What’s Going On in Ukraine? Part 1: History

Introduction

The mainstream media is awash with feverish condemnations of Putin for invading Ukraine. Western governments and mainstream media are, of course, completely untrustworthy when it comes to any issue of foreign policy. In particular, prior to the Official Covid Narrative, they lied endlessly about Russia: Russia hacking emails to send them to Wikileaks, Russia swinging the election with Facebook ads, the bizarre Skripal psyop, and let’s not forget Russia freezing Americans to death. There have also been half assed attempts to maintain the Russia fear narrative throughout the Covid psyop: the Navalny narrative and the return from the dead of Boshirov and Petrov for one news cycle. In order to start to address this question, we have to be aware of the actual history of Ukraine, western intervention in that country, and how the US and NATO provoked Russia to act.

The Post-Soviet Space & Western Involvement: A Brief History

Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, as eventually the USSR became 15 different successor states. The largest of these is the Russian Federation, which existed in a state of shambles throughout the 1990s under the leadership of the alcoholic Boris Yeltsin. During this period Russia’s influence outside its borders massively waned as it was consumed with issues such as economic crisis, a rampant mafia, and possible further territorial losses in places such as the Caucasus.

The Western powers used this period to consolidate a bulwark against Russia by expanding NATO. The Baltic states – who always had more anti-Soviet/Russian sentiment – joined NATO in 2004 along with several other former socialist republics that were not part of the USSR. The other post-Soviet states remain outside of NATO, but there has been talk of trying to get certain other post-Soviet states (mostly Georgia and Ukraine) into the bloc.

The West has attempted to install and maintain anti-Russian, pro EU/neo-liberal governments in the post-Soviet states and former socialist republics, with varying degrees of success. This has involved the sponsorship of colour revolutions and the promise of EU integration. For example, the West opposed Shevardnadze’s government in Georgia (ousted in the 2003 Rose revolution) and Lukashenko’s government in Belarus (who they have tried and failed to oust several times, as recently as 2021).

The EU has also been involved in attempting to get 6 of the post-Soviet states to sign an Association Agreement. This plan was known as the ‘Eastern Partnership’ and started in 2009, targeting Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and most notably Ukraine. Some of these states, like Georgia, were fully on board, whereas others, such as Belarus and Armenia, were not (these countries preferred the Eurasian alternative promoted by Russia).

This initiative was portrayed by the EU as a technocratic and economic agenda, primarily about trade deals and reforms to make said countries more in line with neo-liberal ideology, such as deregulation. In reality such initiatives were designed to weaken Russia, the carrot to the regime change stick.

The ‘Euromaidan’ Coup, The Azov Battalion and The Donbass

The details of the Euromaidan Coup have been outlined in detail in multiple articles, both written at the time and more recently.

The Official Narrative of the Euromaidan is something like this. The corrupt, unpopular and pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was ruling over Ukraine. The EU reached out an olive branch to Yanukovych in terms of of an Association Agreement, a deal beneficial to both parties that would improve and modernise Ukraine’s economy and help to harmonise it with the EU. However, Yanukovych, after negotiating this deal, rejected it under pressure from Putin.

The Ukrainian people desired integration with Europe and were outraged by Yanukovych’s choice for Russia over the West. So they went into the streets en masse to oppose Yanukovych’s unpopular decision. His strategy of police brutality failed. Following this, his unpopularity led him to flee the country and to be replaced by a pro-European leader who was in line with the desires of the Ukrainian people.

Of course, there are massive problems with this narrative. It is true that that the (more Russian speaking) east of Ukraine supported Yanukovych much more than the west. He was elected in 2010 in replacement for the more pro-Western Yushchenko (I won’t get into the complications of the ‘Orange Revolution’ here). Ukraine is roughly divided on east/west lines politically, with the east being more pro-Russian and having more Russian speakers.

It is also the case that the failure to sign the Association Agreement acted as the trigger for regime change. After Yanukovych decided not to sign the agreement, protesters took to the streets. However, there are multiple divergences in reality from the official narrative:

  • Firstly, the association agreement was not as benign as it was originally portrayed. As Stephen F. Cohen points out: “[The agreement] included protocols requiring Ukraine to adhere to Europe’s “military and security” policies, which meant in effect, without mentioning the alliance, NATO.”
  • Secondly, the role of Neo-Nazis in the coup is brushed over, if mentioned at all by the Western media. There were multiple fascist groups involved with the protests, who idolise Ukrainian Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. These groups included Svoboda, a far right organisation led by Oleh Tyahnybok, and Right Sector.
  • Thirdly, the US government admitted spending “5 billion dollars ‘assisting Ukraine’. This includes 180 million dollars on ‘development programs’ for ‘judges, members of parliament [and] political parties’.”
  • Fourthly, the US Deputy Secretary of State at the time, Victoria Nuland, was also involved in maneuvering behind the scenes to ensure a government acceptable to Washington. Nuland met with the far right leader Tyahnybok personally. There is also a leaked call in which Nuland takes part, discussing how the government would be reconstituted after the coup, with Nuland identifying who should and should not go into government.

Furthermore, the situation in Donbass has been completely ignored by the mainstream media. The media acts as if Putin started a war in Ukraine, when there was already one: the shelling of the people of Donbass by the Ukrainian government. The people of Donbass rejected the coup in 2014 that massively increased the power of violent neo-Nazi groups, and instead formed the Donetsk & Lugansk People’s Republics.

Journalist Eva Bartlett, who has visited Donbass, talks about some of the atrocities committed by the Kiev government in this article.

Conclusion

Western governments and the mainstream media have misrepresented the situation in Ukraine in order to promote a pro-imperialist narrative. The situation in 2014 is directly linked to the current situation in Ukraine, which will be considered in further articles.

Zombie Russians Part 2: Steele Beats a Dead Steed

Many people have observed that every other narrative in the world just got dropped as soon as Covid came along. ISIS terrorists and Russian spies magically disappeared the moment the deadliest pandemic in a century narrative became the most convienent one.

However, this doesn’t seem to stop the occassional half hearted flaying of a dead narrative. As I pointed out in my previous piece, Zombie Russians, our old friends Petrov and Boshirov were (briefly) brought out of retirement when the government needed a distraction from the US attempt to have anti-lockdown Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko murdered.

Christopher Steele, the infamous author of the ‘Trump pee tape’ dossier, is back and being given uncritical coverage by Sky News. A 13 minute video put out by the news corporation asks Steele to defend his dossier and how he feels about the current situation with Russia. I couldn’t think of someone less qualified to talk about Russia than this muppet, but whatever.

If you’d like to laugh at it for yourself, it’s embedded below.

Sky News, of course, jazzes up the interview with some dramatic music and shots of Steele’s safe where he supposedly kept all his ‘research’. This is to make it seem like something out of James Bond when it’s really something out of Steele’s fever dreams.

The interview starts with the dramatic. “There are serious people at the top of Russia who regard themselves at war with us.” At the top of Russia? So there’s people standing on Mount Elbrus screaming about how we really need to bomb the Brits? It’s also rather funny how this ‘war’ with Russia has been on hold for 18 months because of ‘Covid’. You’d think if those pesky Russians were so dangerous the mainstream media would have stopped talking about the flu for more than two minutes over the past 18 months.

The next clip shows Steele agreeing to the idea that Russia has done hostile intelligence ops against the UK (after taking an extremely dramatic sip of tea.) Yeah, because Russia is like every other country in the world and has spies. They always act so shocked at the fact that Russia has spies, it’s hilarious.

The footage then flips to Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence office, Steele’s hand on a chair, all very dramatic. (Pablo Miller, the guy who worked at Orbis Business Intelligence and just happened by some coincidence to be Sergei Skripal’s handler is not mentioned).

The ‘investigation’ by Steele into Trump and Russia is then launched into. “It was in this safe here that the bomb ticked,” Steele claims, bigging himself up as though the idea of Trump having sex with prostitutes is the most shocking and unexpected claim in the universe. Interestingly though, he implicitly distances himself from his work, talking about how ‘it was produced’ rather than ‘I produced it’. Probably because deep down he knows its bollocks.

Our sycophant for hire ‘journalist’ then asks him how much of his nonsense is true. Of course he says he ‘thinks’ it’s mostly true (allowing me to think it’s a load of nonsense). She then asks him about the reliability of his sources and he says ‘we were pretty confident that the majority of the sources were highly reliable’. (Who’s ‘we’ Mr. Steele? She asked you for your opinion.)

The narrator then says that Russia was accused of hacking the Clinton emails by the US government. One thing is not mentioned though is the name of the journalist (Julian Assange) or publisher (Wikileaks) which printed the emails. Can’t have our viewers searching ‘Julian Assange’ and inadvertently getting a bit of truth, now can we? (Or the protest footage from the march for Assange that happened in London yesterday for that matter.)

It then says that no evidence was found to corroborate the pee claim (although it doesn’t call it that, just calls it Trump with prostitutes and ‘sex tapes’ without mentioning any urination). Then Steele is asked his level of confidence in the ‘sex tape’ claim. He says it’s ‘pretty high’.

She then asks him if he is a fraud. He says ‘no’ but then adds ‘of course I’m not.’ He them talks about all the security clearances he’s been issued over the years as if that somehow proves something.

He then comes up with a bizarre claim that the Russians put some wedding rings in his wife’s sponge bag. Apparently this is the new Novichok.

We’re informed a Putin spokesperson declined to comment. Probably because he was too busy laughing.

The interview then moves on to the Brexit referendum, saying there was ‘potential attempts to fund parts of the Brexit campaign.’ So Russia didn’t fund the Brexit campaign, they only ‘attempted’ to? (There’s a serious point here; lingustically, the use of the words ‘potential attempts’ shows Steele is not committed to his own words. If he was, he would have just said ‘Russia funded the Leave campaign’.)

She then asks for evidence and he says that he doesn’t have it to hand. No shit. A lot of other things aimed at Russia are mentioned including that they tried to hack the Covid vaccine research, so if you thought we were gonna get through a mainstream media piece without them mentioning the scamdemic, well, you were wrong.

According to Steele, Russia also threatens unity among EU member states. Because the vast historical, lingustic, cultural and political differences between 27 separate countries are obviously caused by Putin.

Right at the end of the interview, Steele quotes Putin in the original Russian. I always find it so amusing that they think it somehow improves their argument if they are a capable of using a Russian word.

I probably know at least 2000 Russian words so my argument has got to be pretty good.

I’ve had enough of Steele now, so do svidaniya!