Dit is de omschrijving onder de Youtube film:
The main essence of the process which became uncovered in Ukraine, lies not even in confrontation with Russia (which is very important), but in the slow emersion of Nazi’s submarine of 4th Reich supported by applause of United States and Europe.
4th Reich is a Nazi’s concept, firstly declared in 1946 at the Neo-Nazi Internationale at San-Remo, which now takes up the global nature via Ukraine. For the first time ever, the Nazis were used with a blessing from the USA and Europe. There were the same Nazis, which were hidden under the wings of foreign intelligence services since 1945 and which were fostered against the Soviet Union all these years.
At the moment, when bipolar world was destroyed and when madmen were triumphing over the collapse of the Soviet Union, a way to Nazification of Europe was opened. And now we are observing one thing: a union of Nazis and liberals (or extremists a la Islam and liberals), as a new formula used by America everywhere. At that, the Nazis (or bin Laden) form a strike force leading the quasi-liberal masses of people. After that, the masses are washed out and the radicals step forward.
First goes desovietization, then comes dechristianization, and, afterwards, this black hellfire cauldron appears. As an alternative to this, a noble alloy emerging now in Donbass is offered, as well as the things said by His Holiness, our Patriarch Kirill at the opening of Worldwide Russian People’s Council: “How someone’s national consciousness should be torn, in which caverns of thought and spirit should someone’s national consciousness rest, for that he, considering himself the bearer of Russian national idea, abandons the saints and heroes of the native history, the endeavors of the ancestors, and makes the Nazis and their minions idols for himself”. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/336...
Which caverns of filth have germinated this Nazi identity? Who grew it up, apart from Ukrainians themselves?
Na Neonazis & Euromaidan - From Democracy to Dictatorship nu nog een gratis te downloaden boek in Pdf-formaat over Oekraïne: "Ukraine after Maidan - Democracy under fire". Wederom een Engelse tekst, maar dat mag de pret niet drukken. Hieronder de tekst zoals deze op de website te vinden is:
The book "Ukraine after Euromaidan: Democracy under fire" which is devoted to the 2014 coup in Ukraine and the chain of events that followed, including the war in the East Ukraine and establishing of the People's Republics in Donetsk and Lugansk regions, is available for free download in PDF (1.3 MB).
The events of the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 brought not only changes of the political landscape of the country but also transformation of Ukraine's very map. Thus, the Republiс of Crimea returned to Russia, and in the East of the country two new republics have been formed: Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People's Republic (LPR), which historically were part of Novorossiya.
On November 2, 2014, local and state elections were conducted in DPR and LPR. The environment during elections was highly complicated by constant shelling, humanitarian crisis, shortage of qualified personnel. Despite all those facts, elections were initially designed to be as democratic and transparent as possible in the given circumstances.
There was heightened attention to the election campaigns in DPR and LPR by local, Russian and West European media. On the election day, in DPR alone there were 320 accredited journalists including those from the West Europe and USA. There were weekly news press-conferences conducted by local deputies, briefings for all participants and candidates in election process, and road trips of candidates to regions.
Percent of election participation was maximum possible in a war situaton. In both DPR and LPR there were queues of thousands of voters to election centres. Eventually, there were more than a million people who voted in DPR, and more than 700 000 those in LPR.
Authors:
Alexander Bedritskiy - political scientist, PhD, CEO of CIS-EMO (2013-2014), participant in 20 OSCE ODIHR election observation missions, author and co-author of monographs and articles.
Alexey Kochetkov - political scientist, journalist, CEO of CIS-EMO (2003-2013), president of the Public Diplomacy Foundation, international elections expert, author of methodologies for electoral processes monitoring, author of books on Ukrainian and CIS countries politics.
Stanislav Byshok - psychologist, political analyst of CIS-EMO, expert on political extremism, author and co-author of books and independent reports on the contemporary Russian and Ukrainian politics.
De online wereld vind ik echt geweldig! Ik lees wat ik wil, luister wat ik wil en bekijk wat ik wil. Radio en tv zijn voor mij alles behalve een gewoonte, louter een specifiek uitgezocht moment. En dan kijk of luister ik vaak ook nog een uitzending terug, in plaats van tijdens de reguliere programmering. Hiermee hou ik de teugels in eigen hand voor wat me bereikt en wanneer dat gebeurt.
Het leuke van een online blog hebben, of zelfs rond hangen op blogs en fora, is dat anderen soms met links en bronnen komen (uiteraard in je eigen interessegebied) die je op eigen houtje niet was tegen gekomen. Zo postte ik gisteren een jorte blog over Angela Merkel en de Azov fascisten, een extreemrechtse militante groepering in Oekraïne. Een bezoeker van dit blog reageerde met een link naar een PDF. En jawel, dat is precies zo'n moment waar ik op doel. Dit had ik mogelijk nooit zelf gevonden, maar is zeker de moeite waard om met de wereld te delen. Dus bedankt "Oligarch"!
Het is een Engelstalig boek, gratis te downloaden, over de ontwikkeling van nationalistische groepen in Oekraïne, vanaf 1991 tot aan het heden. Gezien de invloed van dergelijke groeperingen in het huidige Oekraïne, naar mijn mening een document wat niet mag ontbreken op je tablet, of zoals bij mij, uitgeprint in de kast. Mocht je hiervoor het geld hebben, dan is het natuurlijk super wanneer je een hardcopy bestelt via Amazon. Maar je kunt dus ook op de onderstaande link klikken om het gratis te downloaden.
Authors: psychologist, political analyst of International Organization for election observation CIS-EMO Stanislav Byshok and political scientist, president of the Public Diplomacy Foundations Alexey Kochetkov.
"We are often asked why the subtitle of the book is "From Democracy to Dictatorship", and do we think that the former regime of President Viktor Yanukovych was democratic. But it's not about that. We tell how popular protest initially under democratic slogans was brought under control and completely monopolized by neo-Nazis, who alone benefited from Maidana wins. This book is an attempt to see how the Ukrainian nationalism rather than unite the nation, as they say themselves his followers, its shared and thrown into chaos "- said Alexei Kochetkov.
The book contains many quotations of those people today who came to power in Ukraine or their ideological predecessors, here represented translations of large fragments of their programs to handle large amounts of information of the main resources of their activities.
The book describes the development of the Ukrainian radical nationalist groups from 1991 to the present, including the "Right sector" and Svoboda ("Freedom") party (up to 2004 - the Social-National Party of Ukraine), discusses their ideology, psychology and methods of political struggle.
Any revolution as a positive program uses the dominant ideas in society. In the Russian Empire in 1917, the trend was radical leftist ideology. In the Arab countries during the "Arab Spring" in 2010 - radical Islamism. In Ukraine in 2013-2014, the trend has become so radical nationalism that has absorbed pro-democracy and pro-European originally agenda.
Stanislav Byshok, a psychologist, a political analyst CIS-EMO: "Until recently, people in Russia always talked about Ukraine as a "brotherly country". And they absolutely did not know what really happened there since independence. When struck "Euromaidan", a lot of russians was surprised. Whence in Ukraine took Bandera followers? But there they feel fine from 1991. They promoted their ideas through the education system, won the election, conducted military camp and preparing for war with the "Muscovites".
Alexey Kochetkov, political scientist, president of Public Diplomacy Foundation: At the parliamentary elections two years ago nationalist party "Svoboda", openly calling itself "Bandera followers", won 10.5% of the vote, and to vote at foreign sites won the elections, beating even the ruling "Party of Regions". When we talked about the fact that this trend that few people paid attention in the short term lead to a split of the country and the civil war, people laughed at us. This book - an attempt to see how the Ukrainian nationalism rather than unite the nation, as they say themselves his followers, its shared and thrown into chaos.
This is the third English edition of this book.
Gisteren scheef ik een blog waarin ik fel uithaalde naar de media in Nederland en hun berichtgeving omtrent MH17. De rol van RTL Nieuws werd in het kader van professor George Maat extra belicht en adjunct-directeur Pieter Klein werd specifiek genoemd. Waar het zoals gewoonlijk vanuit alle hoeken en gaten qua media en politiek stil bleef, was de Heer Klein zo sportief om uiteindelijk inhoudelijk te reageren. Er kwamen andere Twitteraars bij, en dit gesprek is hier terug te vinden.
Gezien het eigenlijk een reactie op zijn antwoorden is, en geen regulier blog, heb ik besloten om "tijd te besparen" en echte opmaak en plaatjes achterwege te laten. Het gaat om inhoud, dus veel tekst is het gevolg. :-)
Geachte Pieter Klein,
"Dank" voor uw reactie. ;-) Wellicht een flauwe en cynische start, maar mijn dank is wel oprecht.
Het eerste wat me echt tegen de borst stoot is dat het überhaupt als nieuws wordt beschouwd. Je kunt van te voren bedenken dat dit consequenties heeft. Om de politiek hiervan de schuld te geven vind ik voorbij gaan aan de eigen rol. Dat jullie "de tijd" hebben genomen pleit jullie nog niet vrij. Het had namelijk makkelijk heel anders gekund. Dit issue had achter de schermen met de betreffende professor, die uitstekend werk heeft verricht, afgehandeld kunnen worden. Dan had de man zijn presentatie aan kunnen passen, zich beter op zijn publiek kunnen voorbereiden of what ever. Resultaat:
- Dan waren er geen geschokte familieleden geweest, want dat had van tevoren prima ingeschat kunnen worden als gevolg.
- Dan was er geen geruïneerde carrière geweest van een gewaardeerde professor.
- Dan was er geen onrust binnen het team ontstaan wat belangrijk onderzoek verricht.
- Dan was er geen landelijke onrust ontstaan, wat zelfs als een olievlek op de digitale wereld werkte.
Nu is er willens en wetens een man aan de publieke schandpaal genageld. Hadden jullie dat niet van te voren kunnen voorzien? Natuurlijk wel, het was een regelrechte aanval op zijn persoon!
Natuurlijk was er dan geen nieuws of scoop geweest, maar dat lijkt het mij meer dan waard.
Ook de vergelijking met Timmermans is iets wat achteraf gedaan had kunnen, wellicht moeten, gebeuren door jullie. Waarom niet? Dat is toch het duiden van het nieuws? Ook een rol van de media...
Ook de timing, sorry, maar zeker in combinatie met de stilte voor- en achteraf over het debat, daar kan ik geen respect voor opbrengen. Hadden jullie hier inhoudelijk deugdelijk verslag over gedaan, dan had ik mogelijk mijn hele blog niet geschreven...
Maar nogmaals, het gaat vaak om wat er NIET geschreven wordt.
Ik haalde reeds 3 punten aan op Twitter, en ik had nog verder kunnen gaan. Maar het Antonov verhaal is daarvan rechtstreeks met MH17 en afgelopen week verbonden. Verbonden met Oekraïne. Daar schreef ik al eerder het onderstaande over. Het Antonov verhaal was een onderdeel van dit blog, maar ook de "onacceptabele U-turn" is iets wat massaal onbesproken bleef en blijft in de Nederlandse media. Ik vind dat echt absurd. Maar laat ik me in het kader van afgelopen debat in de Kamer beperken tot het Antonov gedeelte. http://degrijzeduif.blogspot.nl/2015/04/de-antonov-leugen-in-de-serie.html
De Antonov-leugen Op 14 juli werd er in het conflict gebied een Antonov-26 uit de lucht geschoten en de Russen kregen de schuld. Waarschijnlijk een Buk-raket, of iets soortgelijks, vanuit Rusland de grens over geschoten de Oekraïne in. Dit is de algemene consensus tot op dit moment. Het wordt ook nu, met het bekend worden van de briefing, weer aangehaald.
Toen las ik een NOS artikel over MH17, en las het volgende wat mij bevreemde: "Bovendien wordt het steeds duidelijker dat in de dagen voor de ramp met de MH17 meerdere luchtgevechten plaatsvonden boven Oost-Oekraïne."
Ik dacht WTF!? Een luchtgevecht betekent een gevecht tussen 2 of meer voertuigen in de lucht. Gaan ze me nou vertellen dat de Russen met vliegtuigen de grens met Oekraïne zijn overgestoken, en dat Oekraïne daar geen enkel hard bewijs voor kunnen overleggen? Niet de SBu noch de VS of andere NATO-partners? Een van de grootste hotspots op aarde, maar de intel schiet te kort? Uiterst ongeloofwaardig. De inlichtingen mbt de neergeschoten toestellen bestaan best, maar die ondersteunen de bizarre claim niet. In die tijd werd er van alles gedaan om legitimiteit voor een conflict met Rusland te creëren. De kans om een dergelijk Russisch onacceptabel optreden uit te buiten was met beide handen aangegrepen. Nonsens dus!
Maar ik las verder en viel bijna van mijn stoel: "Half juli volgen nog meer opvallende incidenten. Op 14 juli wordt een Oekraïens transportvliegtuig, een Antonov AN-26, neergehaald. Hoewel men er destijds van uitging dat het vliegtuig was neergeschoten vanaf de grond, zegt president Porosjenko van Oekraïne nu dat het toestel is geraakt door een raket die door een ander vliegtuig is afgeschoten. Porosjenko verklaarde dat begin december bij de postume uitreiking van een militaire orde aan de gesneuvelde piloot van de Antonov. Hij bevestigde het in een brief aan de moeder van de piloot. "
En ik altijd maar denken dat het wapen naar keuze een Buk was...
De door de NOS verstrekt link gaat naar een officiële website van de regering van Oekraïne. Nu zijn de meesten onder ons die taal niet bepaald vaardig. Dus wil ik een beroep doen een Engelse vertaling te consumeren:
"President awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine Oleksandr Petrakivskomu military and posthumously - Sergei and Dmitry Krivonosov Mayborody
Dmitry Mayboroda as commander of the crew of the AN-26 from May to July 2014 completed 35 sorties to transport military weapons, material and technical facilities in the area ATO, carried out the evacuation of the wounded and sick. Major Majboroda died July 14 in Krasnodon district, Luhansk region, when his plane was hit by a missile "air-to-air". He tried to control the last aircraft, allowing other members of the crew to evacuate."
Het staat er echt, een Russisch vliegtuig schoot de piloot met zijn Antonov vanuit de lucht met een raket naar het hiernamaals. Deze twee waarheden kunnen nooit naast elkaar bestaan. Dit betekent dat of het "Buk" of het "air-to-air" verhaal onwaar is. Of beide onwaar, dat kan ook nog. Maar dat Oekraïne bij een van de twee verhalen heeft staan liegen, dat lijkt me bij deze evident.
Tot hier het onderdeel uit mijn blog, wat overigens nog verder gaat.
Is het geen nieuws dat Poroshenko zegt dat het een air-to-air raket was?! Slechts een sub-stukje in een NOS bericht, maar niet opgepakt door welke media of politicus dan ook. Zelfs nadat ik het had doorgestuurd naar politici en media bleef het stil. Nou sorry hoor, maar dit raakt knetterhard aan het debat van afgelopen week! Daarnaast raakt het aan de geloofwaardigheid van de belangrijkste partner in het onderzoek! Zoals ik in het blog zei: "Deze twee waarheden kunnen nooit naast elkaar bestaan. Dit betekent dat of het "Buk" of het "air-to-air" verhaal onwaar is. Of beide onwaar, dat kan ook nog. Maar dat Oekraïne bij een van de twee verhalen heeft staan liegen, dat lijkt me bij deze evident."
Ook de eerder genoemde U-turn rakt aan de geloofwaardigheid van die partner. Sterker nog het raakt ook aan de geloofwaardigheid van ons eigen OM!
Maar blijkbaar vinden alle media in Nederland, en alle politici incluis, het niet waard hierover de burger in te lichten of hierover kritische Kamervragen te stellen. En ja, dan wordt ik emotioneel en pissig! Als dat soort zaken weg worden gelaten in de berichtgeving, wat doet dit dan met de perceptie van de burger op de MH17 zaak, en de situatie in Oekraïne in het algemeen? Die wordt door jullie gekleurd en is daardoor alles behalve objectief. Daar kan ik geen vrede mee hebben, en daar verzet ik me digitaal verbaal hevig tegen ja. Dan komen termen als riooljournalistiek in me op, en dat vind ik dan nog gepast ook. Niet om wat jullie vertellen, maar waarover jullie zwijgen.
En het gaat nog veel verder dan dat...
BUK of ander afweergeschut
Stel dat onomstotelijk vast komt te staan dat het een BUK was die MH17 heeft neergehaald, getoetst door een werkelijk onafhankelijke partij. Wat dan? Dan is de conclusie bij de burger, gevoed door de politici en media, dat het Rusland was. Waarom?
Eén van de belangrijkste vragen in een onderzoek is wie er belang bij had: Cui bono?
Nou sorry hoor, maar als er een partij is die geen enkel belang had bij dit drama dan is het Rusland. Sancties zijn het gevolg en de wereld kijkt Rusland nog niet met de nek aan. Dus de relaties zijn er niet bepaald beter op geworden. Ook in strategische zin zijn ze er niet bepaald iets mee opgeschoten toch? Kunt u mij één punt noemen wat het MH17 debacle in het voordeel van Rusland heeft doen kantelen?
Dan het bewijs, ondanks het vele geschreeuw, van veelal Amerikaanse politici dat is er niet. Als dit er was geweest dan was dit al lang en breed overlegd en hadden we de hele nasleep tot op de dag van vandaag achterwege kunnen laten. Ook de optie "foutje, bedankt" is natuurlijk van de zotte dat dit wordt geopperd. Daar hoef ik hopelijk niet inhoudelijk op in te gaan toch? En dan maakt het nog niet eens uit welke optie je bij het foutje zou willen hanteren. Want zelfs als de separatisten het foutje zouden hebben gemaakt, dan is Rusland als leverancier gewoon schuldig. Maar denk je werkelijk dat het uitermate berekende Rusland een dergelijke fout zou maken? Als Rusland een BUK-systeem naar de Donbass had gestuurd, reken er dan maar op dat ze samen met die 3 gigantische apparaten ook een goed getrainde ploeg hadden meegestuurd.
Begrijp me niet verkeerd, alles kan, dus ik claim hier niet dit 100% uit te willen sluiten, maar ongeloofwaardig is de Rusland optie op z'n minst.
Maar ook nu gaat het er wederom niet om wat er wordt gezegd, al is dit wel erg schadelijk voor de mondiale verhoudingen en dus de vrede, maar gaat het om wat jullie niet vertellen. Ja jullie, de media en de politiek.
AWACS van NATO
Joost Niemöller schreef hierover een uitgebreid stuk, en ik ga ervan uit dat ook op jullie redactie zijn berichten worden gelezen. Zo niet, dan zou er sprake zijn van uitermate grote incompetentie, en daar geloof ik niet in. Maar om een lang verhaal kort te maken zijn conclusie:
"En de radar van het Oekraïense luchtafweersysteem stond aan toen MH17 overvloog. Zegt de NAVO zelf. "
Waarom wordt hier niet MINSTENS evenveel aandacht aan besteed als aan de Rusland-optie?
Als de politiek het niet doet dan is het de taak van de media dit te blijven aankaarten. Waarom wordt dit met rust gelaten?
Oekraïense BUK systemen
Ik kan allerlei bronnen aanhalen om te onderbouwen dat Oekraïne actieve BUK-systemen in de regio had staan. Waarom in vredesnaam?! Dit zijn systemen bedoeld om vliegtuigen mee uit de lucht te schieten. Maar de separatisten hadden en hebben geheel geen luchtvloot! Niet 1 vliegtuig!
Waarom dan dit dure en uiterst gevaarlijke wapentuig in die regio plaatsen? Ze hebben geen enkele functie voor het leger van Oekraïne. Het enige wat kon gebeuren is dat de Separatisten ze buit zouden maken en ze vervolgens in zouden zetten tegen het Oekraïense leger! Strategisch een absurde zet natuurlijk.
Om aan te geven dat er werkelijk actieve BUK-systemen in de regio actief waren een filmpje van de dag ervoor waar ze over de ATO-zone vliegen, en op 4:48 minuten staat het apparaat draaiend en wel in de wei. Waarom?
Dit onderdeel is een vraag die ik ook bij Pieter Omtzigt heb neergelegd, maar ook hij zwijgt als het graf. Dus ondanks zijn Kamervragen rijdt ook hij voor mij een scheve schaats!
Dit zijn (wederom slechts) 2 elementen waarover de media, RTL incluis, zwijgt. Waarom? Is het niet logisch om simpelweg ALLE opties op tafel te hebben en te houden? Is dit geen essentiële informatie om met de burger te delen? Ik kan die stilte hieromtrent niet bevatten en sterker nog, ik vind het schandalig!
Schandalig
Dit noem ik zo omdat er hier meer op het spel staat dan erachter komen wie MH17 uit de lucht schoot. Er wordt hier een geo-politiek steekspel gespeeld wat geduid kan worden als een war-by-proxy. Een term vast bekend bij u. Een strijd waarbij ik niet anders dan kan concluderen dat de NATO, met de VS voorop, steeds duidelijker de agressor blijkt. En laat ik terug vallen op mijn 2 eerdere tweets aan u, waarin ik dit aan stip.
Operation Fearless Guardian
De VS roept al geruime tijd, en aan de lopende band, dat Rusland met wapens en soldaten de grens met Oekraïne binnenvalt. Nooit, nee niet 1x is hiervoor tastbaar bewijs geleverd. De Amerikaanse afgevaardigde, Geoffrey Pyatt, wist het op Twitter zelfs zo bont te maken dat hij dit van de week weer deed, "onderbouwd" met een foto van een show in freaking Moskou! http://rt.com/news/252545-ukraine-fake-russian-missiles-pyatt/
En ja NATUURLIJK pak ik hier RT(u weet wel, dat propaganda kanaal) als bron, maar check het maar op Twitter...
En wat zijn nu feiten die wel gestaafd kunnen worden? Dat is dat de VS sinds deze week "Boots on the ground" in Oekraïne heeft en wapens meenam, en deze na de maanden lange "training" zal achter laten! Maar ze zijn er om het Oekraïense leger te "trainen", terwijl ze niet eens kunnen garanderen dat ze die training niet zullen geven aan de doorgeslagen rechtsextremistische elementen!
Ik zou uw tip aan mij aan uzelf eens aan willen raden: Google mar eens "Operation Fearless Guardian".
Daar hoor ik HE-LE-MAAL niets over in de Nederlandse media, en de politici spreken hier geen schande van. Waarom niet? Dit is een pure daad vol agressie bedoeld om Rusland nog verder in het nauw te drijven. Was de stap voor stap inlijving van de Oost-Europese landen de afgelopen 20 jaar niet voldoende? De afspraak was toch om dit NIET te doen?
Maidan snipers Ook hierover schreef ik een blog en deelde dat met media en politici. In het kort komt het neer op het volgende, zoals u vast zult, of moet weten:
De democratisch gekozen president van Oekraïne werd afgezet door een regelrechte coup d'eta, actief gesteund door ons, het Westen. Een niet onbelangrijk onderdeel hiervan waren de protesten op de Maidan. Steeds weer wordt bevestigd dat de Snipers die zo'n 20 mensen afknalden NIET vanuit de toenmalige president waren gestuurd, maar dat het te maken had met de oppositie, het regime wat nu in Kiev zit. En wanneer het Poolse Europees parlementslid en presidentskandidaat Janusz Korwin-Mikke onomwonden stelt dat de snipers ook training hebben gehad in Polen (lees: NATO,) dan is dat voor de media blijkbaar weer geen nieuws!
En zo kan ik nog wel even doorgaan, zelfs als ik het alleen maar bij het conflict in Oekraïne hou. Het strategisch geo-politiek belang van dit land of deze regio zou ik met alle liefde en plezier uitleggen, maar het is al laat, en mijn verhaal lijkt me toch wel duidelijk zo, niet?
Zo niet, dan raad ik u het boek "The grand chessboard" van Zbigniew Brzezinksi aan.
"Sea Breeze 2014"
Militaire oefeningen volgen elkaar aan de lopende band op. Maar heeft u "Sea Breeze 2014" al eens in combinatie met MH17 door Google gehaald? Er is speculatie dat deze oefening werd afgerond op 17 juli, de fatale dag voor MH17. Er zijn echter ook berichten dat de 10-daagse oefening officieel liep van 04-14 juli. Wayne Madsen schreef hierover een uitgebreid artikel. Ondanks de tegenstrijdige berichtgeving over de data, bleef Madsen ook via mail stellig beweren dat MH17 waargenomen had moeten zijn. Hij had daarvoor verschillende redenen, wat allemaal niet eens onaannemelijk klonk. Maar zekerheid heb ik niet. Voor het punt wat ik wil maken is het echter irrelevant. In zijn artikel stelt hij: "The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved «commercial traffic monitoring». Because of the sophistication of the electronic warfare and intelligence used during SEA BREEZE, it can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17."
Als Madsen er naast zit qua data, dan betekent dit dat 14 juli de laatste dag was. En dat is de dag dat de Antonov uit de lucht werd geschoten. Weet u nog, volgens Poroshenko middels een Russisch vliegtuig met air-to-air raket? Zou Sea Breeze de Antonov op 6200 meter hebben waargenomen? Niemand die dit heeft opgepikt, wellicht iets voor Pieter Omtzigt? ;-) Maar het feit dat een dergelijke oefening volledig aan de Nederlandse pers voorbij gaat vind ik opmerkelijk, op z'n mist. En dat ook hier geen definitieve intel over bestaat is simpelweg onbestaanbaar.
Stilte, stilte en nog eens stilte
Om niet ieder onderwerp helemaal uit te diepen of zelfs maar met een alinea of twee te omschrijven noem ik vervolgens 3 elementen die verbonden zijn met Oekraïne, mogelijk zelfs MH17. Stilte in de Nederlandse pers is wat dit drietal ten deel viel. Waarom?
- Hunter Biden, zoon van Vice President Joe Biden
- Royal Dutch Shell
- Ihor Kolomoisky
Waarom moet ik mijn informatie hieromtrent in de krochten van het internet zoeken? Spelen zij geen rol de ontwikkelingen van Oekraïne? Of zelfs MH17?
Kolomoisky bijvoorbeeld is een rijke Oekraiens-Israëlische oligarch met een eigen privé leger, mogelijk zelfs met BUK-systemen, die de terroristische aanslag op MH17 ondanks de slachtoffers een "kleinigheidje" noemde. Ik denk dat de overgrote meerderheid van Nederland nog nooit van de man heeft gehoord. Waarom niet?
Selectieve verslaggeving
Ik beperk me nu steeds tot MH17 en Oekraïne omdat dit in dit kader relevant is. Maar de problematiek van zwijgen over zaken gaat veeeel dieper dan dat. Laat ik een paar eenvoudige voorbeelden aanhalen:
- Waarom is er heisa alom wanneer er redactieleden van Charly Hebdo door moslims worden afgeknald, maar blijft het ijzig stil wanneer er doelbewust een dozijn voetballende Palestijnse kinderen door Israel op het strand wordt afgeknald?
- Waarom wordt op doden door terrorisme zoveel nadruk gelegd maar blijft het wederom ijzig stil omtrent de onschuldige slachtoffers die vallen in de strijd tegen het terrorisme, bijvoorbeeld door het absurd aantal Drone aanvallen die door de VS worden uitgevoerd? Een beleid waarin Duitsland een cruciale rol speelt, maar waarover we hier niets vernemen?
Waarom?
- En om weer terug te keren naar Oekraïne:
Waarom wordt er moord en brand geschreeuwd in de internationale pers wanneer er een politiek dissident in Rusland wordt omgelegd, maar blijft het ijzig stil, of wordt er bijzonder subjectief verslagen, wanneer er een dozijn politici en journalisten in Oekraïne het leven laat? Waarom worden zij afgeschilderd als "pro-Rusland" en niet als "anti-Kiev", wat ze nog veel meer zijn?
Alternatieve bronnen
Waarom wordt er steeds weer terug gevallen op overheidsbronnen om een verslag te maken? Bronnen die in het verleden aan de lopende band hebben gelogen, en wat morbide oorlogen tot gevolg had? Ik denk hierbij bijvoorbeeld aan de speech van Colin Powell bij de VN, of het "couveuse toneelstuk. Weet u nog? Waarom moet ik in de krant lezen en op het nieuws horen wat de minister van Buitenlandse zaken van de VS denkt over MH17? En waarom wordt er geen ander geluid toegelaten van mensen "uit het veld" die ook wat zinnigs te zeggen hebben? Om een voorbeeld te noemen: Robert Parry!
Niet de eerste de beste, en voor als u hem niet kent, hij staat vooral bekend voor zijn journalistieke rol bij het openbaren van het Iran-contra schandaal. Waarom horen we zijn geluid niet? Laat ik een citaat van hem gebruiken over MH17, wat hier te vinden is. "U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."
En lees het hele artikel maar, als u dat nog niet heeft gedaan, het ligt allemaal wat genuanceerder, maar zijn stem heb ik in de Nederlandse pers nog niet terug gevonden. Waarom niet?
Hij hield laatst een korte toespraak over journalistiek, met als speciaal onderwerp MH17. Als u deze nog niet heeft gezien, dan raad ik u met klem aan op uw zondag middag hiervoor een kwartiertje vrij te maken. het is een boodschap van journalist tot journalist, en het zou mogelijk uw ogen kunnen openen. Het is een van de beste en zinnigste lezingen die ik in het kader van MH17 heb mogen waarnemen.
"Legendary US Journalist Robert Parry: Media Groupthink on Ukraine is the Most Extreme I've ever seen"
Een complot of complot-theorie?
Mag ik met alles wat ik hier zojuist heb neer getypt, en ik zou zo echt nog uren door kunnen gaan, mogen stellen dat er een onbesproken optie (binnen de Nederlandse media en politiek) bestaat dat het neerhalen van MH17 niets meer of minder was dan een ordinaire "false flag"? Of wordt ik dan direct als een dwaallicht weggezet, zoals Elma Drayer dat van de week met een schndelijke collumn vol drogredenen deed toen Richard Gage zijn 911 verhaal kwam vertellen?
Gezien de berichtgeving aan alle kanten te kort schiet of regelrecht wordt verkracht, en de spanningen tussen de VS en Rusland met de dag verder oplopen denk ik dat een dergelijk incident zo maar op de loer zou kunnen liggen, en wellicht is MH17 daar het mislukte voorbeeld van! De reactie in de EU was anders dan in de VS, en dat was voor de Amerikanen natuurlijk een tegenvaller. Ook gezien de leugens van het regime in Kiev, het gedraai en gelieg van de Nederlandse politici EN het volledig verzaken van de journalistiek in Nederland moeten de Nederlanders er niet van opkijken als het werkelijk zo blijkt te zijn. Mogelijk vliegen we bij een volgend incident alsnog van de huidige koude een warme oorlog in. Wat zou een reden kunnen zijn? Als de eerste lijkenkist gevuld met een Amerikaanse "trainer" terug naar het thuisland wordt gevlogen?
Voor u, en de meelezende mensen, zal ik een deel van een blog wat ik al eerder aan het voorbereiden was hier aan toevoegen. Het is slechts een introductie in het fenomeen, maar het laat zien dat het van alle tijden is. En de basale principes van oorlogsvoering zijn wat dat betreft niet zo veel veranderd. De term "false flag" kan weggezet worden als een mallote theorie van alu-hoedjes en bomenknuffelaars, maar er moet in het kader van Oekraïne en dus ook MH17 simpelweg ernstig rekening mee worden gehouden. Dit ontkennen of zelfs ridiculiseren getuigd slechts van een gebrekkige historische kennis.
Maar ik heb hier nog met geen letter in de media over geschreven zien worden. Waarom niet? Wordt het niet eens tijd om de bullshit van de werkelijkheid te scheiden en de Nederlandse burger voor te bereiden op een reëel fenomeen wat ze binnenkort om de oren kan slaan, als dat met MH17 al niet is gebeurd?
Het feit dat ik dit allemaal zo voor de vuist wegschrijf, en de media heeft verzaakt dit te communiceren, vind ik mij het volledige recht geven om de zaak zoals dat met Professor George Maat is gebeurd weg te zetten als "riooljournalistiek". En dit is niet exclusief voor dit geval, maar dit is grotendeels toepasbaar op de media in het algemeen.
Ik zeg welterusten Pieter Klein!
Sun Tzu - De kunst van het oorlogvoeren.
"Alle oorlogvoering is gebaseerd op misleiding." Deze quote is afkomstig uit het boek "The Art of War", De kunst van het oorlogvoeren. Het is een standaardwerk over de strategie van het oorlogvoeren, geschreven door de Chinese generaal Sunzi (of Sun Tsu) rond 500 voor Christus. Het wordt beschouwd als het oudst bekende boek over oorlog en strategie. In 13 korte hoofdstukken beschrijft de auteur de oorlogvoering op een zodanige manier, dat strategen en generaals het heden ten dage nog steeds gebruiken.
False flag operations - Operaties onder valse vlag
Wikipedia zegt hierover: "Operaties onder valse vlag zijn operaties die dusdanig zijn ontworpen dat het lijkt alsof ze worden uitgevoerd door andere entiteiten."
Mogelijk niet bekend voor veel mensen, maar deze tactiek en soortgelijke misleidingen zijn vaak een startschot geweest voor de talloze oorlogen die onze aardbol heeft gekend.
Operation Norhwoods
Niet alle ideeën voor valse vlag operaties worden werkelijkheid, gelukkig, maar er zijn voldoende voorbeelden uit het verleden waaruit geleerd zou moeten zijn. Zeker door historici en media. Eerder scheef De Grijze Duif al over de absurde plannen van de Amerikanen om in de jaren '60 om door middel van dit soort praktijken een conflict met Cuba te legitimeren, beter bekend onder de naam "Operation Northwoods". Dit plan werd van tafel geveegd, maar genoeg plannen die werkelijkheid werden.
Gladio Operatie Gladio is een in 1952 gestart geheim "stay-behind" netwerk in Italië, gesponsord door de CIA en de NAVO, om de communistische invloed zowel in Italië als in andere landen te neutraliseren. De eerste voorbereidingen werden al in 1947 getroffen. Kort gezegd ontspoorde dit plan waardoor Italiaanse rechtse entiteiten aanslagen pleegde op de bevolking, maar deze in de schoenen schoof van links. De afkeer tegen dit geweld zorgde voor de vraag om nog rechtsere politiek. Dit balletje begon te rollen op 3 augustus 1990 toen de toenmalig premier Giulio Andreotti het bestaan van Gladio voor het eerst toegaf. Hierover is aardig wat gepubliceerd, waarbij ik het boek van Daniele Ganser wil aanraden. "NATO's secret armies - Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe" (ISBN:0-714-68500-3)
Operatie Himmler
Dit was een geheime operatie georganiseerd door de Duitse SS om een Poolse inval op een radiostation op Duits grondgebied te ensceneren, waarmee nazi-Duitsland hun invasie in Polen op 1 september 1939 wilde rechtvaardigen. De operatie werd uitgevoerd op 31 augustus 1939.
Hoe werkte dit startschot voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog in de praktijk?
Undercover Duitse eenheden trokken Poolse uniformen aan. Ze overvielen de Duitse radiopost in Gleiwitz en vermoorden de aanwezigen. Vervolgens stuurden ze een anti-Duitse boodschap de ether in en vernielden de zender. Om het plan nog echter te laten lijken hadden de Duitsers een aantal Polen uit de concentratiekampen meegenomen, hen vermoord, Poolse uniformen aangetrokken en achter gelaten op de grenspost. De volgende dag ging Hitler met dit verhaal aan de haal en de media papegaaide dit eenvoudig massaal na. Polen werd binnen gevallen maar na een paar dagen verklaarden Groot-Brittannië en Frankrijk alsnog de oorlog aan Duitsland. WOII was begonnen...
De metrobom
Ook dichter bij huis kennen we valse vlag operaties. Wellicht heeft dit volgende voorbeeld geen oorlog veroorzaakt op mondiale schaal, maar de ophef in de Nederlandse politiek was er niet minder om. "Andere tijden" maakte hier een uitzending over. Het is online te bekijken, maar niet makkelijk in verband met de gebruikte player. Het geschreven artikel is ook het lezen waard. Andere tijden schrijft hier in de intro over:
"Een aanslag op de Amsterdamse metro op het nippertje verijdeld – geen nieuws van vandaag, maar van februari 1975. Linkse actiegroepen kregen destijds de schuld, maar het plan kwam van rechts. In Andere Tijden de man achter de bom die niet afging maar wel een politieke explosie veroorzaakte."
De lijst gaat nog wel even door, maar ik hoop dat mijn doel duidelijk is: De berichten die ons bereiken via politici en media vormen ons wereldbeeld. Op basis hiervan geven we al dan niet goedkeuring voor acties - politiek, militair, economisch etc. Maar niet alles is wat het lijkt, en om legitimiteit voor een oorlog te krijgen heeft men in het verleden niet geschuwd de bevolking op het verkeerde been te zetten.
Het is dan ook niet voor niets dat De Grijze Duif eerder wees op het Thomas Theorema:
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."
Dat is er eentje om over na te denken. Laat die maar goed in je systeem zakken, want het is waarheid als een koe!
James Corbett heeft een kort filmpje gemaakt waarin diverse voorbeelden van "False flag events" aan de orde komen. Een prima introductie in het fenomeen. Maar dat u verder zelf op zoek gaat, is nodig, want de media zal het u niet tonen.
Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and her husband Robert Kagan are both NeoCons and remained in position when Bush exited the White House.
Obama left people in place any sane man would have removed.
(Of course there is another way of looking at it, and that is that we did not perceive the real Obama, we saw the Obama we wanted to see and Obama is actually just as NeoCon-influenced as George W. Bush EVER was.)
Nuland and Kagan, and separately John McCain were extremely active in Kiev in the lead-up to and long continuation of the Maidan riots. Nuland and Kagan prepared placemen to take over once the presidency/government was toppled.
The US has admitted that $5,000,000,000 dollars was spent by them in Ukraine over the past 20 years... on “improving democracy”. I’m sure I don’t have to relate what was undoubtedly the true purpose of this massive spend.
The Maidan revolution started peacefully enough. In November of 2013 it was pretty much a good-hearted protest about widespread political and business corruption. And there was huge merit in it.
However, there is an element in Ukrainian society that holds true to a heritage in Ukraine stemming from World War Two. There was a widespread collaboration with the Nazi occupiers in Ukraine. Many Ukrainians joined Nazi divisions including SS.
See this article on Wikipedia for in-depth info on this:
As in southern Austria there is a widespread justification cult about how it was really not so bad to be a Nazi and how they actually did a lot of good for Ukraine. No prizes for guessing who joins these groups, attends their marches and so forth: Sons and daughters or grandsons and granddaughters of those who took part in the various atrocities of the Nazis or who worked in the background for them.
In Ukraine it is much, much worse than in Austria. There the cult of sympathising with and even praising the Nazis has reached a sizeable minority in Ukraine and they are accepted and appear to have almost achieved respectability.
If you watched the videos of the Svoboda Party (ex- Social-Nationalist Party) supporters you will see what I mean. They don’t all look like evil, hate-filled Nazi thugs, some are older, looking like everyday folk you might see down at the shops, others are fresh-faced girls and boys who look like your normal everyday teenager.
But they have one thing in common, they are all charged with an intense, fired-up ultra-nationalism that is stated in terms of ultra-violence against Russia and Russians. And there is also a massive hatred toward the people who live in the southeast of Ukraine who they sneeringly call ‘Moskals’. In essence they consider them to be Russians too.
A large number of those with this Nazi-legacy mentality, of Nazi collaboration having helped Ukrainian nationalism, who had had military training in Poland apparently joined the Maidan protest and turned it into an all-out riot.
Around twenty police were clubbed, burned, beaten or shot to death in the course of the riots. Molotov cocktail factories supplied the rioters and these were thrown at lightly armed (they had no guns, only baton) police who in later stages simply formed benumbed lines against these attacks. The rioters used trucks, iron bars and a whole arsenal of potentially lethal weapons, sprays and actual guns such as hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.
It was as bestial an affair as any of us would ever hope NOT to see. These rioters were utterly sadistic in their determination to maim and kill. Ultra-violent thugs to whom human life had lost all meaning and all concepts of human decency had been long scraped from their diseased consciences.
Many of these soulless sadists joined the Ukraine armed forces after the coup and were sent east toward those they hated with a passion, those they called the ‘Moskals’.
So, this is the sinister backdrop to the lethal attacks on the southeast we have seen (or have not seen due to the information blackout on these events by western mass media). These crimes have been supported by the US, the EU and apparently every western press title and mass media outlet from the west coast of America to the west bank of the River Dneiper which runs through the centre of Ukraine.
I’d like to mention the Odessa atrocity where evidence appears to show that two groups of pro-Kiev ultra football fans emerging from a match were deliberately goaded into a frenzy of hate before attacking a large number of pro-Russian protesters (as they are sometimes known, though I prefer pro-Autonomy protesters).
The protesters were forced by the mob into the Trade Union building in Odessa, a huge impressive building with many floors. The ultras (who were composed of Ukrainian nationalists in the main) followed them in clubbing, strangling and undoubtedly shooting them until many of them lay dead.
They then retreated back outside, barriered the doors and set the building alight with molotov cocktails (supplied by a group of around 12 teenage girls who looked like butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths).
Many of those trapped inside tried crawled onto window ledges to escape the flames. They were shot at from below. Some jumped to their deaths. Others jumped and survived only to be clubbed to death by the thugs below. In one image quite young boys, perhaps aged between 12 and 15 can be seen at a window. It is not known to me what became of them. I hope someone took pity on them.
Although the subsequent images of the burned corpses were available on the internet reaction in the western press was subdued. Some source said the protesters had done this to themselves. Others sheltered behind the convenient excuse that it was all too confusing and they couldn’t tell who had done what.
Is there ANY excuse for killing scores of frightened young people, some who were young women and in some reports small children? I do not believe any decent human being would think so.
Returning to the Maidan, the overthrowing of a democratically-elected government (observers called the elections “fair" and pluralistic") would be bad enough but with the west so actively and enthusiastically backing the ultra-violence of the Maidan thugs it gets worse.
The Kiev junta put in place by the US (their placemen as described took over with 4 Svoboda MPs within the subsequent junta) turned to the sadistic young Svoboda supporters and the horrifically violent Right Sector militant group to give them a week’s training or so then set them loose on the people of southeast Ukraine.
For a time their actions included intimidation and blocking roads but then they killed some checkpoint guards and it all began. Soon they were mortar shelling residential areas, hospitals, schools and even an orphanage. Very soon these attacks upon urban areas and civilians became the norm and things became extremely bloody. Not that you would have known if you were relying on western press or media to inform you. They either self-censored on all of this or were ordered by western states not to report on these atrocities by the Ukraine forces.
In Lugansk on June 2nd 2014 there was THE most horrendous attack by at least one fighter jet and an unknown number of helicopters. A strike was made on an office in an upper floor of the administration building there which has been long occupied by pro-Autonomy personnel. Without doubts the civilian administrators in this office were killed instantly.
Down in the street in front of the building there was a simultaneous strafing by what appear to be cluster bomblets. A number of casings from these have been found and the mini-craters can be seen in the videos which exist on YouTube.
Five civilian women were killed in this attack. In a video of the aftermath women in casualwear can be seen, with mutilated legs in one case, others quite clearly dead. One woman still alive but with skin gouged out of her leg.
A scene from World War II could not have looked bloodier. 8 people died in all and many have been injured/mutilated for life. All civilians.
The videos you will find if you look for them on YouTube are among the most graphic you will ever watch. But I suggest you SHOULD watch them.
You will perhaps say that surely the world was shocked and dismayed that such an atrocity could happen, that ANY government could do it in this day and age and that organisations across the western world were outraged and condemned this massacre.
But you would be disappointed. Because there was a perfect silence across the whole western world.
Why?
For the same reason that the Lugansk atrocity has no doubt come as news to YOU. There was in effect an almost 100% news blackout on this right across the western world. The screams of the civilians who suffered incredible agonies while in their death throes were completely silenced
George Orwell’s ‘1984‘ world of two fighting superpowers where all news is manipulated news has come to pass. And where reality or non-reality is at the behest of the governing power. We are no longer living in the world we thought we were. A sinister ability to silence all press and media is now revealed. And in that silence no one can hear their screams except those NEXT to die.
And the future of Ukraine? It is tied in with the future of the virulent and paranoid fear of Russia which drives so much incredible hatred in the souls of some Ukrainians and some westerners, certainly including the so-called leadership of the US and EU.
Russia, China and some other BRICS plus countries in Latin America, Syria, Iran and others are now building the elements of the multipolar world that was lost as the communist (socialist) bloc fell. But not in terms of re-building the USSR. No, Russia will never go back to those conditions which incorporated deep flaws (for all the magnificent ideals and achievements). But the US and EU MUST be faced down and quarantined for they are lethally insane in their ambitions, in a state of near collapse internally with EU-skepticism growing EU is particularly vulnerable. And the US is so deeply sick with innumerable causes that it is only a matter of time before it suffers an internal vortex of collapse, decay and violence.
But the US and EU are even MORE dangerous in these parlous states. Obama in US was seen as an agent of change similar to John F. Kennedy. He has turned out to be nothing of the kind.
We should realise that whoever takes over in 2016 will without doubt be even worse. Best case scenario would be that the administration then would simply carry on as it is now with no worsening of the NeoCon insanity which permeates each level of power in Washington.
The danger which constantly emanates from the US means we MUST use every legal means possible to undermine its ability to continue to interfere across our planet.
Most people have few possibility other than their own boycotts or use of internet to protest. But we CAN speed the economic decline and collapse of the US economy by refusing any and all goods or services with an American origin. It’s not much but it’s something.
Apart from this get onto Twitter and condemn American interference with all your might. And the obnoxious junta in Kiev. And to go on doing so night and day. You will find many friends there who are part of the same dedicated team of pro-Autonomy tweeters. They are a lovely, incredibly idealistic bunch. You’ll LOVE them.
Protest the American state and its ambition to gain world hegemony. Support those who act to remove countries from the EU. The primary goal is to bring the EU to its knees, a result desperately needed as it has become, in effect, America’s lapdog.
So, that’s my penny’sworth on where we are on Ukraine, on the mangy parrot of the EU and the primary driving force of evil in our world, the evil snake that is the U.S. state.
Midden februari van 2014 braken er, na maanden van protest, extra heftige onlusten uit in Kiev, de hoofdstad van Oekraïne. Het land beleefde de bloedigste dagen sinds de opstand tegen president Viktor Janoekovitsj, met vele doden tot gevolg. Een macaber onderdeel in die strijd waren snipers die vanaf de daken op demonstranten en politie schoten. Poroshenko was er als de kippen bij om de schuld (zoals we inmiddels gewend zijn) in de schoenen van de Russen te schuiven. Maar ook Janoekovitj ging niet vrijuit en werd op de "wanted list" gezet voor massamoord op burgers. Hij vluchtte het land uit en de door het westen gesteunde coup d'etat was een feit.
De werkelijke identiteit van de snipers is altijd onderdeel geweest van twist. Waar de huidige regering in Kiev en het westen, met de Verenigde staten voorop, wezen naar Rusland, wezen de pro-Russen en de Russen naar de Maidan activisten zelf. Voor wie verder heeft gekeken dan de anti-Russische propaganda was het al wel duidelijk dat de huidige regering en hun extreemrechtse partners achter dit complot zaten. Dat ook de special forces van de VS betrokken waren bij dit schandalig drama was voor de oplettenden onder ons al wel helder, en past perfect in de Amerikaanse geschiedenis van het omverwerpen van ongewenste regeringen over de hele aardbol.
Voor wie de voorgaande link en deze reeks aan documentaires heeft gezien zal dit alles niet verrassend zijn. Maar ik vraag me werkelijk af wanneer kabinet Rutte 2 nu eindelijk eens ophoudt met deze achterbakse poppenkast en het beleid van de VS en hun vazallen in Kiev te steunen!
Want deze week werd het nog iets bonter: De snipers op de Maidan zijn getraind in Polen.
Het waren geen mannen van Janoekovitsj, en ze zijn niet getraind door Rusland. Het waren onze "eigen" partijen, de NAVO/VS, die hier een geo-politiek steekspel spelen!
Het Poolse Europees parlementslid en presidentskandidaat Janusz Korwin-Mikke wond er geen doekjes om in een interview met de Poolse nieuws website Wirtualna Polska. Het is schrijnend te lezen hoe de Wirtualna Polska Korwin-Mikke beticht van herhaling van Russische propaganda, terwijl het zelf lijkt te zijn verzopen in de Westerse anti-Rusland propaganda. Maar de man maakt rake punten!
De bron met Engelse vertaling van de belangrijkste delen van dit interview staat hier, en is hierna te lezen, met de specifieke claim onderstreept:
"JKM: Poland does not have a conflict of interests with Russia. We have no problems on the Polish-Russian border. Fostering a militaristic state of mind is not useful to us, only to the US. It’s hard to agree with people like Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, since he is crazy, but he is fair to call us as Washington’s stooges.
Wirtualna Polska: But such sentiments are only natural given Russia’s aggressive policies. It’s difficult to ignore Iskander missiles on our borders.
JKM: Just a second! The Iskanders appeared there only recently, after Poland launched a hundred brutal verbal assaults on Russia, and after US armored cavalry paraded on Polish territory. I am a poker player, and in poker one has to think like the opponent. From Russia’s perspective, the situation looks as follows: in the last twenty years NATO had swallowed up the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, and wants to lay its paws on Ukraine. Moreover, they tore Kosovo away from Serbia, attacked Muammar Qaddafi (may he rest in peace), and now are attacking the only defender of Christianity in the Middle East, His Excellency Bashar al-Assad, only because they are Russia’s allies. One can find an internet meme which says “Russians want war. Look how they placed their country close to NATO bases.” So I’m asking, who’s the aggressor?
Wirtualna Polska: The Ukrainians might have a different view on this matter.
JKM: Unfortunately they can thank the Americans for all that. Russia had a fairly friendly president in Ukraine in the person of Mr. Viktor Yanukovych. And Russia had no intention of taking anything away. It was also the ideal situation for us, because it is in Poland’s interest for Ukraine to exist as an independent state, but also a weak one. That’s what Maidan destroyed. US State Department official Victoria Nuland openly admitted that the US spent $5 billion to destabilize the situation in Ukraine. We are dealing with US aggression in Ukraine. Putin is only pulling chestnuts out of the fire.
Wirtualna Polska: But that’s the money that the US had spent since 1991 to democratize Ukraine. They were not spent to organize the Maidan. Do you believe that it was a CIA operation?
JKM: Yes—and it was also our operation. The snipers were also trained in Poland. Even Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung already wrote who was really shooting on the Maidan. The terrorists had shot 40 demonstrators and 20 police officers in order to provoke riots. The truth is finally coming out.
WP: Why would Poland want to train those, as you call them, “terrorists”?
JKM: Let me say this again: we are doing a favor to Washington [J.Hawk note: JKM here is making a play on words, because the word “favor” is only one letter away from “blow-job”, which was the word used, and also with reference to Washington, by the former Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski who complained Poland is not getting sufficient appreciation from the US.]
WP: Fine, but do you have any proof?
JKM: I sit in the EU Parliament next to Mr. Urmas Paetz, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia who acknowledged in a telephone conversation with Baroness Catherine Ashton that it was “our people” who shot on the Maidan, and not Yanukovych’s people, or Putin’s people. Trained by us, in Western countries.
WP: I don’t know what Paetz and Ashton talked about, but Putin certainly said this. You are repeating Russian propaganda theses. It’s difficult to consider as consistent with Poland’s national interest.
JKM: His Excellency Vladimir Putin said it two months after Mr. Paetz. I believe in St. Augustine’s principle, “may the world perish, but justice must be done.” If the Russians, through the mouth of Sergey Lavrov, say that they did not violate the Budapest Memorandum, they are lying like dogs, but when they are right, we have to acknowledge it.
WP: NATO has a defensive doctrine, while Putin is arming on a massive scale, is sending tanks and heavy equipment to Ukraine, and you claim this is not an aggressive policy?
JKM: What NATO? The Americans! War is useful only from the American point of view. There are interest groups in the US which are pushing for armed conflict: defense industry, financiers, some politicians, generals, but also many people (some of whom I know personally) from among the neoconservatives. They are analyzing the situation with cold logic: we have built the mightiest army in the world, but we also have 14 trillion dollars in debt, and we can’t afford further development. China, which supports Russia, will soon overtake us, therefore if we are to preserve our global hegemony, we have to start a war, in a few years at the latest. Ukraine is a very convenient pretext. At present time Poland is in a position to prevent World War III.
WP: In what way?
JKM: By declaring neutrality when it comes to Ukraine. Like Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Belarus, which don’t take part in the anti-Russian frenzy. We might save the world if we deprive the US Army from access to Ukraine.
WP: The Kremlin occupied Crimea, and through the pro-Russian separatists it is lawlessly occupying the Eastern Ukraine, but we are supposed to say that nothing happened?
JKM: The Crimean situation is clear. Russia used the Kosovo precedent. Because why can one tear Kosovo away from Serbia, but can’t tear Crimea away from Ukraine? The Russians warned that whoever recognizes Kosovo’s independence gives assent to similar situations in the future. The Donbass is not as obvious, but here Ukraine made a mistake. It should have given up Crimea and placed its military on the border with Russia. Instead it began to scream, but the effect of screaming was that it lost Crimea regardless, while the inhabitants of the Donbass felt that they might succeed too.
WP: So we should have left Ukraine to its own devices?
JKM: It makes no difference to Poland whether Ukraine has Crimea and Donbass or not. We also have to remember that any help to Ukraine is help to people who, at least in Western Ukraine, hate us. Their heroes are Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych who are responsible for the genocide of Polish civilian population in Podolia, Volhynya, and Eastern Little Poland, where up to 100 thousand were killed. Those are fascists.
WP: Once again you are repeating Russian propaganda.
JKM: You have to admit that the Russians have a point when using the term “fascists” to describe, for example, the Right Sector. His Excellency Vladimir Putin should be thanked for one thing: thanks to his actions, the Ukrainians had begun to hate Russians more than Poles.
<…>
WP: Why do you believe that Putin would be a great president of Poland?
JKM: Because he is strong and decisive. The more unhappy they are with him in Europe, the better president he is from Russia’s point of view. We also need a president whom our neighbors would fear.
<…>
WP: Might Warsaw be hit with nuclear weapons?
JKM: I doubt Putin would use nuclear weapons against a country that does not have them and which does not threaten Russia. There is no such risk, in this matter Putin is entirely rational.
J.Hawk’s Comment: This is part of a longer interview dealing with a whole range of issues—the translation above covers only parts relevant to Russia and Ukraine. I should also note that Janusz Korwin-Mikke was one of the first Polish politicians to openly state that the CIA was operating a torture site on Polish soil, something that the Polish government strenuously denied—until the US itself acknowledged it. Will the “Maidan sniper” story follow a similar path? "
Voor wie het nog niet helemaal duidelijk is (Rutte cs???!!), hier een filmpje waarop overduidelijk wordt dat er van achteren op eigen volk wordt geschoten!
Dit was een afschuwelijke slachtpartij met Maidan provocateurs, een false flag operation pur sang! En wij werken samen met dit stelletje tuig, met hun Amerikaanse "adviseurs"? Met deze hufters moeten wij samenwerken om erachter te komen wie MH17 uit de lucht heeft geschoten? Een partner die aan de lopende band liegt en bedriegt? Offeren we werkelijk bijna 300 slachtoffers op, waaronder bijna 200 landgenoten om een land als Oekraïne bij de NAVO te krijgen?! Om de spanning tussen het westen en Rusland nog verder op te laten lopen?! Zijn ze daar helemaal gek geworden in Den Haag?!
Ik zeg je kunt afstand nemen van dit geteisem en vanaf nu een rechte koers varen! Of anders:
OP-Rutte!!!
Een Canadese studie van Ivan Katchanovski van de Universiteit van Ottawa, maakte al clip en klaar duidelijk wie er achter de sniper aanvallen op de Maidan zaten, en wie niet. Blijkbaar heeft Rutte dit niet gelezen. Vandaar, speciaal voor hem en omdat het zo'n belangrijk document is, hier de gehele Engelstalige tekst. Ik zou zeggen Mark, doe er je voordeel mee!
The Snipers Massacre on the Maidan in Ukraine By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D. School of Political Studies & Department of Communication University of Ottawa Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada ikatchan@uottawa.ca Paper presented at the Chair of Ukrainian Studies Seminar at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, October 1, 2014
The Snipers Massacre Question
The massacre of several dozen Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the escalating conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. The mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the highly corrupt and pro-Russian but democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a large-scale violent conflict that continues now in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments and the media, at least publicly, without concluding an investigation and without all evidence considered.
For instance, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko in his speech to the US Congress on September 18, 2014 again claimed that the Yanukovych government overthrow resulted from mass peaceful protests against police violence, in particular, killings of more than 100 protesters by snipers on February 20, 2014.
The question is which side organized the snipers massacre. This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. Analysis of a large amount of evidence in this study suggests that certain elements of the Maidan opposition, including its extremist far right wing, were involved in this massacre in order to seize power and that the government investigation was falsified for this reason.
Evidence
Evidence used in this study includes publicly available but unreported, suppressed, or misrepresented videos and photos of suspected shooters, live statements by the Maidan announcers, radio intercepts of the Maidan
snipers, and snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), ballistic trajectories, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special unit commanders, public statements by both former and current government officials, bullets and weapons used, types of wounds among both protesters and the police, and the track record of politically motivated misrepresentations by the Maidan politicians of other cases of violence during and after the Euromaidan and historical conflicts. In particular, this study examines about 30 gigabytes of intercepted radio exchanges of the Security Service of Ukraine Alfa unit, Berkut, the Internal Troops, Omega, and other government agencies during the entire Maidan protests. These files were posted by a pro-Maidan Ukrainian radio amateur on a radio scanners forum, but they never were reported by the media or acknowledged by the Ukrainian government.
The timeline of the massacre with precision to minutes and locations of both the shooters and the government snipers was established in this study with great certainty based on the synchronization of the sound on the main Maidan stage, images, and other sources of evidence that independently corroborate each other. The study uses content analysis of all publicly available videos of the massacre, in particular, an unreported, time-stamped version of a previously widely seen, long video of the massacre on Instytutska Street, videos of suspected snipers and reports of snipers in live TV broadcasts and Internet video streams from the Maidan (Independence Square), time-stamped and unedited radio intercepts of SBU Alfa snipers and commanders, and radio intercepts of Internal Troops on the Maidan. The analysis also uses live Internet broadcasts. Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by Espresso TV, Hromadske TV, Spilno TV, Radio Liberty, and Ukrstream TV, were either removed from their websites immediately following the massacre or not made publicly available. These recordings were mostly made by Maidan supporters, but they got very scant attention or removed from public access. Similarly, official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence collected during the investigations concerning this massacre have not been made public, while crucial evidence, including bullets and weapons disappeared under the post-Yanukovych government. This investigation relies on such evidence reported by the media and reliable information in the social media. An on-site research on the site of the massacre on the Maidan itself and on Instytutska Street was also conducted for this study by the author.
An Academic Investigation
A recently released time-stamped version of an over 40-minute-long video, which was filmed at a close distance on Instytutska Street starting at 9:06am, covers, with some unexplained omissions, the most intense parts of the killings. It confirms that the mass killing of Maidan protesters on February 20 began on the adjacent Instytutska Street around that time. The Berkut anti-riot police and Internal Troops units, which were besieging, storming, and blocking the Maidan for almost three months, hastily abandoned their positions and fled by 9:00am, while protesters then started to advance from their stronghold on the Maidan up Instytutska Street.
This and other videos show members of the special elite unit of the Berkut anti-riot police and “Omega” Internal Troops special unit, including two snipers, temporarily halting the advance of protesters near Zhovtnevyi Palace starting at 9:05am, shooting with both live ammunition from the Kalashnikov assault rifles (AKMS) and rubber bullets, and pointing sniper rifles in the direction of the protesters and then retreating along with Berkut and Internal Troops units, who were resting in Zhovtnevyi Palace. After retreating to these barricades under fire, respectively, at 9:20am and 9:28am, Berkut and Omega were doing the same from two barricades on Instytutska Street and nearby buildings of the National Bank and the Club of the Cabinet of Ministers. Directions of many bullet holes and their impact marks in the electric poles, trees, and walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace and the Hotel Ukraina also indicate that the police fired at the direction of the protesters and the protester-held buildings. SBU snipers were located in the Cabinet of Ministers, the Presidential Administration, and neighboring buildings.
The new Ukrainian government and the head of the parliamentary commission publicly stated that “snipers,” who massacred the unarmed protesters, were from these units. Specifically, the Prosecutor General Office announced on September 12, 2014 that its investigation found a Berkut commander and two members of his unit responsible for killing 39 Euromaidan protesters, or the absolute majority of some 50 protesters killed or mortally wounded on February 20, 2014. But this Berkut commander was then put under house arrest, and he disappeared. In contrast, the government deliberately denies or ignores evidence of shooters and spotters in at least 12 buildings occupied by the Maidan side or located within the general territory held by them during the massacre. This includes the Hotel Ukraina, Zhovtnevyi Palace, buildings on both sides that were not previously identified as locations of snipers, and several buildings on the Maidan (Independence Square), such as the Conservatory, the Trade Union headquarters, and the Main Post Office. (See Map 1).
The Hotel Ukraina was controlled by the Maidan side since about 9:00am. During a volley of fire by the government forces near Zhovtnevyi Palace at 9:10-9:11am, and within a few minutes of calling for ambulances and medics, an announcer on the Maidan stage publicly warned the protesters about two to three snipers on the pendulum (second from the top) floor of the Hotel Ukraina on the opposite side of the street. The first wave of casualties among the protesters included Bohdan Solchanyk, a history instructor at the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv. He was killed by a 7.62mm bullet in the area between the hotel and Zhovtnevyi at 9:12am or within a couple minutes earlier. Videos indicate that one of the two protesters shot there at 9:14am appears to had been wounded in his backside from a direction of the hotel.
A Radio Liberty video shows at least one protester shot near the Maidan side of Zhovtnevyi Palace at 9:10am and two other protesters on the ground near the middle section of this building at 9:19am. The first location matches a reported place of killings of Vasyl Moisei from the Volhynian company of the Maidan Self-Defense and an elderly protester, likely, Iosyp Shilling. The government investigation, the media, and the Volhynian company commanders concluded that the Berkut shot dead these protesters during its counterattack. However, they omitted bullet impact traces in trees, poles, and Zhovtnevyi Palace facade within meters of these spots of the killings. Similarly, they omitted reports by the Maidan protesters witnesses concerning shooters in the Hotel Ukraina within minutes of these killings. In addition to the Maidan stage warning about “snipers” in the Hotel Ukraina at 9:11am, a video shows protesters taking cover under a pedestrian bridge on Instytutska Street between the hotel and Zhovtnevyi Palace and pointing out at 9:23am live ammunition fire at them and other protesters from a top floor of the hotel.
A BelSat video from the Hotel Ukraina depicts a bullet hitting a tree in front of a group of protesters from the direction of the hotel at 9:38am. A BBC video shows a sniper firing at the BBC television crew and the Maidan protesters from an open window on the pendulum floor of the hotel at 10:17am, and the BBC correspondent identifies the shooter as having a green helmet worn by the Maidan protesters. Two protesters at 10:24am point out sniper fire from the pendulum floor of the Hotel Ukraina in another video filmed from amid a group of protesters under the deadly fire on Instytutska Street. A first-hand account by Ilya Varlamov, his photos, a testimony by another eyewitness, and two nearby shots in the live broadcast, which was recorded from this hotel starting at 8:49am, suggest that two other people were shot at 10:30-10:31am from the Hotel Ukraina on the Maidan side.
Warnings from the Maidan stage about “three snipers” or “snipers” “shooting to kill” the Maidan protesters from the same hotel, specifically on Instytutska Street, were made again as the killings continued there, for example, at 10:36, 10:59, 11:07, and 11:09am in the live broadcast. Eyewitnesses in another video of the shooting around 4:00pm and the direction of the entry wound indicate that a bystander was killed by a bullet from the Hotel Ukraina in front of Zhovtnevyi Palace. In the late afternoon, a speaker on the Maidan stage threatened to burn the Hotel Ukraina, as they did the Trade Union building a day earlier, because of constant reports of snipers in the hotel. But a previously unreported radio intercept of the Omega commander (“Pegas”) and servicemen from his unit informed at 10:37am on February 21about gunshots coming from the Hotel Ukraina.
Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them and at least one member of the Volhynian company of the Maidan Self-Defense on Instytutska Street. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel.
When the Hotel Ukraina was controlled by the Maidan, snipers there were also shooting at the police. A Berkut policeman was killed in front of Zhovtnevyi Palace by two shots at 9:16am, minutes after the announcement about snipers in the hotel. There were bullet impact traces in a trees and poles within meters of this spot from a Hotel Ukraina direction. A Berkut commander stated that snipers in the Hotel Ukraina were shooting at the policemen from 7.62mm caliber hunting guns. A video from the police side of the barricade depicts several Berkut policemen with 7.62 caliber AKMs and many armed members of the Omega special Internal Troops unit with different caliber AKS-74, including several snipers, taking cover from live ammunition fire during the height of the massacre of the protesters starting from a few minutes before 10:00am. It shows at the very end one Omega sniper targeting an open window of the Hotel Ukraina and another sniper pointing his rifle in an upward direction, likely toward Zhovtnevyi Palace. A Ukrainian TV journalist, who filmed this video, confirmed that they came under a fire and were looking for a sniper in the Hotel Ukraina. The video also shows two Berkut servicemen pointing their Kalashnikov rifles or shooting from the top side of Kamaz trucks, likely at the same direction or in the direction of Muzeinyi Lane buildings, where shooters could be seen in live broadcasts around the same time. All these buildings and the protesters on Instytutska Street were located downslope from this police barricade.
Mustafa Nayem, an initiator of the Euromaidan protests and a widely known journalist from Ukrainska Pravda, an openly pro-Maidan online newspaper, twitted at 11:58am a photo of snipers on the police side of this barricade located at the intersection of Instytutska and Bankova streets. This photo was presented by the Ukrainian media as evidence that these were snipers who massacred the protesters. However, these snipers and Berkut special company shooters generally did not hide, and they allowed the media and bystanders to film themselves during the massacre.
Various sources of evidence indicate that Berkut and Omega used, respectively, their AKMS, AKS, and sniper rifles and that they shot live ammunition at the general direction of both the protesters and suspected Maidan snipers. These live ammunition rounds came around the time of the killing and wounding of many protesters. Videos show that at least a large proportion of the victims were shot at that time while taking cover behind a wall, trees, and a barricade, and thus being outside of a hitting zone from the direction of the police barricade and the adjacent government buildings, as the Google street view illustrates. But a possibility that some of the protesters, specifically armed ones, including “snipers,” were wounded or killed by the police fire cannot be ruled out.
The Omega commander and an Internal Troops commander in charge of such special units stated that they received orders to target snipers at the Hotel Ukraina and other locations and had permission to shoot at armed protesters. A former Berkut officer said that a sniper that accompanied the Berkut special company had a task to look for a Right Sector sniper in the Hotel Ukraina. Videos show the sniper lying on the ground and then pointing his rifle into the direction of the Hotel Ukraina at 9:23am exactly when one of the unarmed protesters is seen shot dead in a close proximity near the barricade. This was used as evidence of a direct hit, but the direction of the sniper rifle, sound of the gunshot, and a reported entry wound in the right shoulder and an apparent exit wound on a left front side of a torso, and an absence of a bullet hole on the shield indicate that the gunshot came from a building located in the back or on the right side. A BBC report shows another unarmed protestor shot dead in the same spot apparently from a similar direction within a minute before. An armed protestor in a Berkut-style uniform was wounded in his arm while he was running away from the scene. Many of the commanders and members of Omega, Alfa, and the special company of disbanded Berkut were deployed by the post-Yanukovych government along with Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector commanders and members in the civil war with pro-Russian separatists in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine.
A Ruptly TV video shows three armed Maidan protesters who were shooting from a top floor of the Hotel Ukraina in the direction not of the Independence Square but of Instytutska Street, judging by buildings that can be discerned. Volodymyr Ariev, an investigative journalist and a member of the parliament from the Maidan coalition party, concluded that snipers came to the Hotel Ukraina from the Music Conservatory side and that they blocked the Ruptly TV crew on the 14th floor of the hotel. A RT report, the abovementioned video, and other videos indicate that they were armed Maidan protesters. But Ariev claimed without providing any evidence that these “snipers” were working for the Russian government.
A previously unreported intercept of radio communications by the SBU Alfa commanders, contains specific information by the head of this Security Service unit (“Suddia”) and his deputy (“Indeiets”) that “shooters” or “snipers” were moving to the Hotel Ukraina and that they were from the Maidan side. This is consistent with an interview of the former SBU head, who said that one half of about 20 snipers with concealed AKMs in bags moved from the neighboring Music Conservatory, which was held by the Maidan, to the Hotel Ukraina, while another half moved in the direction of the Dnipro Hotel, located on the European Square near Muzeinyi Lane. The most complete time-stamped version of the Alfa commanders’ radio intercept synchronized with the local time indicates that their report of shooters moving to the Hotel Ukraina was made at 9:23am. It is contained among the intercepted radio exchanges of Alfa, Berkut, the Internal Troops, Omega, and other government agencies during the entire Maidan protests.
The Alfa commanders intercept demonstrates that snipers from this SBU unit were given an order to deploy to the Presidential Administration soon after a full combat readiness was reported by them at 7:24am. It also contains similar orders to get arms and deploy to these and other government locations to other SBU units around the same time. In contrast to many fake claims and evidence publicized by the Ukrainian government, the radio intercept is not a fake. Their publicly available versions came from several different pro-Maidan sources. One version with omitted parts was posted by a news website run by an advisor to the current Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, but it was also not acknowledged by the government.
An unedited and time-stamped intercept of a radio communication by this SBU sniper team, led by “Miron,” demonstrates that they were tasked with and were monitoring the Hotel Ukraina, specifically its top floors, and other neighboring buildings for snipers and their spotters, who helped to direct the fire, after the massacre was already underway. These snipers detected armed people, who shot from the tops of the buildings or were lying there, and then swiftly moved away after their location was communicated via radio among the SBU snipers. The Alfa snipers were based then the Cabinet of Ministers building (See Map 1). There are no sounds of gunshots by these SBU Alfa snipers or other indications that they fired in the audio clips, which span the most intense phase of the killings from 9:35am till 11:13am. Similarly, no evidence was produced that the protesters were killed with German sniper rifles used by this group of snipers. This is consistent with information provided by three SBU Alfa commanders during the parliamentary investigation and in their statements to Ukrainian TV networks.
However, an edited version of this SBU sniper team’s radio communications intercept was posted on YouTube on the day of the massacre with its content and added photos of the massacre misrepresented to claim that these were the killers. It was swiftly used by Ukrainian politicians, including the head of the parliamentary commission, and the media as key evidence that these SBU snipers killed the protesters. “Miron” stated that this highly publicized version was also cut and did not include their reports of civilians carrying weapons in bags in the European Square. The time-stamped version includes such cut-out parts in the beginning and the end, but some key time periods during the massacre are missing there also.
In their radio intercept, SBU snipers report hearing numerous gunshots and seeing suspected snipers or their fire coordinators at several other buildings then held by the Maidan side, such as on the roof of Kinopalats at 9:43am. The Maidan announcers reported three snipers shooting to kill from the top of Zhovtnevyi Palace, which is connected to Kinopalats, at 9:46 – 9:47am, and they repeated such specific warnings until at least 10:53am. A bullet strikes a tree near a group of protesters from the direction of these buildings during one of the firs ways of mass killing at 9:45am, when within a couple of minutes at least eight protesters were killed or seriously wounded in a few meters radius from that tree. Bullet holes there indicate the same direction (See Photo 2). These three suspected “snipers” on the roof of Zhovtnevyi Palace were seen and identified as such during another wave of killing of protesters around 10:00am in a live broadcast (Photo 1). One of them is recorded in the same spot on the top of this yellow building in a BBC video at 10:04am, but this was not previously noted. Two snipers there were shown by ICTV on February 20, 2014. An apparent human contour is noticeable on the roof of Kinopalats in a photo taken by a French photographer from the midst of the massacre when at least several protesters were killed or seriously wounded near him around 10:20-10:25am. The Maidan Self-Defense reportedly later found more than 80 bullet casings on the roof of Zhovtnevyi Palace. Eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters confirm presence of at least three snipers on Zhovtnevyi Palace roof and its upper floor.
There is similar evidence of shooters on the top of buildings on both sides of Instytutska Street in the general area that was under Maidan control. A recording of live broadcast showed at 10:23am, 10:45am, and 12:15pm a person lying on a roof of a Muzeinyi Lane building (see Photo 3 and the linked videos). In the first two cases, a camera zoomed into these areas within minutes when gunshots were heard and protesters were shot on Instytutska Street. This recording appears to confirm previous media reports about a different video showing a “sniper” on a roof shooting at Berkut and then protesters from AK and wearing a Berkut-style uniform. The video was shown in the Ukrainian parliament to some of the Maidan leaders and other members of the parliament, but it is still not released publicly. There is also a brief extract from an unknown video showing a Maidan activist identifying a shooter, who was aiming his gun in the direction of Instytutska Street, on a roof of an adjacent building on Muzeinyi Lane. An apparent human figure might be noticed there at 10:23am. A bullet is seen striking a pole from the Muzeinyi Lane direction and ricocheting at 9:54am. At least several protesters are killed and seriously wounded at this spot or in a few meters radius within minutes of that time. Bullet holes in the trees on the site of the massacre indicate the same direction of fire. A bullet impact point suggests that ABC News occupied room in the Hotel Ukraina was fired from a direction of Muzeinyi Lane or Kinopalats buildings.
Suspected shooters on the green Arkada Bank building are pointed out by fleeing protesters after many shots fired at 9:44am. Reports by SBU snipers in their intercepted radio communication at 9:46am, by a female Maidan medic at 10:04am in the BBC video, and by another protester in the Radio Liberty video corroborate this. A TVP journalist based in the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre stated that he saw one of the “snipers” on the roof of Arkada and that their producer was shot from this building’s roof in his Hotel Ukraina room, judging by the direction of a bullet strike. Ruslana, in one of her announcements on the Maidan stage in the afternoon, relayed “reliable reports” from the Maidan Self Defense members of “snipers” on the roof of Arkada.
Likely shooters or spotters can also be identified in windows on the roofs of two other buildings in the 45 minute-long video of the massacre and in the SBU snipers’ intercept at about the same time at 10:11 – 10:12am. One of the survivors of the massacre, who can be seen pointing a hand after being wounded there during one of the early waves of the killing around 9:44-9:45am, stated that shots that killed and wounded most members of his group came from the sides and from the back. Videos show at least eight protesters killed and gravely wounded in this spot during this short period of time and more than dozen other protesters gunned down in the same area on the right side of Instytutska Street within the next 45 minutes. He also said that his group of Svoboda-led Khmelnytskyi company of the Maidan Self-Defense received an order to go there. A video confirms this. Likewise, bullet impact points in trees confirm the live ammunition fire from this sidewise direction.
It is noteworthy that some crucial parts of this and other waves of the killings are missing in this long video filmed by an activist of Zelenyi Front, a Kharkiv organization. This organization is associated with one of the former opposition leaders, who became the Minister of Internal Affairs in the post-Yanukovych government. Another pro-Maidan activist is seen in different videos filming and taking pictures during the massacre from within advancing protesters, many of whom were then killed and wounded. His publicly released videos and photos also do not include many crucial parts of the massacre. He later served in the special police battalion Azov, which was created under formal command of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and he gained notoriety for painting a star on the top of a Moscow high-rise building. In videos of both these pro-Maidan amateur photographs, there were no signs of attempts to identify Maidan sniper positions in surrounding buildings, in spite of their close proximity, or reaction to loud warnings from the Maidan stage about snipers in these locations.
Similarly, “shooters” did not appear to target them to avoid possible identification, in contrast, to targeting many professional foreign journalists, including the BBC correspondent in the same area, the Associated Press, TVP, ABC News, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalists, and at least twice reporters from both ARD and RT.
Another indication that the shooters were from the Maidan side is that the gunshots on Instytutska Street significantly subsided or stopped by about 10:50 – 11:20am, but they continued on the Maidan itself. This square, along with main buildings and surrounding areas, was under control of the opposition. This corresponds in time to a report by a senior opposition leader, who became the head of the presidential administration after the violent overthrow of the previous government, of receiving SMS request at 10:45am from the commander of a sniper group, likely Alfa, Omega, or Sokil, to allow their snipers to search together with Maidan representatives for a shooter from the Hotel Ukraina. He also said that there was a subsequent meeting between him together with Andrii Parubii, the Maidan Self-Defense commander, with a group of government snipers. The reported fact and the location of this meeting in the government-controlled area near the same barricade with Berkut and Omega on Instytutska Street close to the Presidential administration also indicate that these snipers were regarded at the time by the opposition leaders as not the actual killers, in spite of public statements to the contrary. Similarly, there were two members of Svoboda leadership near the Hotel Ukraina at the time of the massacre. The government snipers accompanied by the Maidan Self-Defense reportedly remained in the hotel area till 1:00 – 1:30pm. Exact locations of the shooters could have been easily determined by open windows in the Hotel Ukraina and eyewitnesses identifying them. There were also media reports of a few captured “snipers” in this hotel.
But Maidan leaders denied that any shooters were there and claimed that several Maidan Self-Defense and Right Sector searches at the Hotel Ukraina, specifically conducted there around noon by Maidan protesters armed with AKMS or AKS and rifles, in Zhovtnevyi Palace, and in the Conservatory during the massacre and soon after it ended did not find any of the “shooters.” For, example, Mustafa Nayem, who streamed live for Hromadske TV, stated at 3:00pm that a Right Sector and Self-Defense search did not locate any snipers who were spotted on an upper floor of the Hotel Ukraina. As noted the shootings from the hotel, specifically one of its top floors, continued afterwards.
Similarly, several leaders of the opposition parties (Svoboda, the Radical Party, and the Fatherland) were speaking on the Maidan stage and blaming the Yanukovych government and its snipers during the very time or shortly after numerous gunshots fired from nearby buildings on the Maidan. For example, a synchronization of a live broadcast recording and a brief intercepted radio communication of the actual shooters show that they fired several rounds of altogether 10 shots in quick succession at 11:33 – 11:34am. The loud sound of these gunshots in a recording of the live broadcast (1h 08-09 min) from the Kozatsky Hotel on the Maidan indicates that these shots likely came from this or other nearby locations, such as the Trade Union building. A minute afterwards, Oleksander Turchynov, a former head of the Security Service of Ukraine who would become the head of the Ukrainian parliament and the acting president after the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government, started his speech with the “Slava Ukraini” greeting, which was used by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and copied by the Maidan. Sounds of other shots and sirens of moving ambulances can be heard in the live broadcast during his speech. The manner of the communication of these shooters in the single publicly available recording is very different from those of SBU and Omega snipers and other government agencies in more than 30 gigabytes of their intercepted, recorded, and released radio exchanges during the entire Maidan protests. These intercepts, admissions by the Maidan leaders that they had such intercepts, and a statement by the Alfa commander all indicate that the shooters and their spotters had such radio intercepts and were able to avoid tracking by the SBU snipers or move to different positions.
Similarly, a female medic was wounded, and another protester standing in front of her was killed on the Maidan near the Kozatsky Hotel at 11:43am. This happened during a speech by Oleh Liashko, a leader of the Radical Party, which openly cooperated after the overthrow of Yanukovych with the neo-Nazi Social National Assembly, which was of the founders of the Right Sector. A more distant sound of a shot than the abovementioned rounds is heard at 1hour and 18 minutes in the live broadcast recording, which starts at 10:23am. Eyewitnesses and the direction of the entry wound indicate that this shot was made from the Main Post Office building, which was occupied by the Right Sector. This shooting case attracted big attention from the Ukrainian and Western media, but like all shootings of protesters, journalists, and the police on the Independence Square, government snipers were blamed and no real investigation was conducted.
Eyewitnesses among the protesters, the TVP correspondent, and bullet trajectories also point to shooters around the same time in the Trade Union building, the Kozatsky Hotel, the Music Conservatory buildings, and some other buildings on the Maidan itself. At 11:43am, an unidentified intruder broke into a radio communication of the Internal Troops units, which retreated from the Maidan, and informed them that there were people aiming a rocket propelled grenade launcher into the Hotel Ukraina from the 6th floor of the Trade Union building. SBU snipers noted people at the top of this building at 10:53 and 10:59am.
An RT correspondent reported at 10:58am that a 7.62mm AKM bullet narrowly missed him at a Hotel Ukraina window and that its trajectory pointed to the Conservatory building. An Associated Press correspondent also reported being fired at in his Hotel Ukraina room overlooking the Maidan in the morning of February 20, and he found that bullet on his balcony. An Australian ABC reporter’s hotel room was also shot from the direction of the Maidan around that time. A BBC occupied room was also fired upon.
Various sources show that Maidan shooters used these buildings to fire live ammunition at journalists and at Berkut and Internal Troops at night or early morning on February 20. Two Ukraina hotel rooms of German journalists were shot from the direction of the Main Post Office, as a Ukrainian journalist working for the German TV reported on his Facebook page, or from the direction of Conservatory, located across the street from the new headquarters of the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector. The parliamentary commission stated based on medical emergency services reports that shooting at Berkut and Internal Troops from the Maidan and neighboring streets started on February 20 at 6:10am. A parliament member from the Maidan opposition stated that he received a phone call from a Berkut commander shorty after 7:00am that 11 members of his police unit were wounded by shooters from the Music Conservatory building. A Maidan Self-Defense search there found no shooters after this parliament member informed Parubiii and other opposition leaders. But this Berkut commander again reported that within a half an hour his unit casualties increased to 21 wounded and three killed.
Similarly, reports in the morning of February 20 by the Internal Affairs Ministry, statements by the former heads of SBU and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, radio intercepts of Internal Troops, videos, and eyewitness accounts by the protesters, including a Swedish neo- Nazi volunteer , independently confirm that the police units on the Maidan were shot with live ammunition from the Conservatory and Trade Union buildings before 9:00am and that they swiftly retreated as a result of this fire and the many casualties that they suffered. For instance, in their radio communications, the Internal Troops units, stationed on the Maidan near the Trade Union building, made urgent requests for an ambulance at 8:08am, a life support vehicle at 8:21am, an ambulance at 8:29am, two ambulances at 8:39am, five ambulances at 8:46am, and then issued retreat orders at 8:49 and 8:50am.
A senior Internal Troops officer stated that they had information that five “snipers” moved to the Conservatory from the Trade Union building after it was burned by the protesters during Alfa’s attempt to seize it after 11:00pm on February 18. He also confirmed the shooters killed and wounded many policemen from the Trade Union building and Maidan tents before its burning, when it was occupied and used as the headquarters of the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector. At least 17 of them were killed and 196 wounded from gunshots on February 18-20, including three killed and more than 20 wounded on February 20.
The radio intercepts of Internal Troops units and Alfa commanders and snipers confirm that their attempts to seize the Maidan and the Trade Union building on February 18 were stopped by the burning of this building by its defenders and by use of live ammunition by the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector. These seizures of the Maidan and its headquarters were authorized by the Yanukovych government as a part of the “Boomerang” and “Khvylia” plans. These plans were put in force after an attempt by the opposition led by the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector to storm the parliament and their burning of the Party of Regions headquarters resulting in a death of an employee working there in the morning of the same day. An Alfa officer, who led one of the SBU groups during storming of the Trade Union Building, stated that their task was to seize the 5th floor, which contained a lot of weapons. The Right Sector occupied the entire floor which served as both its headquarters and a base of the Right Sector company of the Maidan Self-Defense. A radio intercept of Alfa commanders contains their report about deploying SBU snipers after two “snipers” or spotters from the Maidan side were noticed on a Maidan-controlled building, their preparation to storm this building, and an order from their superior to Alfa jointly with the Internal Troops to start this attack.
The current government and the parliamentary commission claimed without providing any evidence that Alfa burned the Trade Union building and that undercover SBU agents burned the Party of Regions headquarters. After these attacks, Berkut, the Internal Troops, and titushki assembled by the Yanukovych government launched a counterassault, and at least five Maidan protesters died as result of being beaten, driven over, or injured by stun grenades. At least six Maidan protesters were killed on February 18 and 19 by gunshots, primarily from hunting weapons and pellets, like was the case with three protesters killed in the end of January, 2014. The Maidan opposition and the current government asserted without providing any evidence that these protesters were gunned down by the Berkut and snipers, while similarities with the “snipers'” massacre on the Maidan are not considered and not investigated.
The Main Post Office at the time of the February 20th shootings was occupied by the Right Sector, an alliance of radical nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations and football ultras groups, which took active part in the violent attacks on the presidential administration on December 1, 2013 and the parliament in the end of January and on February 18, 2014. The Maidan company commander confirmed that at that time his special combat company, which included armed protesters with experience of fighting in armed conflicts, was based in the Conservatory building. He stated that this company was formed with an agreement of the Right Sector. In a new US documentary investigating the Maidan massacre, Berkut members said that they noticed protesters with the Right Sector insignia in the Music Conservatory building on February 19, that armed protesters took positions there, and that they were shot and wounded, while other Berkut officers killed by shooters from the second floor of the Conservatory in the morning of February 20. Maidan eyewitnesses among the protesters said that organized groups from Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions in Western Ukraine arrived on the Maidan and moved to the Music Conservatory at the night of the February 20th massacre, and that some of them were armed with rifles.
The seeming absence of the Right Sector and this combat company during the snipers’ massacre of the protesters is the “dog that did not bark” evidence pointing to their likely involvement. The leader of the Right Sector shortly after the midnight announced that his organization did not accept a truce agreement with Yanukovych and would undertake decisive actions against the government forces. A report by the head of the parliamentary commission concluded that “unknown civic organizations” could have been shooters of the police. But these cases of the killing and wounding of the police were not investigated by the government, specifically the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This ministry created, along with the Right Sector and the Social National Assembly, special police battalions, which fought in Donbas. Similarly, the National Guard was newly organized on the basis of the Internal Troops and the Maidan Self-Defense.
It was the same special combat company commander who called from the Maidan stage in the evening of February 21 to reject a signed agreement, which was mediated by foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland and a representative of the Russian president, and issued a public ultimatum for President Yanukovych to resign by 10:00am of the next day. He justified his ultimatum by blaming Yanukovych for the massacre, stated that his combat company based in the Music Conservatory was responsible for the turning point of the Euromaidan, and threated an armed assault if Yanukovych would not resign. Yanukovych fled from Kyiv on the same day soon after this ultimatum was issued.
The types of guns and ammunition used and the direction and types of entry wounds among both protesters and policemen also confirm that the shooters came from the Maidan side. The parliamentary commission reported that 17 protesters were killed by buckshot (pellets), a part were shot dead from AKMS (7.62х39mm caliber), one from the Makarov handgun, while in most cases the bullets went through the bodies. The Prosecutor General Office stated on April 2 that a SKS semi-automatic “sniper” carbine, which has the same caliber as AKMS, was use to shoot protesters from the Hotel Ukraina, even though this outdated firearm was not used by professional snipers and was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon. But the Prosecutor General Office then began to claim that they still were checking if any snipers were in the hotel.
The head of the medical service of the Euromaidan and other medics reported that both protesters and the police were shot by similar ammunition, specifically 7.62mm caliber bullets and buckshot (pellets), and that they had similar types of wounds. This information was relayed by the Estonian minister of foreign affairs in his intercepted telephone call to the EU Foreign Affairs head. Various statements by medics, videos, photos, and media reports confirm that dozens of protesters were shot precisely in necks, heads, thighs, and hearts, the most lethal places, and that many entry wounds were from the top, side, or back.This is consistent with locations of shooters on the roofs or top floors of all specified buildings. Precise and deadly gunshots and the 7.62mm KalashnikovAKMS type assault rifles and various hunting weapons and ammunition used also indicate that shooters were positioned within several dozen meters from the places where both the police and the protesters were killed or wounded.
Photos, videos, eyewitness testimonies and other sources demonstrate that some protesters were shooting with or openly carrying hunting and sporting rifles, Kalashnikov assault rifles and their hunting versions, Makarov, and other handguns during the mass shooting of the police and the protesters. The parliamentary commission concluded that it was very likely that the policemen on the Maidan were shot from firearms and ammunition that were seized by protesters from the police, internal troops, and SBU offices and arsenals in Western Ukraine on February 18 and 19. These weapons specifically included 1,008 Makarov handguns, 59 AKMS (folding 7.62 caliber Kalashnikov assault rifles, two SVD sniper rifles, and various other rifles and shotguns. Their present whereabouts remain unknown.
The failure by the government to locate and identify the shooters of the protesters and investigate the shooting of the police and the similar failure of the Maidan Self-Defense to stop or detain them during the massacre in spite of their locations being known at that time and in spite of calls to do so from the protesters and the government officials also indicate that the shooters were from the Maidan side. Media reports, eyewitness accounts, the audio of the shooters, and statements by the former SBU head and internal affairs minister suggest that they included armed protesters and hired people with appropriate experience from Ukraine and foreign countries.
But the specific identities of the shooters and the politicians who directed them remain unknown. There were various public allegations concerning purported involvement in the massacre of specific politicians and political parties, but such allegations did not lead to any investigations since these politicians or their parties occupied various positions in the new government. The massacre master-minders and perpetrators are unlikely to be uncovered by the current government, even though it has much more evidence available that has still not been made public. This evidence includes reported videos of shooters from Muzeinyi Lane and the Trade Union buildings, intercepted radio communications of Berkut, and ballistic and medical expert reports Videos and photos of armed Berkut members shooting during their counterattack and then from barricades were cited by the top Ukrainian government officials and by the head of the special parliamentary commission and reported by the media as the undisputable proof that the special police units massacred the protesters. The Reuters reported that the prosecution case against three Berkut members relies on such videos and photos, and that some of key pieces of such evidence were misrepresented or ignored. However, the analysis of the publicly available evidence is inconclusive whether Berkut and Omega killed any of the protesters, specifically unarmed ones, because there were other shooters killing the protesters at the same very time. The head of the special parliamentary commission reported that ammunition expertise, contrary to an earlier claim by the minister of interior, failed to link any of their weapons to the killed protesters and that many of their Kalashnikov assault rifles, records of their use, and the bullet database disappeared when the new government was in power.
Similarly, while the new government and the head of the parliamentary commission publicly alleged that an order to kill unarmed protesters was issued personally by Yanukovych and that his entire government and law enforcement agencies and commanders of Berkut, Internal Troops, and SBU’s Alfa, were involved in this “criminal organization” by implementing this order and issuing similar orders, no evidence of such order was produced. Commanders of Alfa and its sniper team, Internal Troops, and Omega all denied receiving such an order, and their radio intercepts confirm this.
The “sniper massacre” fits a pattern of the politically motivated misrepresentations of the mass killing and other cases of violence by the same Ukrainian political forces and the media involved. Such cases include the Odesa massacre on May 2, 2014, killings of civilians in Donbas, and the beating of Tetiana Chornovol last December and the abduction of Dmytro Bulatov, two Maidan activists who became government ministers as a result of these highly publicized cases. The new investigations named the same suspects arrested in December in the Chornovol case and pursued as the possibility a version in which Bulatov’s abduction was staged. Contrary to the available evidence, the government claimed that more than 40 Odesa protesters died as result of a fire caused by them and claimed that separatists killed more than 1,000 civilians in Donbas by shelling them in their own cities and town. Similar cases include misrepresentations of the involvement of the OUN and the UPA in the mass killings of Poles and the Nazi-led mass murder of Jews and misrepresentations of more than 2,000 recently uncovered, primarily Jewish victims of Nazi-led executions in the town of Volodymyr-Volynskyi as Poles killed by the Soviet NKVD. While the various available evidence indicates that the Malaysian airliner in Donbas was likely shot down by separatists, such a track record also raises questions in this case.
Conclusion
The analysis and the evidence presented in this academic investigation put the Euromaidan and the conflict in Ukraine into a new perspective. The seemingly irrational mass shooting and killing of the protesters and the police on February 20 appear to be rational from self-interest based perspectives of rational choice and Weberian theories of instrumentally-rational action. This includes the following: the Maidan leaders gaining power as a result of the massacre, President Yanukovych and his other top government officials fleeing on February 21, 2014 from Kyiv and then from Ukraine, and the retreat by the police. The same concerns Maidan protesters being sent under deadly fire into positions of no important value and then being killed wave by wave from unexpected directions. Similarly, snipers killing unarmed protesters and targeting foreign journalists but not Maidan leaders, the Maidan Self-Defense and the Right Sector headquarters, the Maidan stage, and pro-Maidan photographs become rational. While such actions are rational from a rational choice or instrumentally-rational theoretical perspective, the massacre not only ended many human lives but also undermined democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Ukraine.
The massacre of the protesters and the police represented a violent overthrow of the government in Ukraine and a major human rights crime. This violent overthrow constituted an undemocratic change of government. It gave start to a large-scale violent conflict that turned into a civil war in Eastern Ukraine, to a Russian military intervention in support of separatists in Crimea and Donbas, and to a de-facto break-up of Ukraine. It also escalated an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. The evidence indicates that an alliance of elements of the Maidan opposition and the far right was involved in the mass killing of both protesters and the police, while the involvement of the special police units in killings of some of the protesters cannot be entirely ruled out based on publicly available evidence. The new government that came to power largely as a result of the massacre falsified its investigation, while the Ukrainian media helped to misrepresent the mass killing of the protesters and the police. The evidence indicates that the far right played a key role in the violent overthrow of the government in Ukraine. This academic investigation also brings new important questions that need to be addressed.
