramatic fall in industrial productivity, Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boiko announced a halt to negotiations until the issue could be clarified with the EU.
Caught between the economic and financial might of the EU and Russia, and with rising unrest at home, Yanukovitch tried to negotiate a package of debt restructuring and, with Russian approval, offered a tri-party agreement between the EU, Ukraine and Russia. The EU declined the deal and the IMF refused to restructure Ukraine’s debt obligations.
Numerous statements from Party of Regions representatives, including Yanokovich and Boika, insisted that the deal was not dead, negotiations were ongoing and they intended to sign the deal. However Reuters and many other western media outlets completely ignored EU and IMF intransigence and instead cast Yanukovich as the villain, claiming he had “vetoed” EU attempts to save the deal. In reality, as later admitted by the MSM, it was the EU who shut the door.
In November 2013 the pro-EU demonstrations started to build in Independence (Maidan) Square in Kyiv. Initially the protests were peaceful, as they were in 2004 during the orange “colour” revolution.
The western MSM then threw their weight behind the protests and were joined in their Maidan reports by a newly created gaggle of Ukrainian media outlets. Between 21st – 24th November 2013 Espreso.tv, Spilno.tv and hromadske.tv all took to the airwaves, instantly becoming an online phenomenon among Ukrainian audiences.
Peaceful Pro-EU Protests
Again the western MSM and segments of the new Ukrainian media continued to stoke resentment towards Ukraine’s democratically elected government and Yanukovich in particular. Claiming that the world was witnessing “the birth of a nation” instead of a coup.
The protests gathered strength as more and more Ukrainians joined. Hostility towards Yanukovich was increasing but they remained overwhelmingly peaceful. This changed in late November 2013.
On 30th November the special riot police of the Ukraine (the Berkut) were accused, by the western MSM and Ukrainian pro-EU media, of attacking the protestors. The pro-EU/NATO MSM were present in their droves in the early hours of the morning (03:00hrs) to film and report the event. Their arrival in such numbers at this unsocial hour was highly unusual. Yet, none of them accurately reported what happened.
A single, cohesive narrative was formed blaming Yanukovitch and the Ukrainian government for the violence. Western governments, especially those who are members of the NATO driven Five Eyes intelligence alliance and the EU, have largely maintained this propaganda to this day.
While it is true that elements within the Ukrainian government colluded with Svoboda and the Right Sector to cause the violence, Yanukovich and the leadership of the Party of Regions were not controlling them. These far-right elements were acting autonomously with the support of western governments, notably the Neocon hawks in the US and other globalists (see Part 2).
Video footage shows that the Right Sector and other ultras, armed with batons and projectiles, were already in position when the Berkut arrived. They attacked the riot police who responded by beating all protestors. This was admitted by Ihor Mazur, a Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self-Defence (UNA-UNSO) combat commander, who said the Right Sector started the confrontation before retreating.
Putin’s expressed concern about the “denazifying” the Ukraine has been ridiculed by the western MSM. The political establishement has joined in. In an emotional statement on U.S. TV, Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia said “there are no Nazis in Ukraine.”
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who later became Ukrainian Prime Minister (2014 – 2016), was among the leaders of the Maidan who had advanced knowledge of the planned Berkut dispersal of the protesters. Others included Andriy Parubiy who, according to witness testimony, was overheard discussing the planned Berkut action before it occurred. Yet neither he, Yatsenyuk nor any of the other Maidan leaders, including Oleh Tyahnybok, warned the protestors. They were content to watch the violence ensue.
In the days and weeks that followed, the violence escalated as the protestors, who wrongly believed that the Berkut started the bloodshed, gathered ijn increasing numbers. On 1st December they erected barricades, blocking access to government buildings, occupied Kyiv city hall and clashed with the Berkut on a number of occasions. Video analysis clearly shows that Right Sector agitators were again instrumental in the violence.
Still from footage clearly show Right Sector activists leading the violence
On the 2nd December Oleh Tyahnybok openly called for revolution:
I congratulate all of those who are fighting for our cause, for the idea, themselves and their children. We have our first victories, and that is precisely because we have started these protests all over Ukraine. This is a real pressure on the criminal regime, which has crossed all lines and must go away! [. . .] We all here would like to appeal to all military officers, generals, soldiers and law enforcers [. . .]: choose our side, do not follow criminal orders and join the Ukrainian revolution.
The Right Sector were clearly gearing up for significant violence. Speaking in January 2014 a right sector coordinator Andrei Tarasenko, referring to the Berkut, reportedly said:
If they attack and try to carry out a bloody crackdown, I think there will be a massacre. [. . .] Guerilla warfare will begin in Ukraine.
The sporadic violence continued throughout January and into February. Moves and countermoves progressed until, on the 16th February, the protesters abandoned their occupation of Kyiv city hall in exchange for a government guarantees to release all arrested protestors and to provide amnesty from prosecution to all other demonstrators.
On the 19th February the Yanukovich government and the protestors declared a truce. With the death toll among police and protesters already standing at 26, the Yanukovich government and all opposition parties, including Svoboda, seemingly supported the truce. Yanukovich again offered the role of interim Prime Minister to Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
The response from the US administration was accusatory. Then U.S. President Barrack Obama said:
We’re going to be watching closely. [. . .] We hold the Ukrainian government primarily responsible.
The truce lasted a matter of hours before a horrific explosion of violence. Approximately 60 people, both police and protestors, were massacred by snipers positioned around Maidan square. The BBC, along with nearly every other western MSM outlet, without any investigation at all, announced:
At least 21 protesters have been killed by security forces in Kyiv. [. . .] The White House said it was “outraged by the images of Ukrainian security forces firing automatic weapons on their own people”
Other than accurately reporting the comments of the White House, this was disinformation. There was no basis for the allegation that the Ukrainian security services had opened fire on the protesters. The BBC were among a united western media front deliberately misleading their readers and audiences. In 2019 the MSM were still peddling the legend rather than the reality.
In response to the slaughter on the 21st February 2014, the EU and Russia brokered an agreement to settle the political crisis in the Ukraine. The plan was to establish a National Unity government in the next ten days, pending new presidential elections by the end of the year, with a full investigation into the shootings to commence as soon as possible. Constitutional reform, rebalancing power sharing between the presidential office and parliament was also agreed.
The leader of the Right Sector Dmitro Yarosh rejected the deal and threatened to seize parliament and the presidential palace by force. He said:
We have to state the obvious fact that the criminal regime had not yet realized [. . .] the gravity of its evil doing.
The Right Sector announces an action to force regime guards to peace.
The disgusting duplicity of this statement would soon become apparent. Yarosh may have been concerned that the far-right would return to the fringes of Ukrainian politics if the deal stood. A poll in early Februrary suggested that a majority of Ukrainians were opposed to the Maidan protests.
The next day, as security forces withdrew from Maidan square, the protesters, lead by Parubiy and Yarosh among others, seized the Verkhovna Rada and the presidential offices. Yanukovich fled to the eastern city of Kharkiv from where he gave a televised address vowing to hold on to the presidency.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk was immediately sworn in as the interim prime minister. When the Party of Regions distanced themselves from Yanikovich and a warrant was issued for his arrest, Yanukovich escaped over the border to Russia with Russian assistance.
The events that transpired between November 2013 and February 2014 undoubtedly constituted a coup d’etat. This is not to suggest that there was anything inherently undemocratic about the protests. However the nature of those protests was twisted by the actions of a western backed Ukrainian far-right.
Ironically the right of protest is rapidly being eroded in the West. Recent events in Canada show that western governments have no commitment to democracy. Their public veneration of democracy is simply a banner of convenience. Across the western world, the rights that underpin democratic society are simply being cast aside as they install dictatorships.
Article 108 of the Ukrainian Constitution (the 1996 and 2004 versions do not differ in this respect) is clear with regards to how a president can be removed. Article 111 outlines the impeachment process.
Under the Ukrainian constitution a sitting president can only be removed for treason or some other crime. In their decision to remove Yanukovich the Maidan faction in the Rada stated they had done so because Yanukovich was “unable to carry out his duties.” This was a constitutional nonsense.
However, regardless of the given reason, 338 of the 450 Rada delegates are required for impeachment. The Maidan contingent only achieved 328, falling 10 votes short of the constitutional requirement. The new Maidan government started their rule by ignoring the Ukrainian constitution.
Yanukovich was the democratically elected president and he was ousted from power by force. The protestors did not represent the views of the entire Ukrainian population and opposition to the coup, in the southern and eastern oblasts, was significant.
That being said, the vast majority of Maidan protesters were not far-right thugs but rather ordinary people who believed that EU membership would improve their living standards and life opportunities. The opposition to the government was genuine and it was not a fascist coup as some have suggested.
Equally, there were elements within the ranks of the protestors who were neo-Nazis and they exploited the situation for their own essentially racist, political and military ambitions. In Part 2 we will consider the international network that supported them and continues to support them to this day.
There are no Nazis in the Ukraine apparently
The Role of The Far Right In the Euromaidan Coup
A University of Ottawa case study analysed reports and video footage of the events and revealed the role of the western backed Sovboda and Right Sector activists in both the violence that erupted and the shootings. It also strongly suggested considerable collusion from some units within the Ukrainian security services, the subsequent Maidan government and the judiciary:
The analysis showed that all major far-right organizations in Ukraine, participated in the Euromaidan. Their common goal was more or less a national revolution which would overthrow the pro-Russian Yanukovych government and forge the Ukrainian nation. [. . .] videos and livestreams of protests often showed that there are large numbers of Svoboda flags representing a significant proportion of the flags in many protest actions. [. . .] [T]he role of the far right in violent attacks and other cases
of political violence during the Euromaidan was much more significant than their numerical presence among protesters.
Svoboda, as a political movement, distanced itself from the violence but video evidence clearly shows that activists under its banner were often the instigators. The BBC interviewed members of the Svoboda affiliated C14, a neo-Nazi youth movement. Conducted in March 2014, it revealed the ideology of its members. A young C14 activist said:
National Socialist themes are popular among some of us. The idea of one nation. [. . .] I want there to be one nation, one people, one country. A clean country, not like under Hitler, but in our way, a little bit like that. Those who like Russia, let them move to Russia. Ukraine will be just for Ukrainians.
While eager to publicly maintain a distinction between themselves and the Nazis, the leader of C14, Yevhen Karas, clearly espoused the fascist rhetoric most of us loathe. Referring to Russia, but also to the EU, he said that the objective of the movement was to “totally ruin the chains that connect our country to the imperial power from the past.” Denying that he was a Nazi and describing himself as a Ukrainian nationalist, Karas added:
Some ethnic groups have control [of] many business structures, some economic, some political forces. [. . .] Russians and Jews and Poles.
Can you guess which one is Yevhen Karas?
The Right Sector and Svoboda used false-flag killings to enrage the wider protest movements. The first three Maidan protestors killed were murdered on January 22nd. Their deaths were blamed upon the Berkut but court papers show that the initial, local investigations suggested they were killed by members of UNA-UNSO.
The larger, official government investigation would go on to maintain allegations of Berkut responsibility. However, on 24th February 2014 Svoboda member Oleh Makhnitskyi was appointed as Prosecutor General and it was he who led the initial “investigation” into the Maidan square violence.
On the day of the massacre the protestors, the Berkut and other Ukrainian security forces, were facing each other in the streets. Therefore, the official story, parroted by the Western MSM, alleges that the protestors and Berkut officers were shot on a horizontal trajectory in an exchange of fire.
The 3D modelling supporting this conclusion was provided to the Ukrainian court by SITU, a New York based firm who undertake investigations based upon architectural analysis. They say of themselves:
Our practice is purposefully collaborative, engaging in work with NGOs, universities, think tanks and individuals
SITU are funded by tax exempt philanthropic foundations and the EU. These foundations and government agencies, alongside NGO’s and other key individuals within foreign governments, have been extremely influential in both the Euromaidan coup and the Donbas War that followed. SITU provided an apparently fictitious 3D model, the purpose of which was to promote a fake official narrative.
Forensic evidence and witness testimony presented at the subsequent trial showed than the slain were shot either from the side or from an elevated position in territory held by the Maidan. Bullet holes revealed that the Hotel Ukraine received heavy fire from the Berkut and the Omega unit of the internal security services.
They were shooting over the protesters heads towards the Hotel and other elevated positions. This matches forensic analysis and shows that the Hotel Ukraine, the Bank Arkada, the Conservatory Building and other locations in Maidan hands provided the firing position for the snipers who carried out the massacre.
The deception of the western MSM is difficult to stomach as they were effectively covering up for mass murderers. For example, in one BBC Newsnight report a paramedic was quoted as saying their were six dead people who had been shot by snipers. In fact, she was pointing towards the Bank Arkada and warning of snipers on the roof.
It is fair to say that the Maidan trial judges and leading investigators had little interest in finding the truth. The Ottawa University Report describes some of the apparently unfathomable decisions they made:
In January 2015, a forensic ballistic examination conducted upon the request of prosecution concluded that bullets extracted from killed protesters did not match the bullet samples from any Kalashnikov assault rifle which members of the Berkut special police force were then armed. The findings of this computer-based ballistic examination and results of the other 40 ballistic examinations were reversed in a couple of ballistic examinations conducted manually in the very end of the investigation. Such unexplained reversals which contradicted other evidence, such as testimonies of wounded protesters and results of forensic medical examinations, suggested that the findings of the new examinations of bullets were unreliable and likely falsified.
This falsification of evidence was perpetrated to cover up the fact that the Right Sector and aligned groups carried out a false-flag operation to deliberately wreak havoc and blame their political opponents. They murdered both protesters, including some of their own, and Berkut officers to seize disproportionate political and military power in the aftermath. Their leaders would then go on to cast themselves as heroes of the Revolution of Dignity: an obscene oxymoron.
Andriy Parubiy (L) with Justin Trudeau (R)
Andriy Parubiy, the overall commander of the Maidan Self-Defence companies, and Dmytro Yarosh, in command of the Right Sector company, were among the Maidan leadership who guided the movements of otherwise peaceful protesters into the kill-zone. Maidan Self-Defence company commanders testified that Parubiy had ordered to start “a bloodshed” during this “peaceful march” on February 18th 2014. Parubiy and Yarosh established the military council of the Maidan Self-Defence and Right Sector on 21st February, the day after the worst of the killings in Kyiv.
Ivan Bubenchyk admitted in two separetae TV interviews in 2014 and 2016 that he had shot Berkut officers from the Conservatory. This placed him as a member of the special Maidan company under the command of Volodymyr Parasiuk who had taken up positions in the building.
With regard to the primary location of the sniper positions, the Ottawa study notes:
Svoboda stated that its activists took the Hotel Ukraine under their control and guard on January 25, 2014. [. . .] Numerous videos showed that inside the hotel remained under control of the protesters [. . .] This is consistent with the hotel CCTV recordings and statements of the Maidan Self-Defence unit commander and hotel staff saying that the police never entered the hotel [. . .] Videos also showed that a Svoboda deputy and the Maidan protesters guarded the Hotel Ukraine before, during, and after groups of covert shooters killing protesters from this hotel.
The evidence clearly shows that the snipers, under the control of the Svoboda, the Right Sector and its affiliate organisations were responsible for the slaughter. Much of this evidence emerged in the trial but it failed to reach any conclusion as it petered out in a sorry mess of claim and counter-claim. Eventually 5 former Berkut officers were allegedly exchanged in a prisoner swap deal with Russia.
This lent some fuel to an alternative theory of a “third force” of Russian backed insurgents shooting the protesters. This notion had been pushed repeatedly by the close associate of Yarosh, and twice head of the SBU, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko.
There is little to no evidence supporting this theory which stands in stark contrast to the wealth of evidence pointing toward far-right culpability. Such an operation would have made little sense from a Russian perspective, whose interests were not served by the fall of the Yanukovich government.
The most likely explanation was summed up in the Canadian research paper:
[. . .] Various evidence has indicated a cover-up of the far-right-linked Maidan “snipers” and falsification of the official investigation of the Maidan massacre. [. . .] the lack of any investigations [. . .] fits the pattern of the cover-up and falsification of the Maidan massacre investigation from the top of the Ukrainian government. [. . .] The far-right organizations activists did not have significant positions in the national governments and the law enforcement agencies of Ukraine prior to the Euromaidan. Several of them after the Euromaidan occupied senior government positions. This is another indirect evidence of the involvement of the far-right organizations in the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government in alliance with elements of oligarchic parties. Svoboda had four ministers from the first post-Yanukovych government and a member of Svoboda was appointed the Prosecutor General, and his office investigated the Maidan massacre.
The Annexation of the Crimea
While the protests in Kyiv had some popular support from northern and western Ukrainian oblasts, once again the nation was split along both political, linguistic and ethnic lines. The southern and eastern oblasts were largely, though not entirely, opposed to the Euromaidan.
After the Euromaidan coup the Russian speaking residents of the Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), Russian speakers in the Odessa oblast and the largely ethnic Russian Republic of Crimea, stepped up their Anti-Maidan protests. Their primary concern was to prevent the far-right elements, within the Ukrainian government and military, from attacking them. They had clear historical reason to fear the neo-Nazis.
Oblasts in Ukraine
Russia had strategic interests in these oblasts which we will explore in Part 2. However, in late February 2014 clashes between pro-Russian and pro-Kyiv protesters, outside of the Crimean Rada in Simferopol, became increasingly violent. The pro-Russian contingent were openly calling for Russia to intervene militarily. Simultaneously Russia mobilised troops on its south western border.
Just as the Maidan protests were infiltrated by the far-right, used as agent-provocateurs and false-flag terrorists, so the anti-Maidan protestors were almost certainly infiltrated and supported by Russian agents who agitated the situation. The Russian naval base in Sevastopol had a significant Federal Security Bureau (FSB) presence attached to it.
In 2009, in response to demands from Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, during his first stint as head of the SBU, that all Russian agents leave Crimea, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrey Nesterenko said:
All subdivisions and services of the Black Sea Fleet are staying in Ukraine
The use of neo-Nazis in the Euromaidan protests does not imply that the majority of protesters were either fascists or agents of foreign powers. Nor does the undoubted the presence of Russian agents in the anti-Maidan movement mean that their protests were illegitimate of didn’t have popular support.
If we simply accept the simplistic narrative of goodies and baddies foisted upon us by a moribund MSM, we will never understand the global forces that have led to the current military action in Ukraine. Nor will we appreciate its wider implications.
From January 2014 militia groups calling themselves the Crimean Self-Defence Force (SDF) started to emerge from the youth wing of the Russia Unity Party led by Sergey Aksyonov. Undoubtedly Russian backed, on the 27th February men wearing plain green uniforms with no insignia seized the Rada of the Crimea. The same day the newly appointed prime minister of Crimea, Sergei Akasyenov, made a public statement asking for Russian assistance:
Understanding my responsibility for the life and security of citizens, I appeal to the president of Russia Vladimir Putin for assistance in guaranteeing peace and calmness on the territory of the autonomous republic of Crimea.
The lack of identification on Russian troops, who worked alongside local pro-Russian militias, cuased considerable confusion for the western media. It was pretty obvious they were Russian. They carried Russian standard military equipment and weaponry and fanned out from Sevastopol in Russian registered vehicles.
There was no invasion of Crimea as such. Under the terms of the 2010 Kharkiv Pact between Ukraine and Russia, which permitting the Sevastopol Naval base until 2042, Russia could maintain 25,000 troops on the peninsula. At the time of the operation only 16,000 were deployed.
However, in leaving the confines of the base they effectively breeched the agreement. Putin finally admitted that Russian troops were involved in April 2014. During the operation they seized key targets, such as the airport and border crossings, without a shooting anyone.
In total there were six deaths during the alleged “annexation.” Two pro-Russian protesters and one pro-Ukrainian protester died in violent clashes between the groups and two Russian soldiers and one member of the SDF were allegedly killed by Ukrainian forces and in a separate operation to break up a suspected terrorist cell.
The Russian’s military task was made easier by the fact that they were welcomed by the Crimean majority. Appointed Knight Commanders of the Order of St George and St Michael are among those who allege the referendum was held at gun point.
Quite why Russia needed to do this, given that the people of Crimea had repeatedly and consistently attempted to maintain closer ties, if not reunification, with Russia, is a mystery. Only by the select few and those who believe in western MSM fairy tales can fathom it.
The entire western political establishment and its MSM claim, ad nauseam, that Russia “annexed” the Crimea. They insist that Russia breached international law in doing so. This is a gross misrepresentation of international law and a deliberate deception. It is disinformation.
Under International Law “annexation” can be described as:
The acquisition of legal sovereignty by one state over the territory of another, usually by occupation or conquest. Annexation is now generally considered illegal in international law, even when it results from a legitimate use of force (e.g. in self‐defence). It may subsequently become legal, however, by means of recognition by other states.
Crimea was an independent republic with its own government who called for protection from Russia in the face of a neo-Nazis threat which, as we shall see, definitely constituted a danger to the population. At no point did Russia acquire any sovereignty by anything other than the lawful, democratic will of the people of the Crimea.
On the 10th March the Crimean parliament sent invitations to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to observe the vote. Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter stated that the OSCE declined and claimed that the referendum was unconstitutional.
The United Nations, which has become little more than an extension of the western International Rules Based Order, also claimed that the referendum was unconstitutional. Yet the Euromaidan coup, which was violent, largely orchestrated by western backed neo-Nazis and genuinely unconstitutional, is apparently a shining example of democracy. The UN’s position is both partisan and absurd.
On March 16th, a little more than two weeks after securing Crimea from fascist attacks, another referendum was held and once again the people voted for re-unification with Russia. Based upon the 83% turnout, the 97% vote for reunification meant more than 80% of the Ukrainian population, necessarily including many Ukrainians and Tartars, elected to rejoin the Russian Federation.
A team of 135 international observers from 23 different countries, counting members of the European parliament among them, found the referendum to be free and fair. The UN’s protected opinion is non-binding and, with international recognition, Crimea is now a lawful republic of the Russian Federation. Or at least it would be if International Law actually meant anything beyond might is right.
On 21st March the Russian Federal Assembly ratifed the reunification treaty with the Republic of Crimea making it de facto republic of the Russian Federation. The republic was subsequently recognised by Afghanistan, Bolivia, North Korea, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, Syria, Sudan and Zimbabwe. There was no unlawful annexation by Russia and every claim that there was is entirely false.
Russian troops, or not? Maybe, maybe not. Who knew?
Reason To Be Fearful
Outside of Crimea Russian protection was less comprehensive. When the Right Sector tried to attack a pro-Russian presidential candidate in a hotel in Odessa, Russian special forces escorted him to safety. Sadly, others were less fortunate. This attack was just one among many as the Maidan politicians in Kyiv, like Andriy Parubiy, sought to suppress the growing anti-Maidan protests in the Donbas and Odessa.
On May 2nd 2014 the Maidan government in Kyiv ordered that local oblast legislatures retake government buildings that were occupied by anti-Maidan protestors. In response they were each permitted to pay for militias of up to 200 men, many of whom were sent from other oblasts. These militias were dominated by the Right Sector but also included local criminal gangs seeking to exploit the chaos.
In the city of Odessa, anti-Maidan protesters had constructed a command centre encampment on Kulikovo Field near the Trade Unions Building. Under the command of Parubiy, the National Security and Defence Council in Kyiv organised the deployment of Right Sector activists into the local Maidan militias under the guise of attending a football match.
Andriy Parubiy distributing equipment to Nikolai Volkov
On May 2nd 2014 the streets of Odessa saw pitched battles between the anti-Maidan and pro-Maidan activists and militias. The violence was escalating and the security forces were, at best, unable to cope but some also appeared to collaborate with the Right Sector. Overwhelmed, many of the anti-Maidan protesters, sought refuge in the Trade Unions Building.
Video footage analysis unequivocally shows that the the massacre that ensued was again led by Parubiy’s Right Sector. At least an estimated 40 people were either burned alive, died of smoke inhalation or jumped to their deaths from the Building. The Right Sector torched the building (go to 01:15:46) knowing anti-Maidan activists were trapped inside.
Volkov – Odessa – 02/05/2014
Witness testimony records other murders committed in and around the building. The disgusting beatings to death of those who briefly survived the plunge from the inferno, were accompanied with cries of “Colorado Beetle,” used by the Right Sector to suggest the victims were subhuman and should be crushed underfoot.
Another, practically identical slaughter was carried out in Mariupol just a few days later. The news of which was met with gloating jubilation in Kyiv.
Parubiy visited Odessa, meeting with local militia checkpoints and handing out equipment. This included a filmed meeting with Nikolai Volkov from the Right Sector. Parubiy was known to have distributed bullet proof vests. Volkov was later filmed shooting at the Trade Unions Building while wearing one. He was clearly among the leaders of the attack. His role has been confirmed through both video footage and witness testimony.
Andriy Parubiy is a common link between the Maidan, Odessa and Mariupol massacres. Parubiy’s Maidan Self-Defence companies were quickly incorporated into the Asov Battalion (regiments) of the Ukrainian National Guard and other “specialist” Ukrainian military units. They would go on to play a major role in the 8 year-long war in the Donbas.
The people of the Crimea not only had historical reasons to fear attacks from neo-Nazis, they represented a clear and present danger to their lives. The words “fascist” or “Nazi” are used so frequently today that they have practically lost their meaning in the minds of many in the west.
The Right Sector, and the paramilitary arm of Svoboda, are not merely conservatives or people the western, liberal intelligentsia disagree with. They are full-blown neo-Nazis and their beliefs are driven by hate and an unshakeable supremacist ideology. They have received and continue to receive the unwavering support of NATO aligned governments and, in turn, these governments serve a globalist network of public-private partnerships.
It is this wider geopolitical context that we will explore in Part 2. Without this analysis, we cannot appreciate forces the that have led to the Russian “special military operations” in the Ukraine. One thing is certain, if we unquestioningly believe either the western or eastern MSM, we will never grasp the bigger picture.
“In allowing all political parties and organisations full and complete freedom to propagate their ideas, the Makhnovist Insurgent Army wishes to inform all the parties that any attempt to prepare, organise and impose a political authority on the working masses will not be permitted by the revolutionary insurgents,
such an act having nothing in common with freedom of ideas.”
[ Revolutionary Military Council of the Makhnovist Insurgent Black Army – November 1919 ]
Please Note: The PDF will be available following publication of Part 2
Please feel free to share anything from In This Together. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting In This Together. Many thanks.
Please subscribe to the ITT RSS feed