Crimethinks and Doublethinks in the Civil War Regime of Ukraine

by YULIA MALKINA

DONETSK, Peoples Republic of Donetsk

Last week the Kyiv troops shelled the city of Donetsk. It was powerful and violent, as if a parting, a farewell for the last time. But I knew it was not for the last time, despite the ceasefire negotiations going on in Minsk.

This morning, their shells landed at a bus depot in the city centre. Several people died. So far, I’ve only seen pictures on the Internet because I can’t bring myself to go there and see with my own eyes the place of the tragedy. Less than two months ago, during my first trip to Donetsk, I departed several times from this bus depot. I purchased items in the now-ruined drugstore at the same location. I drank coffee while waiting for the bus there. If yesterday, somehow, I had appeared in that part of town, I would not be writing this column. I wouldn’t be writing anything at all.

A deputy of the Parliament in Kyiv from the electoral bloc of Petro Poroshenko has submitted a bill that would make it a crime to deny that “Russian aggression” is responsible for the war here in eastern Ukraine. I guess that means I’ll soon be considered a criminal because I deny the military aggression of the Russian Federation. I don’t see any Russian or Chechen soldiers here in Donetsk. I only see local militia, who are standing up to defend their homeland and their way of life. And I see civilians who, despite the fact that the city is being constantly shelled, are going about their business and doing what they think is proper – they work, they help those who are suffering from the war even more than they are suffering, and they hope for a rapid end to the war. I say this is a civil war, brought on by the aggression of Kyiv.

No proposed bill and not even an eventual law will make me afraid to do a “crimethink”. I see parallels between the novel ‘1984’ and the current Ukrainian government. It’s ludicrous, but that’s because the Kyiv government is ludicrous in the way it reproduces the sort of world portrayed by George Orwell in his book, as if it were following the novel as an instruction manual. “We have a war, but it is not a war.” (The government will not formally declare war.)

“We were attacked by Russia, and we have evidence, but we will not produce it.”

“We kill for peace.”

“We destroy the Donbas region, because we love it”,

“We do not buy goods from the aggressor, but we do have businesses on the aggressor’s territory, including producing and selling candies there.” (Poroshenko’s chocolate and candy enterprises are happily doing business in Russia.)

“We pursue in the courts those who are for peace, because they are guilty of war.”

Complete story at - Crimethinks and Doublethinks in the Civil War Regime of Ukraine » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

'Ukraine Freedom Support Act' Advocates War, Not Freedom / Sputnik International

The so-called Ukraine Freedom Support Act authorizing $350 million in military aid to Ukraine will create another Afghanistan in the center of Europe.

MOSCOW, December 17 (Sputnik) – In its relations with Russia, the Obama administration seems to have adopted “good cop – bad cop” tactics. Days after the US Senate passed the so-called Ukraine Freedom Support Act, authorizing $350 million in military aid to Ukraine, state secretary John Kerry came out with the most peaceful and reassuring statements since the start of the year 2014. In Kerry’s words, “the sole purpose of the anti-Russian sanctions was to restore international norms” and these sanctions could be "lifted depending on the choices that president Putin makes."

Almost in the same hour, the White House’s spokesman Josh Ernst said Obama would be ready to sign the resolution on Ukraine into law "before the end of the week." The only logic that can be seen here is the logic of pressure.

"The American side obviously expects Putin to be more pliable in a situation when ruble is under such pressure; they think that they won now," Yevgeny Minchenko, the head of the Moscow-based International Institute for Political Expertise, said. This kind of attitude may explain the self-assured tone of the State Department’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki.

"Russia has a choice. There are specific steps they can make to implement the Minsk protocols… That's in their power, and if they do that, obviously that will have an impact on the actions we take," Psaki told reporters in Washington.

There are, however, two problems with this “good cop-bad cop” strategy of pressure. First, it is still not clear WHAT Russia has to do in Ukraine for the sanctions to be lifted. Second, the belligerent Ukraine Freedom Support Act, if implemented, will certainly endanger the Minsk agreements even more by pushing Ukraine towards a military solution and also unlawfully limits Russia’s foreign trade.

Complete story at - 'Ukraine Freedom Support Act' Advocates War, Not Freedom / Sputnik International

The Crazy US "Group Think" on Russia | The Smirking Chimp

Has anyone in Official Washington thought through the latest foreign policy “group think,” the plan to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia? All the “smart” people, including the New York Times editors, are rubbing their hands with glee over the financial crisis being imposed on Russia because of the Ukraine crisis, but no one, it seems, is looking down the road.

This reckless strategy appears to be another neocon-driven “regime change” scheme, this time focused on Moscow with the goal to take down Russian President Vladimir Putin and presumably replace him with some U.S. puppet, a Russian-speaking Ahmed Chalabi perhaps. Since the neocons have never faced accountability for the Iraq disaster – when the conniving Chalabi was their man – they are still free to dream about a replay in Russia.

However, as catastrophic as the Iraq War was especially for Iraqis, the new neocon goal of Russian “regime change” is far more dangerous. If one looks at the chaos that has followed neocon (and “liberal interventionist”) schemes to overthrow governments in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine and elsewhere, what might the risks be if such political disorder was created in Russia?

Since the neocon plans don’t always work out precisely as they dream them up at Washington think tanks or at the Washington Post’s editorial board, what are the chances that some radical Russian nationalist might emerge from the chaos and take command of the nuclear launch codes? As much fun as the Washington tough guys and gals are having today, the prospects for thermo-nuclear war might not be as pleasing.

And, does anyone really think that cooler heads in Official Washington would prevail in such a crisis? From what we have seen over the past year regarding Ukraine – not to mention other international hot spots – it seems that the only game in town is to swagger around, as pumped up as Hans and Franz, just not as amusing.

You see, the Russians have already experienced what it is like to comply with U.S. economic edicts. That was tried during the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union when experts from Harvard University descended on Moscow with “shock therapy” for the post-communist society. What happened was that a handful of well-connected thieves plundered the nation’s resources, making themselves into billionaire oligarchs while President Boris Yeltsin stayed drunk much of the time and many average Russians faced starvation.

Complete story at - The Crazy US "Group Think" on Russia | The Smirking Chimp