They do it in editorials. It’s in commentaries. It’s in feature op-eds. More on this below.
Previous articles discussed Ukraine. It’s under attack. Western dark forces want regime change.
At stake is its national sovereignty. What’s ongoing involves weakening and isolating Russia.
Western-sponsored violence continues. It erupted in November. Police showed remarkable restraint. They still do.
Western officials wrongfully blame President Viktor Yanukovych government for street thug violence. So do US media scoundrels.
On January 29, Russia’s Federation Council (its upper parliamentary house) passed a resolution. It condemned Western interference in internal Ukrainian affairs.
It “expressed indignation at a number of Western politicians unceremoniously interfering…and consciously provoking destabilization in the country.”
It blamed opposition groups for ongoing violence. It called them part of a “well-organized campaign to discredit and overthrow the legitimate government.”
“Pogroms and fire-raising in Kiev and other Ukrainian cities, the storming of an administrative building, aggressive actions against law enforcement officers that have led to deaths and a significant number of injured are occurring with the approval of those who have brought people to the streets,” it said.
It expressed “confidence that the brotherly Ukrainian people and their leadership will find a way to restore peace in the country.”
It’s nowhere in sight. On January 28, Ukraine’s parliament repealed its days earlier enacted anti-protest law.
Prime Minister Mykola Azarov resigned. Yanukovych accepted his resignation. He signed a decree. It dismissed his other cabinet officials.
He promised other concessions. He appointed a committee to propose constitutional revisions.
It didn’t help. Protests continue. Violence accompanies them. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned “fascistic youths.”
He warned against external interference. Russia “stands for a political settlement within the framework of Ukrainian law,” he said.
Street thug “roughnecks” prevent it. They control areas around Kiev’s Independence Square.
Barricades protect them. They occupy government building. They do so in all western regions of Ukraine except one.
On January 28, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed a press conference. He did so following a Brussels-based EU-Russia summit.
“Russia will never interfere in” internal Ukrainian affairs, he stressed.
“I can only imagine how our European partners would have reacted if amid a crisis, say, in Greece or in Cyprus, our foreign minister had appeared at an anti-European rally and started making calls.”
“We believe this is not very good in general, and, taking into consideration certain specifics of relations between Russia and Ukraine, this is simply unacceptable and impossible for us.”
Russia will fully honor its bilateral Ukrainian agreements, Putin added. He mentioned what hasn’t been explained elsewhere.
He cited an unnamed religious leader. He’s a radical extremist. He called on Ukrainians to rally in Kiev. He preached insurrection.
He urged Yanukovych’s ouster. He wants his legitimate government replaced. He used racial epithets. He said Russians, Jews and Blacks should be excluded from ruling Ukraine.
His agenda has no place in civil society, said Putin. It shows what peaceful Ukrainians are up against.
Washington’s dirty hands are manipulating things. EU officials share blame. Hardball viciousness reflects ongoing policy. It’s longstanding Western practice.
It’s ruthlessly exploitive. It operates globally. It harms ordinary people horrifically. Ukrainians supporting Yanukovych’s government have cause for concern.
US media scoundrels aren’t neutral. They blame Yanukovych for street thug violence. New York Times editors pointed fingers the wrong way.
They urged Washington to “make abundantly clear to Mr. Yanukovich and his lieutenants that they will pay a price if they try to use the talks simply to gain time, or if they order a bloody crackdown.”
Revoking visas for Ukrainian officials “was a good start,” they said. They urged additional measures.
They wrongfully accused Yanukovych of “undermin(ing) his legitimacy.” He did so, they said, by rejecting an EU deal.
They claimed it “could have opened the way to a brighter economic future.”
The lied saying so. Western deals are one-way. They’re all take and no give. They’re exploitive. They ignore popular interests.
Ukraine dodged a bullet by rejecting what no responsible government would accept.
Not according to Times editors. On January 28, they gave four former US Ukrainian ambassadors feature op-ed space. They gave none to Yanukovych supporters.
John Herbst heads Washington’s National Defense University’s Center for Complex Operations.
William Green Miller is a Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars senior policy scholar.
Steven Pifer heads the Brookings Institution Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative.
William Taylor, Jr. is United States Institute of Peace Middle East and Africa vice president.
All four groups are Western establishment organizations. Their views are slanted. They’re one-sided. They lack credibility.
So do former US ambassadors. Rare exceptions prove the rule. They’re paid to lie. They support policies demanding rejection.
They headlined “What the West Must Do for Ukraine.”
What’s responsible was excluded from their commentary. Imperial priorities were featured. International law was ignored.
Things are “on the verge of spinning out of control,” they said. They pointed fingers the wrong way.
They blamed “authoritarian (Yanukovych) policies.” They lied saying so. They haven’t abandoned their old ways.
“If the United States and European Union wish to encourage a peaceful resolution, they must use their leverage now,” they said.
Peaceful Ukrainians deplore outside interference. They want dirty hands kept off their country.
Former ambassadors wrongfully accused Yanukovych of “employ(ing) force.”
He’s been remarkably restrained. Western governments attack peaceful protesters violently.
They do it consistently. They use brute force. Media scoundrels ignore what demands condemnation.
Yaukovych concessions are “too little, too late,” said the ambassadors. He’s gone way out of his way to be conciliatory.
Opposition thugs respond with more violence. They occupy government buildings.
If something similar happened in America or EU countries, police and other security forces would intervene forcefully. They’d do it violently. In some cases perhaps with guns blazing.
Injuries would follow. Maybe deaths. Mass arrests for sure. Media scoundrels would applaud supportively. So would former ambassadors.
They want “coordinate(d) Western action.” Doing so ignores fundamental international law.
Nations are prohibited from interfering in the internal affairs of others. Self-defense is the only exception. Not according to former Ukrainian ambassadors.
“United States and European Union officials should make clear to Mr. Yanukovych that he must refrain from the use of force and must negotiate seriously to find a resolution to the crisis.”
“That means going beyond his latest proposals. He must offer shared control over state security organs with the opposition.”
Imagine if former Russian officials demanded Washington share power with anti-government opposition independent parties.
Imagine public rage. Imagine condemnation. Imagine the harsh response. Imagine media scoundrel editorials and commentaries denouncing unacceptable meddling.
Do what we say, not do, is official US policy. Former ambassadors don’t forget.
“American and European officials should directly engage Mr. Yanukovych’s inner circle and underscore that they need to act now to promote a settlement or face Western visa and financial sanctions,” they said.
“American and European officials…should leave Mr. Yanukovych a way out. He could still order the police to move against demonstrators.” It would “hasten his departure from office.”
Responsible governments confront lawless insurrections. They’re not tolerated. They shouldn’t be.
The alternative is anarchy. The worst of Ukrainian opposition elements aren’t “demonstrators.”
They’re Western manipulated provocateurs. They’re street thugs. They’re ultranationalists. They’re fascists. They’re lawless.
Former ambassadors ignored what demands highlighting. They urged greater Western involvement. “Brussels needs to maintain a high-level team in Kiev for the duration of the crisis,” they said.
Imagine if Russian officials said Moscow must do something similar in Washington to assure pro-Kremlin policy.
Former ambassadors want US and EU officials “visibly monitor(ing)” Kiev streets.
Who gives them the right to dictate Ukraine policy? Former ambassadors want them sending Moscow a “coordinated message.”
They want Putin “caution(ed).” He “should understand that rough stuff with Ukraine would cast a shadow over” February’s Sochi Winter Olympics.
They endorse hardball Western meddling. They call it the right thing to do. It bears full responsibility for inciting violence.
At stake is Ukrainian sovereign independence. Former ambassadors want pro-Western governance replacing it.
They want ordinary Ukrainians denied say over their own futures. They want them ruthlessly exploited.
They want Ukraine’s resources stolen. They want another Western colony. They want what the vast majority of Ukrainians reject.
Why Times editors gave them feature op-ed space, they’ll have to explain.
It wasn’t the first time. It won’t be the last. It’s longstanding Times policy. So is supporting wrong over right.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.