Nearly 90% of Voters Support Independent Donetsk People's Republic
Despite continued attacks from assorted militias (very possibly including American mercenaries), people turned out in huge numbers across eastern Ukraine, now the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Up to 89.7 percent of voters in a referendum on Sunday in Eastern Ukraine's Donetsk Region backed independence for the region, the head of the election committee said Monday.
"89.7 percent have voted 'yes,' while 10.19 voted 'against,' and 0.74 percent of the bulletins were deemed invalid. The number we mentioned yesterday coincide completely," Electoral Committee Head of the Donetsk People's Republic Roman Lyagin said.
According to the DPR Co-Chairman Denis Pushilin, the republic may now decide in the next few hours whether to remain part of Ukraine or secede.
On Sunday, residents in Ukraine's southeastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions held a self-rule referendum on the status of their respective regions.
The single question on the ballot read as follows: "Do you support the act of state self-determination of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics?"
Earlier it was reported that over 96 percent of Luhansk voters backed independence for the self-proclaimed republic.
The Kremlin said in a statement Monday it respected the will of the people in Ukraine's southeast and urged the regime in Kiev to do the same.
Donetsk has formally asked
the Kremlin for accession into the Russian Federation... it's going to be an interesting week.
Clinton's State Department refused to put Boko Haram on the list of terror groups.
Boko Haram received arms indirectly from the US.
Now this group's activity is softening American and British minds to the idea of putting US and UK troops in Nigeria in"'purely an advisory role."
Do you think this tolerance for and "indirect" arming of terror groups that just happen to create outrages to justify our latest indefensible military adventures is an accident?
So, what do we have here? In Libya, in Syria, and elsewhere the United States has been on the same side as the al-Qaeda types
The US Government's 'allies' in Ukraine
. But not in Ukraine. That's the good news. The bad news is that in Ukraine the United States is on the same side as the neo-Nazi types
, who - taking time off from parading around with their swastika-like symbols and calling for the death of Jews, Russians and Communists - on May 2 burned down a trade-union building in Odessa, killing scores of people and sending hundreds to hospital; many of the victims were beaten or shot when they tried to flee the flames and smoke; ambulances were blocked from reaching the wounded. Try and find an American mainstream media entity that has made a serious attempt to capture the horror.
And how did this latest example of American foreign-policy exceptionalism come to be? One starting point that can be considered is what former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Robert Gates says in his recently published memoir: "When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, [Defense Secretary Dick Cheney] wanted to see the dismemberment not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world
." That can serve as an early marker for the new cold war while the corpse of the old one was still warm. Soon thereafter, NATO began to surround Russia with military bases, missile sites, and NATO members, while yearning for perhaps the most important part needed to complete the circle - Ukraine.
We all saw the pictures coming out of Mariupol today. I won't re-post them here. Simple people trying to stop a gang of heavily armed thugs who fancy themselves as some kind of "special forces" but whose "specialty" seems to be in shooting unarmed - or very poorly armed - civilians.
Pavel Gubarev in Slaviansk
It would be wrong to compare these Ukie thugs to the SS, as some have done. For all their wrongs, the Waffen-SS fought well, and not only against defenseless civilians, but also in real combat. But these Ukie "special units" still have not managed in taking over Slaviansk or Kramatorsk! Yes, there even was a Victory Day parade in Slaviansk were Pavel Gubarev, the "people-elected governor" of the Donetsk region spoke at an official rally. Same thing in Kramatorsk where a Victory Day celebration also took place.
Amazing, no? We are, by Kiev's official count, already in the second phase of the second anti-terrorist operation and the "special" forces have yet to capture a single town!
And then there is Mariupol. What happened there is almost as disgusting as the massacre in Odessa. The main difference is that at least in Odessa the junta did not use uniformed "special forces" but soccer hooligans and specially bused-in neo-Nazi thugs from Kiev. In Mariupol civilians were shot by "official" unifomed personnel. And for what purpose exactly? How many *armed* "terrorists" have been captured or killed in Mariupol?
A single sniper in Slaviansk has "succeeded" in shooting a 12 year old kid in the chest. Something the freaks in Kiev can be proud of, I suppose. The local press is now reporting that the SBU is sending more reinforcements to Slaviansk. It's pathetic, really.
I have to admit that today's move by Putin caught me completely off-guard. My first impression was that by asking the folks in the Donbass to postpone the referendum, Putin was basically tossing aside a valuable bargaining chip. Even more disturbing was his apparent backing for the upcoming May 25th presidential election.
Let me also say, however, that the notion of Putin "caving in" never even crossed my mind if only because categories such as "caving in" are simply not applicable in the real world of international politics - they are only good for the talking heads on the Idiot Tube and their zombified audience.
But if Putin was not "caving in" - what in the world was he doing? I submit that what Putin did is give us his reply to yesterday's quiz. Remember what I wrote?
Let us assume that Russia does not intervene and that, with time and effort, the nationalists regain control of most of the eastern and southern Ukraine. Let is further assume that the referendum wanted by the Russian-speakers is either not held or ignored, while the Presidential election goes ahead and that Poroshenko or Tymoshenko get's "kind of elected" in a farcical election which, however, the USA and its EU protectorate will immediately recognize as "legitimate".
This is *exactly* the option chosen by Putin today. To see why, we have to look at this not from Moscow's perspective, but from Kiev's perspective. From the point of view of the junta this outcome looks something like this:
"So we have managed to get most of the East and South more or less under control. We have stopped the 'terrorists'' referendum and we got our leader Oligarchenko elected President in an election fully backed the US and Europe. What do we do next?"
This is when things get really interesting for a number of reasons. For one thing, the economy is completely dead and nobody, really nobody, has any idea as to what to do about it. Second, the degree of hatred between the western Banderastan and the eastern Donbass is at an all-time high and nobody has any idea as to how to make all these people coexist together. Third, and there are a lot of signs in Kiev and elsewhere that this is already beginning to happen, social unrest triggered by the economic collapse is going to go from bad to worse with each passing week. Fourth, now that the neo-Nazi thugs do not have a "patriotic" job to do anymore - what kind of "activities" will keep them busy next?
Wed, 07 May 2014 11:44 CDT
© AFP Photo / Vasily Maximov
Ukrainian soldiers stand at a checkpoint near the eastern Ukranian city of Slavyansk on May 5, 2014.
The US approach to violence in Ukraine is hypocritical, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, Daniel McAdams, told RT. Holding an election in such a climate is impossible, yet the US will accept any result of the "wonderfully democratic" vote.
RT:The US has repeatedly praised Kiev for trying to de-escalate the situation, yet we all saw what happened in Odessa and what looks like it was allowed to happen...How do those things tally up?
Well it is interesting, because in Kiev, not that many months ago, a couple of months to be exact, unarmed police forces were sent out against the violent protesters, and the US government - including the president and the secretary of state have - said they were "disgusted" by the show of force against these protesters. And you see in Ukraine, it is obvious that the government in Kiev is using the military against its own citizens. It is blockading cities, starving people out. This is exactly what the US used as a pretext for attack in places like Libya and elsewhere. So the hypocrisy of the US side is absolutely stunning.
RT: We heard Marie Harf from the US State Department again praising Ukraine's "restraint," where she said that Kiev has a "responsibility to maintain law and order for their own people," and that "the onus really is on the Russian government to pull back." What is your comment to that?
You have to wonder what reality these people are occupying. They have tried pulling a fast one, the State Department did. A couple of weeks ago when they put out those phony photos what they claimed were the Russian forces in Ukraine. The person who took those pictures, as you know, said they are completely phony. The New York Times was burned on the US State Department lies. To its credit, the NYT has actually sent some people into eastern Ukraine, and they have reported just a couple of days ago, that actually these militias don't contain any Russians whatsoever and the people are not necessarily wanting to join Russia anyway. They are using old, worn out weapons, so the State Department just continues to pile lie upon lie. It is absolutely revolting.
Wed, 07 May 2014 10:00 CDT
The IMF has approved a $17 billion loan to Ukraine. The first $3.2 billion tranche has arrived on Wednesday.
It's essential to identify the conditions attached to this Mafia-style "loan."
Nothing remotely similar to reviving the Ukrainian economy is in play. The scheme is inextricably linked to the IMF's notorious, one-size-fits-all "structural adjustment"
policy, known to hundreds of millions from Latin America and Southeast Asia to Southern Europe.
The regime changers in Kiev have duly complied, launching the inevitable austerity package - from tax hikes and frozen pensions to a stiff, over 50 percent rise on the price of natural gas heating Ukrainian homes. The "Ukrainian people"
won't be able to pay their utility bills this coming winter.
Predictably, the massive loan is not for the benefit of "the Ukrainian people."
Kiev is essentially bankrupt. Creditors range from Western banks to Gazprom - which is owed no less than $2.7 billion. The "loan"
will pay back these creditors; not to mention that $5 billion of the total is earmarked for payments of - what else - previous IMF loans. It goes without saying that a lot of the funds will be duly pocketed - Afghanistan-style - by the current bunch of oligarchs aligned with the "Yats"
government in Kiev.
The IMF has already warned that Ukraine is in recession and may need an extension of the $17 billion loan. IMF newspeak qualifies it as "a significant recalibration of the program."
This will happen, according to the IMF, if Kiev loses control of Eastern and Southern Ukraine - something already in progress.
Exclusive: As the rhetoric rages out of control, worsening violence in Ukraine grows more likely. Official Washington is readying the American people to view the slaughter of eastern Ukrainians as justified because they are "terrorists" and linked to the hated Russians, Robert Parry reports
© Alexei Nikolsky/AP
Between the anti-Russian propaganda pouring forth from the Obama administration and the deeply biased coverage from the U.S. news media, the American people are being prepared to accept and perhaps even cheer a massacre of eastern Ukrainians who have risen up against the coup regime in Kiev.
The protesters who have seized government buildings in ten towns in eastern Ukraine are being casually dubbed "terrorists" by both the Kiev regime and some American journalists. Meanwhile, it's become conventional wisdom in Official Washington to assume that the protesters are led by Russian special forces because of some dubious photographs of armed men, accepted as "proof" with few questions asked by the mainstream U.S. news media.
The Latest and Biggest Battle Between East and West Converges in the Ukraine
There have been many wars - terrible wars - fought on Planet Earth over the past 100 years. However, the greatest war of them all could literally be around the corner, unless it is stopped by the people of this planet. The epic confrontation in the Ukraine presents the most dangerous and unprecedented conflict between the world's superpowers since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Truly, this clash between East and West represents an economic, political and religious battleground that will dwarf every other war save WWI and WWII. If the conflict in the Ukraine is not resolved peacefully, it has the potential of evolving into a full blown World War III scenario.
That may sound like hyperbole until you read what is truly at stake for both sides of this War of the Titans. There is a very serious settling of scores going on with this intensifying skirmish that has multiple roots in history. On the one side, the real perpetrators want to get even as they so often do. On the other side, there is the inexorable force of destiny which compels them to assume a courageous stance toward a seemingly intractable situation.
The Ukraine conflict is fundamentally a war between East and West, between radically different cultures, different races, different religious orientations, and between very different people. Because of the profound lack of understanding on the part of the West, as well as the desperate agenda which they are fully committed to, it appears that this war will play out in some fashion no matter what. That doesn't mean the world will once again be drenched in a hail of bullets and bombs. The post-modern battlefield often migrates into the economic sectors and financial realms, as this one has with the imposition of the Anglo-American sanction regime.
Not a bad analysis. However, given what is known about the likely psychopathological state of mind of those engineering crises such as the latest in the Eurasian Heartland, it's improbable that they are aware
of the global dangers their actions present, and that they actively seek out
cataclysmic events to 'fend off the eventual collapse of society'.
Such things are the consequences
of their actions, consequences they do not foresee. They see them when they happen
, then blame others for them and institute even harsher punishments on others. But in their own minds, they are the perfect 'reality-creators'; it's those other people
(i.e., the masses of ordinary humans) who just don't understand their munificence, benevolence and all-around awesomeness.
We rather suspect that when things didn't turn out the way they expected in Ukraine, they went "Huh, that was unexpected. Oh well, send in the jackals (CIA and mercenaries)"... In other words, they are not so all-knowing that they foresaw what would happen. They just do what they do because they are programmed in a 'cold, rational' way. Then when something unexpected happens, they just react in the only way they know how. They have zero insight and so are unable to see the situation from others' shoes.
This part, for example,
Surely, Obama, Kerry, Biden, Nuland et al. understand the extremely serious position in which they are putting Putin and the Russian Parliament.
No, they don't. They don't understand, and they don't care. Conscience and understanding born of awareness go hand in hand, and these types have neither.
Here's another assumption:
This evolving geopolitical chessboard is actually being set up by the real powers that be so that Russia will fulfill its duties in upholding the dharma of world governance.
This again suggests some all-knowing, all-powerful elite that has set this up from the beginning. If all is pre-determined, what then is the point of anything? There is as yet some
free will in this world!
The question is, are Putin and others willing and able to put a brake on their greed? Putin, and any other leaders cooperating in this most delicate task of ending U.S. hegemony as peacefully as possible, has to approach resolution to this crisis from the point of view of 'stalking the petty tyrant', as don Juan Matus described it. The tyrant doesn't know reason, it must be corralled into a situation in which it destroys itself.
Putin's first responsibility will be towards the Russian people, but he does appear to have realized that he can only protect Russia's interests by getting others onboard and having them support their
own interests, thereby building a global consensus of 'NO!' to American hegemony.
U can't touch this
Friends and colleagues,
As the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Journalists and pundits must scour the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe both.
Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question ominously asked during Q&A is always, "What about Putin?"
It's time to share my thoughts which follow:
Putin obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man. He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him
since he became Russia's second president.
I've stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the early 2000s - - I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book explains my observations more thoroughly than this article. Like others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I've tried to no avail to avoid being labeled a "Putin apologist". If one is even neutral about him, they are considered "soft on Putin" by pundits, news hounds and average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.