Alternative Media and the MH17 JIT Reversal

New Eastern Outlook
December 8, 2014
Ulson Gunnar

After weeks of protests and growing suspicion, Dutch authorities overseeing the investigation of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 have finally included Malaysia as a member of its Joint Investigation Team (JIT).

Malaysia had made it clear it was immensely displeased with its inexplicable exclusion from JIT formed after the downing of MH17 over eastern Ukraine. Including NATO members  (Belgium and the Netherlands), a defacto NATO collaborator (Australia) and a potential culprit in the air disaster (Ukraine), Malaysia's exclusion looked to be a part of an ongoing cover-up amid a larger attempt to use the disaster to frame Russia and advance NATO's agenda in Eastern Europe.

The conflict amid which MH17 was shot down is perceived to be a proxy conflict between NATO and Russia. That the investigation includes exclusively pro-NATO members or NATO members themselves, both the conduct of the investigation and any conceivable outcome would be highly suspect. Malaysia, the only nation directly effected by the disaster and perceived of being beyond the direct influence of NATO, would have provided a much needed counterbalance.

MH17: Malaysia's Barring from Investigation Reeks of Cover-up

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
November 28, 2014

It was a Malaysian jet, carrying Malaysian passengers, flown by Malaysian pilots, yet after Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine in July 2014, Malaysia has been systematically blocked from participating in the investigation, leaving an overwhelmingly pro-NATO bloc in charge of the evidence, investigation and outcome as well as the manner in which the investigation will be carried out.

Despite the integral role Malaysia has played during several pivotal moments in the aftermath of the disaster, it appears that the closer to the truth the investigation should be getting, the further Malaysia itself is being pushed from both the evidence and any influence it has on the likely conclusions of the investigation. With the downed aircraft in question being Malaysian, Malaysia as a partner in the investigation would seem a given. Its exclusion from the investigation appears to be an indication that the investigation's objectivity has been compromised and that the conclusions it draws will likely be politically motivated.

Joint Investigation Team Includes, Excludes Surprising Members 
With the Dutch leading the investigation, the logic being that the flight originated from the Netherlands and the majority of the passengers were Dutch, it has formed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT). At the onset of its creation it seemed obvious that Malaysia would too be included, considering it lost the second largest number of citizens to the disaster and the plane itself was registered in Malaysia. Instead, JIT would end up comprised of Belgium, Ukraine, and Australia, specifically excluding Malaysia.

From Ukraine to Syria: UN's Selective Defense of Human Rights

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
October 5, 2014

For the past several years, the United Nations has served as a platform for Syria's enemies to air allegations of human rights abuses and even attempts to use such allegations to justify military aggression against Syria itself. Tales of "barrel bombs" being used against civilians, the bombardment of enemy positions at the cost of civilian lives and the destruction of vital infrastructure have all been constructs in the West's narrative against the Syrian government.

Now that the US is itself bombing Syria, killing Syrians including innocent men, women and children, as well as vital infrastructure local populations depend on for their survival, the UN has grown suddenly quiet. The Western press too seems to have reverted to its observance of the notion of "collateral damage." Suddenly, the very terrorists the Syrian government has tried to warn the world about for years as it fought them in its city streets and countrysides, are now bad enough for the end of defeating them to justify the means of occasionally killing civilians, so long as they are killed with US rather than Syrian weapons.

The startling hypocrisy combines with the fact that Syria's military is operating within its territory, conducting security operations to secure its own borders and all territory within it, while the US is operating thousands of miles from its own shores, in a foreign country, with both a doubtful pretext and an even more doubtful agenda in mind as it does so.

Where is the United Nations? The airstrikes in Syria carried out by the US, Persian Gulf states, and several European nations are done so without the Syrian government's approval, no recognized opposition party has approved of them, and certainly no UN resolution has provided the West with a mandate to exercise military force inside of Syria. On this point alone, the UN should be standing up in vocal protest, leveling sanctions against those participating in this act of unilateral, illegal military aggression. Additionally, the UN should be speaking out against the loss of civilian lives, just as it did during the past several years of chaos in Syria's ongoing conflict, as well as preparing monitoring teams and investigations into the impact of these attacks.

Aside from Syria, there is another battlefield the UN is suspiciously absent from. Ukraine. In Ukraine, Kiev has been carrying out increasingly atrocious campaigns of violence against its own people. As it steadily loses control over territory in the east of Ukraine, grisly scenes of mass murder, torture, and extrajudicial executions are being uncovered. Yet there is no protest voiced within the UN, no teams being mobilized to investigate unearthed crime scenes and no measures taken against the perpetrators which include ultra-right wing militant groups espousing modern-day Nazism like the notorious Right Sector.

Ukrainian Weapons of Mass Destruction

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
September 1, 2014

In July, the Kiev-based regime deployed OTR-21 Tochka ballistic missiles also known as SS-21 “Scarabs,” against the people of eastern Ukraine. The missiles measure 6.4 meters in length and carry warheads of up to 454 kg, making them without a doubt a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Despite Kiev utilizing weapons like the SS-21, there was little outcry in the United States or across Europe. The deafening silence over the use of such weapons in Ukraine stands in stark contrast to wild hysteria exhibited just in 2011 when the Libyan government allegedly deployed Scud missiles against NATO-backed militants fighting Tripoli, Sirte, and the desert city of Bani Walid.

Ukraine's Nuclear Legacy 

As a former Soviet state, Ukraine possesses a large variety of advanced weaponry and industrial capacity, aspects of a developed nation now in the hands of a state descending into third world-like chaos. Among Ukraine's industrial and technological inheritance is nuclear power. In total Ukraine possesses 15 nuclear reactors including the largest facility in Europe, the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. It also, until 1994, possessed nuclear weapons. Having been nuclear weapons-free since 1994, the new regime in Kiev has expressed interest in once again obtaining such weaponry for the purpose of "defending itself" from "Russian aggression." 

But absent of nuclear weapons, the possibility of Kiev committing to a course of action that threatens both Ukraine itself, as well as other nations across the region with nuclear catastrophe should weigh on the minds of all policymakers and analysts. Already, the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant served host to clashes between Kiev-backed Neo-Nazi militants from Right Sector and local police.

Kiev Deploys WMDs Against Eastern Ukraine

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
August 7, 2014

Ukraine's Kiev-based regime has deployed OTR-21 Tochka ballistic missiles also known as SS-21 "Scarabs," against the people of eastern Ukraine. The missiles measure 6.4 meters in length and carry warheads of up to 454 kg, making them without a doubt a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Their use was revealed by a CNN report released just as US President Barack Obama announced that the US and EU would be issuing more sanctions against Russia. 

CNN revealed that, "there were reports that Ukraine's government in the past 48 hours used short-range ballistic missiles against the rebels, three U.S. officials told CNN. The weapons have a range of about 50 miles (80 kilometers) and pack up to 1,000-pound (454-kilogram) warheads." 

Bloodbath Follows Ukrainian Elections

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
May 28, 2014

What can only be described as "show elections" in Ukraine have been promptly followed by combined arms operations in the eastern region of the country. Warplanes, helicopter gunships, heavy armor and troops poured into eastern Ukraine in a blitzkrieg offensive aimed at overrunning the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. Both provinces had carried out successful referendums declaring autonomy from what is perceived as many to be an illegitimate regime occupying Kiev.

The day after elections, over 100 people were reportedly killed, including a large number of civilians. Local media broadcast grisly images of dead self-defense forces as well as civilians clearly the victims of artillery and aerial ordnance. In Kiev, Petro Poroshenko, "president-elect," compared eastern Ukrainians to "Somali pirates," claiming they were terrorists and that "no civilized country negotiates with terrorists." Claiming that his Ukraine was most certainly "civilized," he swore not to negotiate with eastern Ukraine indicating that the brutality seen in Donetsk following elections may just be the beginning of a more widespread armed campaign against what seems to be regarded by Kiev as a separate, enemy state.

Indeed, the military operations being conducted by Kiev appear to be more comparable to an invasion or cross-border punitive operations regularly carried out by NATO members such as Turkey against Kurds in Iraq.

Deeply Flawed Election Quickly Rubber Stamped By NATO-EU 

Despite polling not even taking place across much of eastern Ukraine, and no polling at all taking place in what Kiev, the US, EU and others still claim is Ukrainian Crimea, the elections were quickly declared "free and fair." Citing an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) preliminary report admittedly drafted by the EU and NATO themselves, the US State Department and editorials across the West declared the elections a resounding success.

Ukraine's Doomed Elections

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
May 13, 2014

Presidential elections in Ukraine are supposedly to be held on May 25, but the unelected regime to preside over them in Kiev faces a nation not just deeply divided, but literally fleeing out from under its self-proclaimed authority. And as Kiev attempts to hold the country together, primarily through the use of heavy weapons deployed against civilian populations, it is difficult to understand how any election can be held under such conditions, let alone be recognized as legitimate.

Despite this glaring reality, both the United States and the European Union insist that the May 25th elections be held, and held quickly. No mention is made of what legitimacy such elections hold even as running gun battles are waged in the eastern part of the country, particularly the province of Donetsk where a recent referendum has paved way for greater autonomy from Kiev.

Kiev's inability to assert authority over a growing segment of Ukraine's population coupled with the fact that it came to power extralegally poses an acute problem for both the regime itself and its American and European backers. By holding elections, even under such chaotic conditions, Kiev and its backers hope to establish greater legitimacy for their version of Ukraine. Kiev, the US and EU have declared a recent referendum held by the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk "illegal." This implies that both Donetsk and Luhansk are part of Ukraine and fall under the authority of Kiev. It also implies that they will participate in the upcoming election. A similar stance has been taken regarding now Russian Crimea.

Kiev's Conundrum 

If elections are held "nationwide" as Kiev and its American and European backers define Ukraine (which includes Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk) the failure to actually conduct polls in these three regions will by consequence void the entire election or at the very least call into question their legitimacy. Should elections exclude these regions, it will be a concession by Kiev, Washington and Brussels that these three regions no longer exist within Ukraine or under Kiev's authority. With that precedent, other regions who refuse to recognize Kiev's authority will be given a clear-cut exit, particularly if upcoming elections result in the current regime staying in power. Either way Kiev attempts to hold upcoming elections, it will come out the other side weaker still.

Ukrainians Reject Fascism

New Eastern Outlook 

Ulson Gunnar 

May 19, 2014

Referendums in Ukraine's eastern most provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk have overwhelming indicated a greater desire for autonomy from the capital of Kiev. The referendums included provisions to elect each provinces' own respective government, retain locally collected taxes, and have the Russian language given official status (presumably to protect Russian speakers from anti-Russian legislation passed by the unelected regime in Kiev just days after they seized power in a violent coup).

Troops loyal to Kiev continue operations in an attempt to take over Donetsk's city of Slavyansk. Violence across much of Donetsk province appeared to be an attempt by Kiev and its American and European backers to disrupt referendums that have overwhelmingly called for greater autonomy from Kiev. (Reuters/Baz Ratner)

Despite attempts by troops deployed by the regime to disrupt the referendums leading to violence that cost multiple lives, turnout was reported to be over 70 percent.

Russia Asked for Delayed Referendums

Russia had suggested that the referendums be delayed until tensions between eastern Ukrainians and regime troops eased. Policymakers in the United States and Europe had interpreted this as Russia backing down from NATO. Clearly then, the people of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, and not the Kremlin, were determined to distance themselves from a regime in Kiev they felt does not represent them or their interests, as the referendums were carried out despite Moscow's wishes.

A growing wave of unrest is spreading across the Eastern European nation of Ukraine. The unrest comes in the form of protesters refusing to recognize the current "acting government" in Kiev, which came to power on the back of violent protests that ousted the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. Polices enacted by Yanukovych that attempted to appeal to both western and eastern Ukrainians were quickly repealed in the wake of the violent coup in Kiev.

In response to Kiev's perceived lack of legitimacy, protesters have taken over government buildings, demonstrated in the streets, and have begun organizing referendums to distance themselves from the regime by granting themselves greater autonomy. The United States and Europe have accused Russia of organizing the unrest, even as they claim Russia has backed down on supporting referendums that have not only taken place, but granted pro-autonomy Ukrainians a sweeping mandate.

In Mariupol, Donetsk province in eastern Ukraine, many civilians risked their lives standing in front of armored vehicles to prevent troops deployed by Kiev from asserting authority. Several civilians can be seen shot on camera as troops advanced. Despite the deaths, Donetsk has overwhelming voted for greater autonomy from Kiev. (Reuters/Marko Djurica) 

The US State Department has issued multiple statements condemning the referendums, regardless of who US politicians and policymakers claim are behind them. One statement dated May 10, 2014, tiled, "On the Illegal Referenda in Eastern Ukraine," claims, "as the United States has said, the referenda being planned for May 11 in portions of eastern Ukraine by armed separatist groups are illegal under Ukrainian law and are an attempt to create further division and disorder. If these referenda go forward, they will violate international law and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The United States will not recognize the results of these illegal referenda."

CrossTalk: Cold War 2.0?

StopImperialism.org
Eric Draitser
March 31, 2014

How do the West and Russia interpret the results of the Cold War? Is NATO at the heart of the so-called "New Cold War"? Does NATO refuse the partnership with Russia? And are Russia and the West doomed to be adversaries? CrossTalking with Geoffrey Hosking, Eric Draitser and Wolfgang Richter.

Chinese Thinking on Crimea: “Taiwan” or “Tibet?”

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
March 31, 2014

China has maintained a very careful and consistent foreign policy of non-interference. It has steadfastly condemned foreign incursions into other nations under any pretext. In recent years, this has been extended to NATO’s adventures in Libya and Syria, where China has been vocal in its condemnation of foreign meddling. This is not only because China believes in national sovereignty in general as the foundation upon which it is building its global influence, but also and perhaps primarily because it fears for its own territorial integrity at home.

When Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, the Chinese were particularly cautious in how they responded diplomatically. China even abstained from voting on a resolution submitted to the UN General Assembly backing Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Their somewhat ambiguous statements and moves have given license to international press houses to portray China as opposing Russia. Headlines such as the Business Insider’s “China Doesn’t Back Russia’s Invasion Of Crimea — And That’s A Big Problem For Putin,” seem to describe Beijing as wholly abandoning Moscow over the ongoing Ukraine crisis.

The Business Insider even goes as far as saying, ”Russia’s Vladimir Putin has committed a grave strategic blunder by tearing up the international rule book without a green light from China. Any hope of recruiting Beijing as an ally to blunt Western sanctions looks doomed, and with it the Kremlin’s chances of a painless victory, or any worthwhile victory at all.”

Another assessment, this time from Bloomberg’s Businessweek, strikes a little closer to reality. In an article titled, “Is China Siding With Putin in the Ukraine Crisis?,” Businessweek states, ”The Chinese might naturally sympathize with Vladimir Putin, someone willing to stick it to Western leaders such as President Obama. However, China has long opposed actions that smack of interference in other countries’ internal affairs, in part to keep outsiders away from such sensitive issues as Tibet and Chinese dissidents.”

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

Solving the crisis in Ukraine

Stop Imperialism

Eric Draitser 

March 22, 2014 

Ukraine has become a geopolitical and strategic battleground upon which the West (US-EU-NATO) and Russia are struggling for influence. But, underlying this conflict is the need to develop a viable solution, one that would address both the short term and long-term needs of the Ukrainian people and both Russia and the West. The deep political divisions within Ukraine, exacerbated in recent months with the ouster of the Yanukovich government, will require careful diplomacy and mediation in order to be resolved. Additionally, the economic crisis afflicting the country – a crisis which dates back to well before the February coup – will equally require a multi-faceted and inclusive solution that benefits all interested parties. Naturally, achieving these high-minded goals will not be easy; however, they are necessary in order to chart a course toward a prosperous and stable future for Ukraine. 

(Read entire article)

Specter of Western Mercenaries Hang Over Ukraine Crisis

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
March 22, 2014


Recent rumors of notorious Blackwater US mercenaries operating inside of Ukraine invoked a plausible narrative so convincing even news outlets across the West began echoing it. 
 

UK’s Daily Mail article “Has Blackwater been deployed to Ukraine? Notorious U.S. mercenaries ‘seen on the streets of flashpoint city’ as Russia claims 300 hired guns have arrived in country” stated “a Russian diplomat in Kiev told the Interfax news agency on Wednesday that 300 employees of private security companies had arrived there.”

 

The article continued by stating, “‘These are soldiers of fortune proficient in combat operations. Most of them had operated under private contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan and other states,” the source said. Interfax reported that the diplomat did not disclose the nationalities of the mercenaries but said, ‘Most of them come from the United States’.” 

 

An accompanying video showed unidentified armed men running through the streets of the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, however it appeared unrelated to the claims made by the Russian diplomat.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

Debating Ukraine on “Breaking the Set”

Stop Imperialism
Eric Draitser
March 19, 2014

Eric Draitser of StopImperialism.org appears on “Breaking the Set” to debate recent developments in Ukraine and Crimea. He debunks the attempts by some to whitewash the nature of the coup in Kiev and the illegal government. Draitser explains some of the geopolitical motivations behind the crisis, pointing out the recent history that has lead to the current situation.  He also examines the possible next steps.

Assessing the Costs and Benefits of “Punishing Russia”

New Eastern Outlook
Eric Draitser
March 19, 2014

With the referendum on Crimean independence and possible reunification with Russia now taking place, the US and its European allies have threatened punitive actions to punish Moscow. These measures include the denial of visas, freezing of assets, even possibly commencing economic sanctions against Russia and Russian interests. Such escalation of tensions would undoubtedly have negative, potentially disastrous, effects on the European and global economy, not to mention the all-important political and diplomatic ties between West and East.

On Saturday March 15^th, the day before this historic referendum in Crimea, the Washington Post, famously regarded as a principal mouthpiece of the US political establishment, published a strongly worded Op-Ed piece collectively written by the Editorial Board entitled US, EU must stay the course on Russian sanctions over Ukraine. The article laid out a number of punitive actions that the West should, according to the authors, use to punish Russia, including targeted sanctions against prominent Russians in Putin’s inner circle.

 

Specifically, the authors suggest the denial of visas and freezing of assets of such key Russian figures as Igor Sechin (Chairman of Rosneft), Vladimir Yakunin (President of Russian Railways), and Alexei Miller (Chairman of Gazprom). Such measures must, according to the authors, be combined with “punishment” of Russia diplomatically including exclusion from the G8 and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Were the US and EU to follow through with these and other sanctions, they would undoubtedly open the door for an effective Russian response – a response that would have dire consequences for the already fragile economic situation in Europe and the US.

 

 Sanctions and Russia’s Counter-Moves

 

There are many both in the West and Russia who believe that the suggestion of punitive actions from the US and EU are merely empty threats. However, it is critical to examine just how Moscow might respond to such provocative measures, as sanctions would undoubtedly be seen as a very serious escalation. Moreover, it is essential to consider how the Russian response would impact the entire world.

 

First and foremost is the fact that Russia holds the key to Europe’s energy future. With Russia providing more than one third of Europe’s gas imports, any sanctions could immediately lead Russia to scale back, or even more drastically, cut off the gas to Europe. This would create innumerable problems for Europe, particularly for the export-dependent economy of Germany, which is unquestionably the economic powerhouse on the continent. With German technology, luxury cars, and the like no longer being produced in the required numbers, the economy would, almost overnight, come to a screeching halt. Moreover, future German energy security would be threatened, as the primary lifeline for the country is the Russian Nord Stream pipeline, which brings Russian gas across the Baltic and into northern Germany.

 

Additionally, such a scenario would create a tremendous amount of political discord within the EU as countries traditionally friendly with Russia, such as Italy, also heavily reliant on Russian energy, become ever more disenchanted with the belligerent policies of Brussels vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine. With turmoil already in high gear in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and many other economically devastated countries in Southern Europe, it is unlikely that the political will to go along with a suicidal sanctions regime will remain.

 

Russia also has a tremendous financial weapon that could be unleashed against the US and EU: their dollar holdings. With the Russian government, not to mention private Russian holdings, retaining a tremendous amount of US dollars, they could easily choose to transfer or dump their dollars and create a veritable panic on Wall St and in Washington. In fact, this scenario may have already taken place on a small scale.

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

Crimea: Democracy Is Not Democracy…Unless Obama Says It Is…

New Eastern Oulook

Eric Draitser 

March 18, 2014

As Crimea prepares to vote on Saturday March 16^th in a crucial referendum on its future, the rhetoric coming from the West and its propaganda machine has hit a new and ridiculous low. Not only has US President Barack Obama and his administration done everything to undermine democracy in Ukraine, they have now resorted to the most naked forms of hypocrisy in an attempt to delegitimize the democratic process.

 

On Thursday March 6^th President Obama spoke at the White House on the referendum and the issue of Crimea. In his prepared remarks, Obama stated categorically that the United States would not recognize the results of the Crimean referendum. He argued that the it would violate both the “Ukrainian Constitution and international law.” Obama kept the comedy coming when he noted that, “In 2014 we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.” As with all statements made by the US government, and the President specifically, this must be contextualized and deconstructed in order to be effectively critiqued.

 

First and foremost is the question of democracy and, more specifically, how exactly Washington is choosing to define this gravely abused word. In referring to the so-called “interim government” in Kiev, headed by Yatsenyuk and his associates, as “democratic leaders”, Obama demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding of the word democracy, or as I think is more likely, an utter contempt for democratic principles. By referring to an unelected entity that has seized political power in Kiev by force, and through collaboration with Nazi elements, as “democratic leaders,” Obama exposes himself and his administration to be cynical opportunists whose interests rest not in democracy but in a geopolitical agenda guided solely by strategic interests.

 

Naturally, the references to the Ukrainian Constitution and international law are also deeply disingenuous. Obama, and the US imperial system more generally, speak of international law purely when it suits their interests, eschewing it completely when it does not. This fact has been illustrated quite clearly with Washington’s wars of aggression throughout that last two decades, including the illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, not to mention the habitual violations of international law in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and around the world.

 

The most significant point here is that the US recognizes democracy and international law only when it suits their interests. Moreover, US hypocrisy regarding democracy becomes self evident if one examines the recent historical precedents of Kosovo and South Sudan. In both these cases, precisely the same individuals who today cry about international law and argue against the democratic right of Crimea to determine its own future, were then eloquently and unabashedly in favor of precisely the same sort “democratic aspirations.”

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

Global Research's Professor Michel Chossudovsky on Ukraine Coup

Global Research
Michel Chossudovsky
March 18, 2014