Video

IOUC – Full Ukraine Crisis Report (Dec 2013 – Jul 2014)

A full report on the situation in Ukraine, from the Euromaidan in December 2013, to the present situation today in July 2014. Footage from the most important moments during the crisis have been compiled into this full length documentary from a Politically Neutral Standpoint.

This movie was produced and edited by Maj. Alan Astudillo of the 1st Earth Battalion, 4th Delta Force.

Disclaimer: We are in no way associated with groups that go by the names of IOUCO or IOUCON, also identified as the International Observatory of Ukrainian Conflict, These are biased groups lead by people with an agenda who are not politically neutral and seek to provoke more conflict rather than defuse it. We are in no way associated with these above-mentioned groups or the leader which goes by the name of Mykolas Alutis, which we know for a fact and hold evidence and testimony from that person himself that Mykolas Alutis is not his real name. It is unsure which side he is working for, but it is clearly not the side of peace.

This movie contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this movie is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

West’s expansion to the east ruins historic chance at unification – Lavrov

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.(Reuters / Maxim Shemetov )

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.(Reuters / Maxim Shemetov )

The Ukrainian crisis is a natural result of the West’s expansion of its influence eastwards at the expense of Russian interests, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. This stance ruins a historic chance for a unified continent.

The turbulence in Ukraine is reminiscent of the violence and bloodshed that Europe experienced in the 20th century, Lavrov told a security conference in Moscow.

“The European continent, which brought two global military catastrophes in the last century, is not demonstrating an example to the world of peaceful development and broad cooperation,” he said, adding that the situation wasn’t accidental, but rather “a natural result of the developments over the past quarter of a century.”

“Our Western partners rejected a truly historic chance to build a greater Europe in favor of border lines and the habitual logic of expanding the geopolitical space under their control to the East,” Lavrov stressed.“This is de facto a continuation of a policy of containing Russia in a softer wrapping.”

The West ignored Russia’s calls for cooperation and would not pursuit a challenge of bringing together different integration projects in Eurasia. Instead it was forcing nations historically close to Russia to choose between the East and the West.

Pro-Russian activists stand near an armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) that they said was captured from the Ukrainian army during a fight outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Lysychansk May 22, 2014.(Reuters / Valentyn Ogirenko)

Pro-Russian activists stand near an armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) that they said was captured from the Ukrainian army during a fight outside the eastern Ukrainian town of Lysychansk May 22, 2014.(Reuters / Valentyn Ogirenko)

Source: http://rt.com/news/160940-lavrov-security-west-expansion/

Oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi: Washington’s “Man in Ukraine”

ukrainemap-400-313

Who was behind the May 2nd massacre inside Odessa’s Trade Unions Building?

What was the role of Oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi  appointed by President Oleksandr Turchynov as governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.

Ihor Kolomoyskyi  is a member of Yulia Tymoshenko Fatherland Party. Tymoshenko is Washington’s favored Presidential candidate in the May 25th election.

Just weeks before the coup, on February 4th, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Asia, Victoria Nuland, chose Tymoshenko’s ally Arseni Yatsenyuk to head the post-coup interim government, which appointed Kolomoyskyi.

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi2.jpgOnly a few months before this coup, Nuland had asserted that U.S. taxpayers had already invested more than $5 billion, in order to bring “democracy” to Ukraine, by which she was referring to the U.S. effort to oust the Russian-oriented, democratically elected, leader of Ukraine, President Viktor Yanukovych, who had prosecuted and imprisoned Tymoshenko for embezzlement and abuse of governmental office.

Tymoshenko was then on 11 October 2011 sentenced to seven years in prison, and was ordered to pay the government restitution of $188 million. She was released from prison less than three years later, two days after the coup, on 24 February 2014. The Ukrainian criminal code was immediately changed, in order to legalize the actions for which Tymoshenko had been imprisoned. This allowed Tymoshenko to run for the Ukrainian Presidency. She had been Prime Minister 2007-2010. Both she and her husband, Oleksandr Tymoshenko, and his father, all three of whom were on the board of United Energy Systems of Ukraine (and thus Ms. Tymoshenko was called “the gas princess”) have been legally prosecuted as embezzling state funds, but so have most of Ukraine’s oligarchs and political leaders (and there’s a lot of crossover between those two categories).

Kolomoyskyi, who lives in Geneva Switzerland, is generally regarded as the second-richest man in Ukraine, with a fortune estimated at about $6 billion. Tymoshenko used to be called “the Eleven Billion Dollar Woman,” but, like all of Ukraine’s oligarchs (including Kolomoyskyi), nobody really knows precisely how wealthy she is, nor even whether she is more, or perhaps less, wealthy than Kolomoyskyi. Almost all of the oligarchs’ money is hidden offshore; so, is invisible.

Most of Ukraine’s oligarchs live in Geneva (like Kolomoyskyi), London (like the Tymoshenkos’ daughter, Yevhenia), NYC, Rome, and other Western cities, and they tend to stash their money in secret bank accounts in tax-haven countries, not only in order to avoid paying taxes, but also in order to make more difficult their being successfully sued by each other, for violating handshake business deals that had helped them to become so rich. After all, illegal contracts cannot be enforced by any legal government (since they’re illegal, and have secret illegal terms). Thus, other means than written contracts — handshake deals — are resorted to between these aristocrats.

For example, in one such case, a Ukrainian oligarch who lives in London, Victor Pinchuk (whose fortune is around $4 billion), is suing Kolomoyskyi by alleging that he sold him a company, “KZhRK,” for $143 million, and then to had it re-seized it from him by force of arms. As is usual (since virtually all of Ukraine’s oligarchs had become oligarchs from the privatizations, or sell-offs of government assets, which accompanied Ukraine’s abandonment of communism), this case hinges on verbal testimony, and the various parties to the case contradict each other. Kolomoyskyi had allegedly well known for taking over corporations through his team entering with guns drawn. Pinchuk claims that when Kolomoyskyi did that here, Pinchuk nonetheless, somehow, managed to get Kolomoyskyi to restore Pinchuk to control, but that Pinchuk later discovered “it appears that they may have sold approximately 50% of KZhRK to a third party in 2007″; so, Pinchuk filed suit against Kolomoyskyi, in London, on this murky case.

According to a summary by wikipedia of several news reports: “Kolomyski has used [his banking company] Privat’s ‘quasi-military forces’ to enforce hostile takeovers of companies, sending a team of ‘hired rowdies armed with baseball bats, iron bars, gas and rubber bullet pistols and chainsaws’ to forcibly take over a Kremenchuk steel plant in 2006,[17] and has used ‘a mix of phony court orders (often involving corrupt judges and/or registrars) and strong-arm tactics’ to replace directors on the boards of companies he purchases stakes in.[18] Kolomyski was criticized by Mr Justice Mann in a court case in London involving an attempted hostile takeover of an oil company, with the judge stating that Kolomyski had ‘a reputation of having sought to take control of a company at gunpoint in Ukraine’.”

Consequently, the reports of Kolomoyskyi’s tactics against the Ukrainians who refuse to be ruled by the Obama-installed government in Kiev seem to be consistent with this oligarch’s violent norm. Oriental Review headlined on 14 May 2014, “Bloodbath in Odessa guided by interim rulers of Ukraine,” and reported that, “The information provided below was obtained from an insider in one of Ukraine’s law-enforcement agencies, who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.” The account there is a more detailed one than has ever before appeared, and it’s consistent with those others (such as this and this). It alleges that:

“Ten days before the tragedy a secret meeting was held in Kiev, chaired by the incumbent president Olexander Turchinov [a long-time political ally and business-partner of Tymoshenko; he had destroyed crucial documents in the government’s case against Tymoshenko], to prepare a special operation in Odessa. Present were minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov [a gangster who was placed on Interpol’s ‘Wanted’ list on 21 March 2012], the head of the Ukrainian Security Service Valentin Nalivaychenko [a long-time NATO agent], and the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Andriy Parubiy [co-founder of Ukraine’s National Socialist, or Nazi, Party]. Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoiskiy, the Kiev-appointed head of regional administration of the Dnepropetrovsk region, was consulted in regard to the operation [he being well-experienced in violent operations].

“During that meeting Arsen Avakov … reportedly came up with the idea of using football [soccer] hooligans, known as ‘ultras,’ in the operation. Ever since his time as the head of the Kharkov regional administration he [Avakov] has worked closely with the fans’ leaders, whom he continued to sponsor even from his new home in Italy.

“Kolomoisky temporarily delivered his private ‘Dnieper-1′ Battalion under the command of law-enforcement officials in Odessa and also authorized a cash payment of $5,000 for ‘each pro-Russian separatist’ killed during the special operation. [That would be over $500,000, lent by his bank to the Ukrainian Government, to pay for the estimated 116 corpses thus produced.]

“Mykola Volkov [Captain Mykola Volkov Nikolaevich, born 1981 Odessa] was wanted by the Ukrainian police since 2012 for fraud. A couple of days before the operation in Odessa Andriy Parubiy brought dozens of bullet-proof vests to local ultra-nationalists. This video shows an episode of handing the vests to the local Maidan activists in Odessa. Take note of the person who receives the load. He is Mykola Volkov, a local hard-core criminal who would be repeatedly screened [filmed] during the assault on Trade Unionist House gun-shooting at the people and reporting about the ‘incident’ by phone to an official in Kiev.”

This video is one of several that show “Mykola” at various stages during the May 2nd massacre.

Basically, the Kiev regime bussed in far-right or “Pravy Sektor” people, in civilian clothes, to pretend to be separatists and shoot at crowds of people who were supporting a soccer team from the western part of Ukraine and now leaving a soccer match. Whatever members of the local police force hadn’t quit it in protest against the scheme were now employed to bring these enraged western Ukrainian, pro-Kiev, soccer fans to the encampment of the anti-Kiev demonstrators at the Trade Unions Building, to join in setting it ablaze. As indicated in some of the videos (such as this), part of the preparation in advance of the arrival of these enraged western soccer fans was the burning of the tents in front of the Trade Unions Building, where literature had been distributed against the Kiev regime. Regime agents pretended to support the protesters inside those tents, and warned those anti-Kiev people that attackers were coming, and that they’d better go into the building for their own safety. Then, the attackers came and set fire to the tents, and threw firebombs into the building. However, even before many of the anti-Kiev people were incinerated, the regime’s gunmen entered the building’s basement where many of those protesters were hiding, and shot as many of them as they could. Most of the corpses were dragged out and taken away in vans, but the victims on the upper floors were later counted by the police, who announced that 46 people were killed. The actual number is indeterminate, but generally estimated at over a hundred: the number most often cited is 116.

Here is a summary of many of the best videos that were taken of these events and uploaded to youtube. It shows the best-documented massacre in all of history.

Commissioning this massacre wasn’t out of character for Tymoshenko. For example, on 24 March 2014, she was caught urging the extermination of Ukrainian Russians, and even of all Russians. She said in a tapped phone call,

“They must be killed with nuclear weapons.”

Read the rest of the story here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/oligarch-ihor-kolomoyskyi-washingtons-man-in-ukraine/5382766

Video

German FM joins growing calls for restraint on Russia sanctions

Europe is threatening Russia with more sanctions if Ukraine’s upcoming Presidential election doesn’t go as planned. Germany’s Foreign Minister wants to end the Sanction war between Russia and the West, and wants to work with Moscow on solving the crisis in Ukraine.

Response to NATO & the EU will become Nuclear Iskanders

U.S. actions and their partners in the Black Sea , the Baltic states and Eastern Europe could lead to the implementation of the European Union and a bad dream ” amber edge ” – in the center of Europe, the sword of Damocles in this case stand ” Iskander ” , including – with tactical nuclear weapons.
“European tensions are rising in the waters of the Black Sea , not only , but also of the Baltic ” , – told the media , reminding – of the German Kiel came five NATO warships that , according to the Chief of Staff for Operations NATO Maritime Command ” to support the Baltic countries .” Their teachings are allegedly ” purely defensive ” and will drop ships ” in several Baltic ports .”
According to journalists , the relationship of these exercises with events around Ukraine ” no doubt ” and thus ” in the European part of the continent had a second international” hotbed of tension “associated with the direct confrontation between NATO and Russia .”

Why second ? Because the first – is NATO warships in the Black Sea Fleet with Turkey. Second are now NATO naval maneuvers in the Baltic Sea and the appearance of the first company of NATO soldiers in Poland. However, in the Baltic NATO soldiers already behave as invaders – such as mayors already complaining about the ” swinish ” behavior of the military , fighting, harassment and violence , and in Riga , NATO troops have taken ( and lost !) Fight with taxi drivers .

Iskander

” And if it goes on , the” nightmare Europeans ” – the latest Russian missile complex” Iskander ” , will still be located in close proximity to the borders of some European countries ,” – says the press.

Recall that the operational- tactical complex ” Iskander-M ” is equipped with missiles capable of actively maneuver to break through defense and carrying conventional or nuclear warhead to destroy enemy artileriyu , aviation, command centers , missile systems , air defense and missile defense systems . ” Iskander-M ” also has a very high mobility and fast – start deployment . As for spetsBCh ( nuclear warheads for missiles ” Iskander ” ), then in December 2013 the Russian military unofficially reported that ” Kaliningrad defensive area of , of course, has .”

It should be noted that the Russian Tu -95 , according to the American press during exercises ‘ pretend ‘ bombed U.S. nuclear cruise missiles. In addition, in 2013 a Russian bomber strikes carried out simulations on the American missile defense system , and more recently Su-24 bomber flew several times in the vicinity of the U.S. Navy destroyer ” Donald Cook ” in the Black Sea – so much so that he quit with a third crew who does not want ” to die for some scary Ukraine.”

Source: http://www.politonline.ru/rssArticle/21431812.html

Henry Kissinger: How the Ukraine crisis ends

Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element.They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin andHitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html