The Zionist Khazar Mafia Was Behind the Vicious Coup in Ukraine With Zionist Soros Funding and Zionist ‘Nazi Nuland’ Active Involvement With Zionist Joe Biden, VP
Obama and Soros—Nazis in Ukraine 2014—
U.S. in 2017?
How Obama and Soros Put
Actual Nazis in Power in Ukraine
- Anglo-American War Party Seeks To Blow Up Ukraine, Wreck U.S.-Russian Prospects
- PSPU Appeal: Stop the Defamation of a Ukrainian Opposition Party!
- Schiller Institute Interview with Danish Russia Expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen on the Third Anniversary of the Coup in Ukraine
February 20, 2017 —Three years ago this week, a Molotov-cocktail-throwing mob on the streets of Kiev occupied government buildings, perpetrating violence and driving the duly elected president of the nation out of office and out of the country. The leading groups in the mob were waving portraits of Stepan Bandera, Adolf Hitler’s collaborator in Ukraine during World War II.
Today, the same British and American intelligence institutions, and many of the same individuals, are attempting to repeat the process, only this time the target is the democratically elected government of the United States itself. The reasoning is the same: the Empire must maintain the division of the world into competing blocs, the divide and conquer policy of Empire since the time of the Romans. The East vs. West divide nearly collapsed when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s, ending the excuse of the Free World vs. Godless Communism which had been used by the British to break up Franklin Roosevelt’s partnership with Russia to defeat fascism.
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, at the time of the Soviet collapse, offered the idea of a New Silk Road, uniting Europe with Asia via new, high-speed rail development corridors through Russia and Central Asia, to unite the world on the basis of mutual development and cultural dialogue. This the Empire would not allow.
The Obama Administration, and London, not only welcomed the violent coup in Ukraine in 2014, as a means to justify a new NATO military mobilization against Russia, but rather, they created it. Obama and his spokesmen proudly announced that the United States had financed and orchestrated the organizations participating in the demonstrations on the public square, the Maidan. Obama’s direct agent for the coup, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, visited the rioters several times, handing out cookies on the Maidan, while refusing to acknowledge that in addition to peaceful demonstrators concerned about corruption and economic hardships, there were also openly neo-fascist gangs conducting an armed insurrection against the elected government.
Nuland was also caught by a phone tap instructing the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine on precisely who was to be made Prime Minister in the new government, after the President was toppled.
The result of the coup for the Ukrainian people has been an unmitigated horror. The prosperity promised in exchange for signing a free-trade Association Agreement with the European Union (EU), has not materialized; instead there has been vicious austerity, massive budget cutting, and lay-offs, while foreign nationals were appointed to run the economy. Government military forces and neo-Nazi militias carry out perpetual warfare against the Donbass region of the country, which refused to submit to the illegal coup.
The myth was peddled in the West that Russia caused the problem, by objecting to the peaceful uprising against their puppet government in Kiev, then annexing Crimea and invading the Donbass, while plotting to conquer Ukraine, the Baltic countries, and perhaps others, intent on restoring the Soviet Empire.
So also today, the myth is spread by the defeated Obama and George Soros circles, and ad nauseam in the mainstream press, that the Obama/Hillary campaign was only defeated because Russia stole the election, in order to have their puppet Donald Trump win the election. Without ever offering a shred of evidence (it is all top secret, don’t you know), mass hysteria against Putin and Russia is fueled by leaks from the same neoconservative intelligence networks left over from the Obama administration. Trump has identified these criminals, naming elements in the FBI and the NSA, and only stopped short of identifying their actions as treasonous. The President is correct.
Putin himself has been very clear about what is going on in the United States. Asked at a press conference on Jan. 17 about the anti-Russian hysteria in the U.S. press and in some political circles, Putin said:
In my opinion, there are several goals; some are obvious. The first is to undermine the legitimacy of the elected president of the United States. Incidentally, in this connection I would like to note that whether people who do it want it or not, they greatly damage U.S. interests. It seems that they trained for this in Kiev, and now are ready to organize a Maidan in Washington not to let Trump assume office. The second goal is to tie the hands and legs of the newly-elected president related to the implementation of his pre-election campaign promises to the American people and the international community.
Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, the presidential candidate for the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine in several elections, in a letter to President Trump after his election, called on him to change the disastrous Obama policy regarding Ukraine:
Our people are suffering badly from war, extreme poverty, corruption, political repressions, and the rampaging of neo-Nazis. The outgoing U.S. Administration kept stirring up the people of Ukraine against Russia, thereby inciting a war between our fraternal peoples, one that unquestionably threatens to trigger a Third World War.
The fascist elements in the Ukraine government have orchestrated thug attacks against Vitrenko and her party, seized the party headquarters, and are threatening to bring charges against her for treason for the “crime” of identifying the openly fascist actions of the government and the neo-Nazi militias.
And in the United States, Obama is the first president in U.S. history to lead an effort to bring down the government that replaced him. Under Obama, the United States conducted perpetual warfare against countries which were no threat to our nation, conducted drone strikes against individuals personally chosen by Obama without even a semblance of due process, and nearly provoked a war with Russia, a war which would almost certainly have been thermonuclear, and which would have been nearly certain if Obama’s clone, Hillary Clinton, had been elected.
The idea that Trump may end the imperial policy, and join forces with Russia and China, as Franklin Roosevelt did to defeat fascism, in the new paradigm of defeating terrorism, and building infrastructure and agro-industrial advancement for nations throughout the world as part of the New Silk Road process, would mean the end of the very concept of Empire, once and for all. To prevent this, the British and their assets in the United States, led by Obama and his sponsor George Soros as well as their fellow neocons on the Republican side, will stop at nothing. The American people are increasingly aware of this evil, but must move quickly to expose it and crush it.
This report is divided into five sections, with links to documentation articles at the end.
1. The strategic situation in Ukraine, from the February 2014 neo-Nazi coup through the collapse of that nation into economic and strategic chaos today.
2. The neo-Nazi provenance of the leading groups and individuals in the 2014 regime-change coup in Ukraine.
3. A chronology of the coup itself, from November 2013 through February 2014.
4. A profile of the origins and methods of the color revolution policy, deployed against Ukraine in the coup, and in the United States today.
5. The appeal by Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, presidential candidate for the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, to the EU on Feb. 10, 2017, to stop the repression by the Kiev government.
The potential for the world to leave the era of imperial control behind, to enter a new era of civilization just as the Renaissance ended the era of feudal backwardness, is within our grasp today. It is up to each and every citizen of the United States, and citizens of the world, to make this moment of huge potential become a reality.
Anglo-American War Party Seeks To Blow Up Ukraine, Wreck U.S.-Russian Prospects
Feb. 20—Three years ago, on Feb. 22, 2014, the prolonged, increasingly violent Euromaidan coup d’état was completed in Ukraine against the country’s elected President Victor Yanukovych. His life in peril as commandoes from the so-called Maidan Self-Defense Forces threatened to storm his residence at dawn if he didn’t quit, yet unwilling to use military force to crush the thousands of demonstrators still in the Maidan (Independence Square) in downtown Kiev, Yanukovych fled the capital. Unable to regroup in the northeastern city of Kharkov or his native Donetsk, he ultimately sought asylum in Russia.
The coup of November 2013-February 2014 was built on the precedent of Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, when Yanukovych’s first election had been challenged as fraudulent by a Maidan demonstration, on the color revolution model of Anglo-American financier George Soros and the American professional organizer Gene Sharp. The demonstrators in December 2004 forced a revote, which Yanukovych lost. Within months, the victorious Orange revolutionaries were squabbling over power, as the Ukrainian economy continued to dive under their deregulation and privatization policies, and kowtowing to the austerity demands of the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych ran again in 2010 and won.
But the more than 2000 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine, funded by the U.S. government, the UK, the EU, and Soros’s private Open Society projects, continued to shape public opinion in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland boasted that US$5 billion had gone into Ukraine through State Department channels alone, much of it, as the Ukrainian-born Russian economist Sergei Glazyev put it, issued in the form of grants to develop an intellectual community of experts, oriented against the Russian Federation and directed toward shaping Russophobic attitudes in Ukrainian society.
|View full size
The new dimension in the Euromaidan, one that was pre-planned, was violent provocations and ultimately a violent overthrow of the government. Yanukovych’s November 2013 decision to delay signing an Association Agreement with the European Union, after he realized that it would damage Ukraine’s economy, was taken as the pretext for a full-scale coup. The Maidan organizers poured into central Kiev and announced they would not leave until the decision was rescinded and Yanukovych left office.
While many people came to the Maidan waving EU flags and were full of hope for a better life, the paramilitary groups, who repeatedly escalated the violence and sabotaged every interim agreement to resolve the standoff, marched under the red and black flag of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the mid-20th-century fascist movement of Stepan Bandera. The OUN had collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and carried out the ethnic-cleansing mass murder of Poles and Jews on its own, as well. These neo-Nazi groups called themselves Right Sector; their formation and build-up during 1991-2013 stemmed directly out of funding to Bandera’s followers by MI6 and the Allen Dulles wing of the American CIA during the Cold War.
It was the coup-installed regime’s immediate move to demote the Russian language, which is spoken throughout much of Ukraine, from its status as a second official language, and a series of attacks by Right Sector in Crimea and the eastern industrial region called the Donbass, that set off a momentous cascade of events in 2014. By mid-March, Crimea had seceded from Ukraine and voted to join the Russian Federation. In the Donbass, the autonomous Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR) and Lugansk Peoples Republic (LPR) were declared, rejecting the Kiev coup and laying claim to the major cities and much of the territory of those two districts. At least ten thousand people have died in the ensuing civil war, as Kiev sent army units and Right Sector-based battalions into the Donbass to attempt to quell the Donbass militias’ uprising.
In February 2015, negotiations held in the capital of Belarus and conducted by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine, reached the Minsk II agreement between Kiev and the Donbass republics, for a ceasefire and prospective political settlement in that region. Heavy weaponry began to be pulled back from the line of contact between their respective military forces.
The ceasefire has been overseen and monitored, since then, by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), an East-West club dating back to the 1970s. Disagreements remained over the meaning of the Minsk II commitment to Constitutional changes in Ukraine, allowing extreme autonomy for the DPR and LPR. To date, the radical nationalists in the Ukrainian Parliament, with Right Sector figures among them, have refused to make such revisions. Nonetheless, the fighting and huge civilian loss of life had abated over the past two years, as if the Donbass were becoming one of ECE’s notorious frozen conflicts.
In December 2016, as President-elect Donald Trump continued to signal his wish for normalizing relations with Russia, the Donbass began to heat up again. The initiative came from the Kiev side. Even pro-Maidan analysts reported, as the Kyiv Post did on Jan. 26, that Ukrainian forces have staged what has become known as a creeping offensive to regain control over territory in the gray zone, the no-man’s land that divides separatist and government forces in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Analysts at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a U.S. Government-funded outlet, acknowledged that pro-Kiev troops have sparked bloody clashes with the Donbass forces. Alexander Hug, deputy chief of the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission for Ukraine, reported that Kiev’s forces had positioned large-caliber artillery including towed howitzers, main battle tanks, and multiple-launch rocket systems banned under the Minsk deal in the open with impunity.
With the neo-Nazi Right Sector and its offshoot battalions, it is never easy to say exactly who has provided the impetus for their actions. But a look around London and Washington quickly turns up who is cheering them on.
U.S. war party Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham (Republicans), along with Obama-ite Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, spent New Year’s Eve with Kiev troops near the front line with the DPR. They also toured the Baltic countries, where NATO’s latest military build-up is under way. On Feb. 2, McCain issued a letter to President Trump, ignoring the OSCE report, and blaming the Donbass escalation on Russia and its proxy forces, demanding that the U.S.A. supply Kiev with “defensive lethal assistance” weapons.
Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, on Feb. 1, launched a round of grandstanding about his intention to hold a referendum in Ukraine on joining NATO. Prime Minister Volodymyr Hroysman visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels on Feb. 9, to meet with NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller, formerly an under secretary of state in the Obama Administration.
Atlanticist think-tankers chimed in, with a barrage of publications “warning” that Trump will make a deal over Ukraine: James Sherr of Chatham House in the UK sounded an alarm against pre-emptive compromise over Ukraine; Russian anti-Putin analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, writing for the neoconservative Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, wailed, “If Trump hands over Ukraine, he will make Russia great again;” Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council pre-emptively accused Trump of preparing to sell out Ukraine by lifting sanctions on Russia while, so he claimed, Russian-backed forces started a brutal offensive within Ukraine.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov devoted nearly half of his Feb. 12 Sunday prime time interview on Russia’s NTV channel to a measured discussion of Ukraine. Speaking of the recent escalation, Lavrov said, “The only advantage I see in this situation, which we arrived at with much bloodshed and after many months, even years of experiments, is that the West is finally beginning to understand what the Ukrainian government is all about and what its assurances of being willing to comply with the Minsk agreements are worth.”
President Trump, for his part, in his Feb. 16 press conference, after repeated goading by the press to treat Russia as the enemy, respondaed:
We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. I have been briefed. And I can tell you, one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say, because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it: nuclear holocaust would be like no other. They’re a very powerful nuclear country, and so are we.
Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, the Ukrainian economist who has battled the Maidan regime from its outset, wrote in an open letter to Trump immediately after his election:
I greatly hope that you will abandon, as undemocratic and intolerable, the planning and implementation of coups d’état through color revolutions, such as has been done by U.S. agencies twice in Ukraine. I would like to see you build relations with Russia and China not, as enemies or rivals, but as partners and allies in the name of peace, justice and prosperity for the entirety of our planet Earth. I hope very much, that you will also make a positive influence on what is happening in Ukraine. Our people are suffering badly from war, extreme poverty, corruption, political repressions, and the rampaging of neo-Nazis. The outgoing U.S. Administration kept stirring up the people of Ukraine against Russia, thereby inciting a war between our fraternal peoples, one that unquestionably threatens to trigger a Third World War. The whole world awaits with hope, for you to carry out your promises with specific actions to ensure the welfare of every American and promote peace and prosperity for all mankind.
Neo-Nazi Perpetrators of Regime Change
Feb. 20—The 2014 coup in Ukraine was perpetrated by figures and groups of the so-called opposition, whose lineage and practices trace directly to Nazi formations going back decades. Key parts of this network were fostered and protected by Britain’s MI6, and the CIA, especially under Allen Dulles, as assets for geopolitical operations in Eastern Europe and against the Soviet, and later Russian states.
Among the most aggressive in the Euromaidan operation was the Right Sector, founded in November 2013 as a paramilitary confederation. It was made up of three groups, one of which, the Tryzub or Stepan Bandera Trident, was founded in 1993 by successors to the Hitler-aligned 1941 Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Bandera (OUN(b)), named for Stepan Bandera (1909-1959), the Ukrainian Hitlerite who founded his organization in Munich during WW II. The OUN itself goes back to the period of WW I, and its formal founding in 1929.
The 1941 proclamation by OUN(b) stated:
The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler, which is forming a new order in Europe and the world, and is helping the Ukrainian people to free itself from Muscovite occupation. . . .
In 1943, the military unit set up by Bandera’s OUN(b) carried out a mass extermination campaign against Poles and Jews in Ukraine, killing an estimated 70,000 civilians during the Summer of that year alone. Nevertheless, by April 1948 Stepan Bandera was recruited to work for British intelligence, whose 1956 MI6 report described him as “a professional underground worker with a terrorist background and ruthless notions about rules of the game.” Bandera’s top official, Mykola Lebed, who carried out the Ukraine exterminations, went on to a CIA payroll as of 1948. Brought to New York City, Lebed headed a CIA front company, Prolog Research Corp., which was controlled during the 1950s by the CIA’s Director of Plans, Frank Wisner. Various trainees and functions shifted to fronts in Europe over the coming years, including in Radio Liberty, and in London, the Society for Soviet Nationalist Studies (UK). It is this Bandera-Lebed legacy, and the networks spawned in the post-war period, which are at the center of the coup events in Ukraine and since.
The other two constituent groups of the Right Sector were the Ukrainian Patriot (UP), and the Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO). The UP was founded in 1991 as the neo-Nazi youth wing of the Social-National Party of Ukraine, which in 2004 became the Svoboda (Freedom) Party, whose leaders were explicitly committed to government overthrow. UP members were famous for paramilitary training and confrontations, and deployed to the Maidan in December 2013.
Likewise, the UNA-UNSO and its youth arm, Bily Molot (White Hammer), both entered the Right Sector in November 2013. The group was founded in 1991 from various right-wing sub-groups, and its members ranged throughout eastern Europe in various violent confrontations.
The party and parliamentary leaders of these, and a few other organizations, played leading roles in the Euromaidan coup operation. Many went on to occupy key positions in the post-coup government, as their neo-Nazi organizations were absorbed into the military and bureaucracy. Those figures, with their affiliations, are noted below, and cited in the chronology immediately following. Also listed are two prominent U.S.-based backers of the coup, Natalia Diuk and Victoria Nuland.
Dmytro Yarosh became leader in 2007 of Tryzub (Stepan Bandera Trident) and then head of the Right Sector in November 2013. Earlier, on July 17, 2013, at the Tryzub training camp, he made a speech calling for a national revolution in Ukraine, and an end to the “Russian Empire.” After the February 2014 coup, elements of the Right Sector came to be absorbed into various quasi-official battalions, like the Azov Battalion, in the National Guard of Ukraine.
Andriy Parubiy founded the Ukrainian Patriot (UP) youth group in 1999, which became a Right Sector unit in November 2013. He was Commandant of the Maidan. In the immediate post-coup government, he became Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council. He is now Chairman of the Ukraine Parliament.
Yuriy Lutsenko was founder of the government-overthrow movement called TUR (Third Ukrainian Republic) which cited the earlier two republics as, first, that of 1917, and second, the 1941 Hitlerite Bandera-Stetsko Ukrainian State. (Yaroslav Stetsko was Bandera’s deputy, and the declared head of the 1941 state; his widow Slava Stetsko, continued his work.) Today Lutsenko is Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Oleksandr Turchynov, a parliamentarian for the Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) Party, was Speaker of the Rada, and was unconstitutionally installed as Acting President on Feb. 26, 2014, after the Feb. 18-22 coup, by a coalition government of the Svoboda and Fatherland parties. Today, Turchynov is Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.
Arseniy “Yats” Yatsenyuk, a parliamentarian for the Batkivshchyna Party, was unconstitutionally installed on Feb. 26, 2014, as Prime Minister by the Batkivshchyna/Svoboda coalition. He held the position until April 2016.
Vitali Klitschko was a parliamentarian for the Udar Party (Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms), and a boxing champion. He is now Mayor of Kiev.
Oleh Tyanybok was a parliamentarian for the Svoboda Party.
United States-based coup operatives:
Nadia Diuk, as a young Ukrainian emigré in London in 1984, had very close contacts with Prolog Research, the CIA front group of Mykola Lebed, the security chief butcher for Stepan Bandera. She co-edited the Prolog-associated Soviet National Survey. In 1990, she joined the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as Vice President for Africa, Central Europe, and Eurasia. Along the way, she married Adrian Karatnycky, also in the orbit of Prolog, who headed Freedom House for 12 years, and now is at the Atlantic Council. Diuk actively supported the Ukraine government overthrow process all along.
Victoria Nuland was Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (2013-2017), until dismissed by the Trump Administration in January. She was the lead Obama liaison for the 2014 color revolution coup in Ukraine. She served in previous posts, backing geopolitical intervention, in the name of “democracy.” She was a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney (2003-2005), and Ambassador to NATO (2000-2003), during which time she strongly advocated NATO out-of-area deployments and similar operations. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is the neo-con co-founder of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which included targetting the nations of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, to further the destabilization of Russia, India, and China.
Chronology of the Coup
Feb. 20—A full chronology of the 2013-14 coup in Ukraine would have to begin at least with the 1947-52 quarrel between the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps (CIC), which tried to bar the “well-known sadist and collaborator of the Germans,” Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) figure Mykola Lebed, from entry into the United States, and CIA Deputy Director Allen Dulles, who ultimately secured permission for Lebed to come and go freely. In the view of Dulles, Lebed and the OUN were essential to Cold War operations against the Soviet Union.
Indeed, in recent months, historians and intelligence specialists have been perusing and publishing more and more freshly declassified documents on CIA and MI6 (British foreign intelligence) plans for anti-Soviet uprisings in Ukraine, in which they planned to utilize the OUN.
The continuation, in the post-Soviet period, of the OUN, its ideology, and its plans for the takeover of Ukraine and an ultimate showdown with Russia, are summarized elsewhere in this report. The timeline below is but one slice, covering the active coup period of Nov. 21, 2013 through Feb. 22, 2014. The core of it appeared in EIR of May 16, 2014, where it served to disprove assertions such as that of then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who on Jan. 15, 2014, portrayed the brewing “Euromaidan” coup in Kiev as a spontaneous democratic upsurge:
[T]he movement that started as a demand for a European future grew into a protest for basic human dignity and justice, clean and accountable government, and economic and political independence of Ukraine.
The allegation that a violent coup was pre-planned is confirmed by very diverse sources.
Former intelligence officer, now Russian President Vladimir Putin, spoke Dec. 2, 2013 about the events beginning to unfold:
[E]verything that is happening now is not a revolution, but a well-organized protest. And in my view, these events were not prepared for today, but for the Presidential election campaign of Spring 2015. What’s happening now is just a little false start due to certain circumstances, but is also preparations for the Presidential election. The fact that these are preparations is obvious to all objective observers, judging from what we see on television, how well-organized and trained militant groups actually operate. That’s my assessment.
From the inside, no one was more explicit than Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh. On July 17, 2013, during the annual summer paramilitary training camp for his cadre, Yarosh video-recorded a speech that circulated widely online. It contained three summary points:
1. There is an “internal occupation” regime in Ukraine;
2. No liberation of the Ukrainian people and no Ukrainian statehood is possible without a national revolution; and
3. Russia is the age-old enemy of Ukraine and “as long as the Russian Empire exists in any form, true, real national independence of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people is impossible.”
Then Yarosh made a forecast:
The times are coming, when we will not only be talking and conducting various propaganda actions about the national revolution, but the times are coming that will forge history and fix the footprint of our people in the existence of the Ukrainian nation. We must show not only in words, but with our deeds, that the Bandera cause is not yesterday, but it is the present and the future. . . . The times are approaching that we may have been only dreaming about for these 20 years. Because we can win, we want to win, and we shall win.
The sources for the following items include contemporary Ukrainian media reports on the Zerkalo Nedeli site (), Facebook pages of the quoted persons, YouTube postings, and Euromaidan live streams from Espreso TV and Hromadske TV.
On Nov. 21, a few hundred people gathered in Independence Square known as Maidan in Kiev, on the occasion of the halt in the process of Ukraine signing a formal Association Agreement with the EU. Early on, large numbers of people turned out, waving EU flags, looking to the EU for a way out of the hardship from the shock therapy of the 1990s, and the privatization/IMF austerity continued through the 2004 Orange Revolution years. But beyond the initial size of the turnout, the pre-planned Right Sector and other Banderite paramilitary violence was then used for systematic escalation of the Maidan. Among the prominent figures on Nov. 21 was Andriy Parubiy, an active Banderite radical for more than two decades, and Yuri Lutsenko, an organizer of the 2004 Orange Revolution Maidan, after which he held office as Minister of Internal Affairs, was jailed in 2011 for abuse of office, and released in 2013.
On Nov. 24, Lutsenko called on people to stay in the Square through Nov. 29, the day the EU Association Agreement was to have been signed by President Yanukovych.
On Nov. 29, the first escalation took place. When, at night, the protest had wound down to only a few hundred people remaining in the Maidan, suddenly a thousand Berkut police (“Golden Eagle,” an elite riot force) showed up, and just as suddenly, unidentified persons rushed the police, attacking them with chains. The brutal Berkut retaliation, with beatings of young people, was filmed and broadcast widely on television and social media. In subsequent analysis, observers from all sides have pointed to the role of Yanukovych’s then-Chief of Staff Serhiy Lyovochkin in staging this provocation. Some suggest he wanted to spark violence in order to generate a pretext for ending the Maidan by force, while others point to Lyovochkin’s Washington ties and believe he was acting for those abroad who wanted to escalate the crisis.
On Nov. 30, Lutsenko called for blockading central Kiev until Yanukovych stepped down. The same day, British envoy Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, issued a joint statement with EU official Stefan Füle condemning “the excessive use of force last night by the police in Kiev to disperse peaceful protesters,” who were calling for integrating Ukraine with the EU.
On Dec. 1, Lutsenko told the rally, “Our plan is clear: This is no longer a rally or a protest action. This is a revolution.”
|View full size
Wikimedia Commons/Mystslav Chernov
On Dec. 2, Lutsenko announced that Maidan Self-Defense Forces were operational. “We have units who will be able to defend the people,” he said. “As many as we need. . .well-prepared, specially trained people, who are taking responsibility for physical defense against possible attack.”
On Dec. 8, Parubiy declared, “Neither the government, nor Yanukovych, nor anybody else will be able to work, until our demands are met. We are standing here till victory.”
On Dec. 10, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Catherine Ashton of the EU were in Kiev. Nuland went to the Maidan, distributing food to the protestors. This was one of three trips to Kiev that Nuland made over November and December, supporting the protesters.
On Dec. 11, Secretary of State John Kerry denounced the actions of riot police.
On Dec. 12, Parubiy was now referred to in the media as Commandant of the Maidan. He announced plans to expand the tent city there and to reinforce the barricades.
On Dec. 13, Victoria Nuland addressed a Washington, D.C. National Press Club event, stating:
Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government. . . .
We have invested more than $5 billion dollars to help Ukraine achieve these and other goals. . . .
On Dec. 22, the creation of “Maidan” as a formal organization was announced by Rada parliamentarian Tyahnybok, of Svoboda. He said, “Next we’ll do guerrilla operations to blockade government buildings and make it impossible for the scoundrels now in power to live or sleep.” Lutsenko called for spreading the “territory of the Maidan” to central Ukraine by Spring, reaching Crimea during the Summer. Officers of the Maidan were named.
On Jan. 1, the second violent escalation took place. Three days after measures were put through the Parliament outlawing many Maidan violent practices, Right Sector squads attacked the Berkut forces around the government quarter itself. This action on Hrushevsky Street then began several days of violence, bringing the first deaths.
On Jan. 4, Parubiy, warning of coming attempts to break up the Maidan, said that “right after the holidays will be a good period for our switchover to the offensive.”
On Jan. 15, Victoria Nuland praised the Maidan uprising.
The movement that started as a demand for a European future, grew into a protest for basic human dignity and justice, clean and accountable government, and economic and political independence for Ukraine.
From Jan. 22 onward, shocking images came forth of policemen set on fire by napalm-like Molotov cocktails. Kiev was swathed in black smoke from burning piles of tires, ignited by the Maidan fighters. The U.S. National Security Council (NSC), however, downplayed the violence as expressing “the legitimate grievances of the people.” NSC spokesperson Caitlyn Hayden threatened the Ukraine government with sanctions, if the riot police were not withdrawn from the Maidan.
On Jan. 25, Parubiy told Deutsche Welle that the revolution was approaching “its victorious conclusion.” He described how the Maidan Self-Defense Forces were organized in a sotnya structure (hundred-man units) and combat-ready.
On Jan. 28, amid demands by the government that the demonstrators relinquish the government buildings they had occupied, Parubiy declared that President Yanukovych had better release his Presidential office on Bankovaya Street. “They release Bankovaya, and we’ll release the October Palace,” Parubiy said. “I think those are good starting points for negotiations.”
On Jan. 29, the formation of a National Guard was announced at the Maidan. It comprised the Maidan Self-Defense Forces, Right Sector, and unspecified Cossacks.
On Feb. 3, Nadia Diuk had a signed article in the Kyiv Post, “Ukraine’s Self-Organizing Revolution,” praising the Euromaidan process. She spoke as Vice President of the U.S. government-backed National Endowment for Democracy.
On Feb. 4, a phone taping was posted on YouTube, between Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, in which Nuland spoke of whom she wanted as Ukraine head of government. Referring to Parliament members Vitali Klitschko as “Klitsch” and Arseniy Yatsenuk as “Yats,” she stated, “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think Yats is the guy .”
Then, referring to Ban Ki-moon’s interventions compared to those of the EU regarding Ukraine, Nuland said, “and, you know, fuck the EU.”
On Feb. 7, Parubiy stated that the Maidan Self-Defense force, now numbering 12,000, would become a nationwide organization. Because under current law their organization was illegal, they would not seek legalization, but would change the regime.
On Feb. 11, Parubiy signed Order #1, “On the Fundamental Organizational Principles of the Maidan Self-Defense,” posted on Facebook. Its objectives included, “to resist the current criminal regime until its complete elimination.”
On Feb. 18 came the third escalation, in which by the end of the day 25 people were dead. The events began when the Maidan leaders and Tyahnybok of Svoboda announced a “peaceful march” to the Parliament to make sure it adopted the “correct” decisions, namely, to curtail presidential powers (by returning to the Constitution of 2004). As the procession approached the police lines around the Rada, again along Hrushevsky Street, the “peaceful” marchers went on the attack. This began hours of street fighting, in which 25 people were killed.
Late on the night of Feb. 19, a truce was announced after negotiations between the Parliamentary opposition trio of Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok, and President Yanukovych.
Overnight, Parubiy and Yarosh rejected it. Yarosh wrote on Facebook, “In the event that the internal occupation forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs cease fire and the Supreme Rada of Ukraine immediately cancels the dictatorial powers of Yanukovych, we shall apply maximum efforts to bring the bloodshed to a halt and guarantee their safety.”
On Feb. 20, in the early morning, shots were fired from the Conservatory building where Parubiy and Maidan commanders had relocated after their former location in the Trade Union building had burned. The shots hit police and demonstrators. An all-day gun battle began, in which another 70 people died amid unidentified sniper fire.
On Feb. 21, the opposition MP trio and President Yanukovych signed an agreement, witnessed by the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and Poland, committing to constitutional reform by September, Presidential elections late in the year, and turning in of weapons.
When the document was then taken to the Maidan, it was booed. After a fire-brand speech against the agreement by the young commander of a Maidan Self-Defense sotnya from Lviv, Volodymyr Parasyuk, the deal was off. Instead, if Yanukovych did not resign by 10 a.m. the next morning, Parasyuk shouted, his sotnya was ready to go on full attack against the government.
Yanukovych left Kiev during the night, travelling first to Kharkov, then to his native Donetsk, and then, with Russian assistance, taking refuge in Crimea for several days, and eventually in Russia.
On Feb. 22, the Rada unconstitutionally installed Oleksandr Turchynov, of the All-Ukrainian Union (Fatherland) Party, as acting prime minister, then as acting President the next day.
On Feb. 23, in the evening, Yuri Lutsenko took the microphone on the Maidan stage and thanked a long list of those who had made possible the ouster of the elected President of Ukraine (without the impeachment procedure defined in the Constitution). Lutsenko offered special gratitude to “Right Sector and its leader, Dmytro Yarosh.”
Color Revolutions—Acts of War
Feb. 20—The fomenting of “color revolutions” to bring down governments or nations is an act of war. The strategy was developed, and is being actively promoted out of institutions centered in the neo-British Empire, particularly at Oxford, home of the Civil Resistance and Power Politics project, and in associated networks based in the United States, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The money flows come from direct government sources e.g., NED is funded by Congress, and private agencies and donors, such as billionaire George Soros.
In its latest application, a color revolution operation is currently being conducted as an attempted coup against the government of the United States, manifest in the various forms of mob-think, and mob-defiance against the President, to prevent the United States from breaking into a new system of foreign relations for peace and economic development, and in particular to cooperate with Russia and China on defeating terrorism, and building infrastructure as part of the New Silk Road.
A major funder of these coup operations is Wall Street megaspeculator George Soros, who has openly stated his desire to see President Trump out of office.
The color revolution method is simple, and ancient. Instigate and manipulate a frenzied mob around simplistic demands to accomplish whatever geopolitical goals are intended:
• Ousting of a president,
• Overthrow of governments,
• Creation of chaos,
• Provocations to war.
The term “color” refers to how a single color, symbol, slogan, or demand is promoted and repeated, to inflame passion and retard reason.
The map of successful examples includes the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003), the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), and the like, going back to such earlier examples as the 1986 overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, whose banner was “yellow.” These and other cases reveal the activities open and covert by think-tanks and irregular warfare operatives, to accomplish evil objectives.
Look more closely at the British nexus. In 2006, two Oxford professors, Sir Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash, created a project called Civil Resistance and Power Politics: Domestic and International Dimensions (CRPP).
They churn out books, conferences, and trainees in the methods of government subversion, done under various names, such as “democracy promotion,” or furthering the “liberal international order.” The predecessors of these modern Oxford operations go back to British Empire colonial times, when not only direct military subjugation was used, but also indirect rule by manipulating the public outlook.
In the United States, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), founded in 1983, is in the lead of operations to sponsor “civil society” groups in dozens of countries, for purposes hiding behind the name of promoting democracy or furthering whatever kind of “people power” subversion they choose. Nations which are subservient to the British imperial order, such as Saudi Arabia, are not touched regardless of their disdain for “democracy.”
The NED today boasts of making more than 1,200 grants yearly, to support “the projects of non-governmental groups abroad who are working for ’democratic’ goals in more than 90 countries.” The NED and other agencies function under the “Project Democracy” banner, which was formally initiated in 1983 by the U.S. Information Agency, to give fellowships and conduct activities abroad.
Among the interconnections between the Oxford crowd and U.S. operations, are many personnel. For example, Nadia Diuk, NED Vice President for Programs for Africa, Europe, and Eurasia, whose biography boasts of how she has specialized in “strategies for the underground democratic movements before 1989” in Yugoslavia, and beyond. Diuk studied at Oxford with the “democratizers,” and mixed it up in London with the U.S. and British-backed Ukrainian fascist networks. Her role is typical of British-associated functionaries in U.S. institutions.
Victoria Nuland at the State Department, was point person for the U.S. support of the Ukrainian Maidan operation. On Dec. 13, 2014, in the midst of the violent anti-government confrontation in Kiev, Nuland spoke in Washington, D.C., saying:
Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals. . . .
The biggest private financier of “democracy” movement subversion, is the London-Wall Street billionaire George Soros. His overall agency is the Open Society Foundations, based in New York City, which has pumped hundreds of millions into target locations, such as eastern Europe, for purposes seen in the 2014 overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine.
Soros has openly declared Russian President Vladimir Putin to be more dangerous than ISIS, and is the primary funder of the mass, mindless demonstrations in the United States today, working with Obama, aimed at bringing down the Trump government and returning to “regime change wars” and nuclear confrontation with Russia. (See Soros’s article, “Putin Is a Bigger Threat to Europe Than Isis,” in The Guardian, Feb. 11.)
Soros’s own connection with European Nazi networks is personal, going back to his youth in Hungary, when he and his father chose to hide their Jewish heritage and work with the Nazi occupation to confiscate the property of fellow Jews who had been sent to the concentration camps, an experience he has described as a useful life experience. Another long-standing focus of his Open Society interventions is the promotion of the legalization of psychotropic drugs.
In the United States, the longtime guru for “people power” and government overthrow is Gene Sharp, based in Boston. In 1968, he did his Oxford doctoral dissertation, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Then in 1973, he produced a three-volume color-revolution playbook, titled The Politics of Non-Violent Action. His writings, translated into more than 40 languages, provide a boiled-down list of 198 items, which he calls political defiance tactics (PD).
The Sharp tactics range from boycotts to symbolism, including: “Display of symbolic Colors,” “Protest disrobings,” “Symbolic lights,” “Paint as protest,” “Rude gestures,” and so forth.
These color revolution tactics are now in full play in the United States, in the anti-Trump “resistance” movement. Instead of bringing forward policies and furthering debate, agitation networks are pushing street actions, slogans (“Stand Up,” “Not My President,” “Shame”), and violence.
On Jan. 30, the recently announced group “Indivisible” released a 25-page “Practical Guide” on how to conduct mass protest, i.e., applied political defiance. While the Indivisibles deny receiving Soros money directly, some of its founders have been directly on the Soros payroll. For example, top leader Angel Padilla, an analyst with the National Immigration Law Center, is financed by the Open Society Foundations. Indivisible has links with the Soros-funded MoveOn.org and the Working Families Party, all three of which held their first nationwide conference call for activists on Jan. 22. The theme is to “resist,” not to have a policy mission.
Obama himself, incredibly, is bombarding Americans with robocalls attacking President Trump, and encouraging protests and demonstrations against the President; Obama’s “Organizing for Action” national network is organizing those demonstrations and disruptions of Congressional town hall meetings. This is Obama’s personal support and funds network, working to bring down the President of the United States, to return to Obama’s perpetual war policy and military confrontation with Russia.
Who benefits? Those who are desperate to prevent the United States from linking up with the drive for world development underway in the global “New Silk Road” led by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and to end the military confrontation with Russia in favor of cooperation in development and in defeating terrorism. President Trump has shown inclinations to link up, which is anathema to the dying British system of monetarism and geopolitics. So the full color revolution apparatus is now deployed against the United States, from within.
It is time to understand the truth of the color revolution warfare deployed against Ukraine, and Russia, three years ago, and how the same networks are now committing warfare against Americans at home. We can stop this, and make way for a future for all nations.
New Frame-up Attempt Against Vitrenko in Ukraine
Feb. 10—Ukrainian economist and former MP, Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, appealed today to the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, to take action against the “defamation, intimidation, persecution, and discrediting”, to which Vitrenko and her political party are being subjected in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In a video posted Feb. 8, titled “Ukrainian Terror instead of European Democracy,” Vitrenko presented the latest evidence that the Ukraine Security Service (SBU) is attempting to silence her through a politically motivated frame-up on criminal charges of separatism. Ukrainian law defines as a crime “infringement of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” The law was instituted after the U.S.-backed coup that overthrew Ukraine’s elected President Victor Yanukovych, the third anniversary of which comes on Feb. 22.
|View full size
On Oct. 28, 2016, the offices of Vitrenko’s Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (PSPU) were raided and occupied by paramilitary forces, acting in a real estate dispute involving the building’s landlord. The contents of the office property of the PSPU, its newspaper, associated organizations, and individual members were carted off and sequestered by the SBU. In November, Vitrenko had warned that the SBU could be combing through the confiscated computer files for evidence to use in reviving a 2014 criminal investigation of the Gift of Life women’s NGO, and Vitrenko personally as its head, on false charges of “infringing the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” This is Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which carries a penalty of 10 years in prison.
Dr. Vitrenko was interrogated by the SBU twice in 2014, regarding their charges that the Gift of Life organization had received Russian funds for the purpose of engaging in what some media maliciously depicted as “propaganda work to discredit the Ukrainian government authorities, provoke armed conflict between different layers of the population of Ukraine, incite ethnic hatred, and provide informational support for conducting ’referenda’ in Ukraine’s eastern regions.” In April 2015, after Vitrenko had strongly refuted the charges during her interrogation, and the investigation had languished for a year, the Glavcom news agency (glavcom.ua) fanned its flames again, with several articles citing SBU “suspicions” about Vitrenko’s receiving money from the Russian Foreign Ministry-run Fund for the Support and Defense of the Rights of Compatriots Residing Abroad. The allegations date to May 2014, when the bank accounts of Gift of Life were frozen. According to Ukrainian media, this was done “in the framework of an SBU investigation of funds transfers through Ukrinbank, intended for persons suspected of infringement of the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine.” A flood of media reports named Vitrenko as a major sponsor of separatists and terrorists, which are broad categories used by the current Ukrainian authorities against their political opponents.
The PSPU said in a statement on April 8, 2015:
It is no accident, that this falsehood has been disseminated. The regime brought to power by the Euromaidan is discrediting itself through economic collapse, social genocide, corruption, and its inability to establish peace and preserve the territorial integrity of the country or realize the promised European values. Natalia Vitrenko offered facts to prove that the ’suspicions’ are invalid and the statements false. But efforts to defame her and shape a negative view of her on the part of the public are continuing, through the media.
Once again at the end of 2016, it appears that the SBU did not find what it wanted in the material seized during the raid on PSPU headquarters. Instead, on Feb. 4, Vitrenko learned through an article in Glavcom with the incendiary headline “Court seizes property of organization headed by Vitrenko: infringement of the territorial integrity of Ukraine suspected,” that the SBU is plunging ahead with its case, based on entirely fake evidence. The article claimed that on Jan. 23, a Kiev court, having reviewed a motion filed by an SBU investigator, had ordered the seizure of property belonging to Gift of Life. The court order, however, listed property confiscated at a different location in Kiev, and to which the Gift of Life organization had no connection whatsoever: tents, sleeping bags, bottles (“Are they trying to make it sound like a Molotov cocktail factory?” Vitrenko asks in her new video), and boxes of dried pasta.
Pointing out that the Ukrainian Constitution guarantees citizens protection against false accusations, Vitrenko, in the video, details what the human rights defense activity of Gift of Life (founded in 2000) actually was in 2012-14, at which point it had to cease operations because the SBU caused its accounts to be frozen. She wages a polemic in the video, that if her economic program had been adopted by Ukraine in the mid-1990s, when as a member of Parliament, she issued it in opposition to International Monetary Fund-prescribed deregulation and privatization, Ukraine would have been a thriving nation today; there would have been no economic hardship, such as made people fall for the “better life in Europe” slogans of the coup organizers, and thus there would have been no coup, no loss of Crimea, and no uprising in the Donbass leading to the deaths of 10,000 people.
Far from “infringing” anything, Vitrenko states that her program would have protected Ukraine and guaranteed its future prosperity in cooperation with Eurasian development overall.
Vitrenko has demanded a retraction of the Feb. 4 article on the Glavcom website. The text of her appeal to Mogherini follows.
PSPU Appeal: Stop the Defamation of a Ukrainian Opposition Party!
The letter below was sent on Feb. 10, 2017, to the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini. Its full title is, “Appeal of the PSPU Central Committee: Help stop the defamation of a Ukrainian opposition party and its leader Natalia Vitrenko!” Copies were directed to the Kiev Embassies of Belarus, China, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the U.S.A., as well as to Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, the heads of his Ministry of Internal Affairs, Security Service, and Prosecutor General’s Office, and the Ukrainian Parliament’s Human Rights Ombudsman.
The CC PSPU appeals to you to act for the cessation of the political defamation of an opposition party, the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, and its leader, Doctor of Economics, Peoples Deputy of Ukraine in the 2nd and 3rd Convocations, and first female Presidential candidate in the history of Ukraine, Natalia Vitrenko. Despite the fact that Ukraine has signed and ratified an Association Agreement with the European Union and has assumed the obligation to ensure implementation of the norms and principles of European democracy (freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of political activity, political pluralism, the right to a fair trial, the supremacy of law, the right to respect for one’s private life, the right to peacefully possess property, and the presumption of innocence), a policy of defamation, intimidation, persecution, and discreditation is being carried out against our Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, an opposition party. Its result is to hinder the political activity of our party. We offer several examples by way of demonstration:
1. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine has twice refused to register the decisions of the XXIX (8 Sept. 2015) and XXX (25 June 2016) Congresses of the PSPU on amending the Program and Charter of the PSPU in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On the condemnation of communist and national-socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes in Ukraine and the prohibition of propaganda of their symbols.” The Ministry confronts the PSPU with unfounded claims, demonstratively refusing to work constructively on preparing the Congress documents.
2. The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, ignoring the PSPU’s appeal, refuses to enter amendments to the composition of the party’s governing bodies as listed in the Register of Public Associations, which directly affects the legitimacy of the activity of the Central Committee of the PSPU, essentially blocking the activity of the party under its Charter.
3. Law enforcement agencies of Ukraine have conducted no investigation and have charged nobody in:
• The beating, by Nazis from the Azov Battalion, of participants in a peaceful demonstration organized by the PSPU on 17 March 2016 in Kyiv;
• The forcible interference by neo-Nazis in the conduct of a legal peaceful demonstration by the PSPU on 9 May 2016 in Kyiv and the destruction of the PSPU’s party symbols.
4. The Security Service, Prosecutor’s Office, Ministry of Internal Affairs and courts of Ukraine, by their decisions, actions, and illegal non-action, allowed citizen A.E. Shatilin and neo-Nazis from the Azov Battalion to seize the premises of the PSPU’s central office on 28 October 2016, which had been rented since 2005 from the legal owner of the premises, the Siver Ukraina company. Tenants, besides the PSPU, also included other legal entities: the editorial offices of the PSPU newspaper Dosvitni Ogni, the all-Ukraine women’s public organization Dar zhizni (Gift of Life), the all-Ukraine public organization (AUPO) Eurasian People’s Union, and the public organization (PO) Assembly of Orthodox Women of Ukraine. In addition to seizure of the premises, also seized were the PSPU’s charter documents, letterhead, party cards, and the seal of the PSPU, party literature, party symbols, the party’s archive of its 20 years of activity, computer and duplicating equipment, personal data of the governing bodies and membership of the party, and personal belongings of PSPU Chairman N. Vitrenko and PSPU Deputy Chairman V. Marchenko.
The day after seizure of the premises, on 29 October 2016 an SBU investigator, in coordination with the prosecutor’s office, without a warrant, without a court ruling in its favor, and without informing the PSPU or the all-Ukraine women’s organization (AUWO) Dar Zhizni, conducted a research, resulting in the confiscation of property of the party and the Editorial Board of the PSPU party newspaper: hard disks with political journalistic information of the newspaper’s Editorial Board, literature, party documents, and personal belongings of Natalia Vitrenko and Vladimir Marchenko. The search and seizure of this property was conducted in the absence of any criminal or administrative claims against the PSPU, but under the framework of a falsely fabricated criminal case, opened back in April 2014 against the AUWO Dar Zhizni, headed by Natalia Vitrenko. This politically motivated, completely unfounded and unproven criminal case had in effect been frozen for two and a half years.
A criminal case was opened on 29 October 2016 in the matter of the seizure of the premises and property of the PSPU and the editorial offices of the party newspaper; on 12 December 2016 the PSPU and the Editorial Board of Dosvitni ogni, the AUWO Dar Zhizni, the AUPO Eurasian People’s Union, and the PO Assembly of Orthodox Women of Ukraine, as well as N. Vitrenko and V. Marchenko personally, were recognized as aggrieved parties.
Nonetheless, neither the investigator in that case, the prosecutor’s office, nor the SBU has taken any action since that time (three and a half months!) in defense of the interests of the PSPU, the Editorial Board of the party newspaper, the public organizations, and the party leadership.
The appeals of PSPU Chairman N. Vitrenko to President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko, Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yu. Lutsenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine V. Hrytsak did not prompt them to defend the rights of the political party, the public organizations, or the journalists.
In effect the PSPU has been deprived of the possibility of defending its rights in court. Even the legal owner of the premises, the Siver Ukraina company, is unable to lodge a complaint against the search and property-seizure actions of the SBU and the prosecutor’s office, because the case has not been transferred from the primary court (the Pechersky District Court of the city of Kyiv) to the Appeals Court of the city of Kyiv for two months, so far.
5. Furthermore, the Security Service of Ukraine and the prosecutor’s office, with the assistance of the investigating judge of the Pechersky District of the city of Kyiv, carried out searches on 18 November 2016 and 20 January 2016, and on 23 January 2017 property was seized by order of the court property of persons unknown and having nothing whatsoever to do with the PSPU, Natalia Vitrenko, or the women’s organization she heads. This search and seizure was done, it bears repeating, under the falsely fabricated criminal case against the all-Ukraine women’s public organization Dar Zhizni, which the Ukrainian government continues to use for purposes of defaming N. Vitrenko, accusing her of infringing the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
6. The Ukrainian media, carrying out political instructions to defame N. Vitrenko and make her a target for terrorists, publish false information on the basis of information from the SBU and the prosecutor’s office, and ascribe non-existent crimes to Natalia Vitrenko.
|Subscribe to EIR Daily Alert Service
The Central Committee of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine is convinced that these actions by the Ukrainian authorities are politically motivated, for the purpose of impeding the activity of this opposition political party and its leader, Doctor of Economics, People’s Deputy of Ukraine in the 2nd and 3rd convocations, and first female Presidential candidate in the history of Ukraine Natalia Mikhailovna Vitrenko. The CC PSPU asks you to consider our Appeal to help the PSPU, the Editorial Board of Dosvitni Ogni newspaper, and the other public organizations named above, to carry out their lawful activity in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which the nation of Ukraine has undertaken the obligation to honor.
On behalf of the CC PSPU,
Chairman of the PSPU, Natalia Vitrenko
—Compiled by EIR staff: Michael Billington, Rachel Douglas, and Marcia Merry Baker
For Further Reference
Schiller Institute Interview with Danish Russia Expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen on the Third Anniversary of the Coup in Ukraine
COPENHAGEN, Feb. 22, 2017 (EIRNS) – As the Danish contribution to the international action day on the third anniversary of the coup in Ukraine, the Schiller Institute conducted an hour-long interview in English with Danish Russia expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen on Ukraine, the Crimea, Russia and the mistakes of the West.
Jens Jørgen Nielsen is an historian and philosopher, with a deep knowledge of Russia and Eastern Europe. He was the Moscow correspondent for the major Copenhagen daily Politiken, the author of many books about Russia and the east, including “Ukraine, in the field of tension,” and a recent book about Putin, a Russian expert who regularly appears in the media, and a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, and a professor/lecturer at a Copenhagen business college.
Here are some of the areas covered in the very polemical interview, which denounced the mistakes and geopolitical intentions of the West: The interview started out describing the events in Ukraine, not as a democratic change, but an illegitimate coup led by pro-Nazi elements as part of the geopolitical attempt to keep Russia and the Asian nations down; the historical background to the Crimea question; that with the sanctions policy, the west is shooting itself in the foot — Russia is not isolated, but working with China, the BRICS, etc. He stated there would have been a danger of nuclear war if Hillary had been elected, and that many Russians now fear that there could be a coup/assassination of Trump because of his willingness to normalize relations with Russia. He described the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and coup in Ukraine, as a lost opportunity to create a security order which should have included Russia.
The interview was conducted by Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark.