THE NEXT PLAYERS ON THE UKRAINIAN FIELD
Extract from Battleground
Ukraine: A Comprehensive Summary (From A Russian Perspective). Submitted by Tyler Durden on
04/30/2014 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-30/battleground-ukraine-comprehensive-summary-russian-perspective
Courtesy of socalbeach, Via
WikiSpooks, This is an impressive,
comprehensive analysis of the February 2014 Ukraine coup from the perspective
of a senior Russian academic. It details the interests and affiliations of the
main Ukrainian domestic players - oligarchical clans many of whose leaders have
dual nationality - with some shocking and little known detail. SEE VIDEO, URL:
[…..] Here only part of the transcript
THE NEXT PLAYERS ON THE UKRAINIAN FIELD
Rockefellers
Rothchilds and Intelligence agencies
The next players on the Ukrainian
field are: the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds. The Rothchilds entered Ukraine
immediately after Ukraine became free from the Soviet Union. The Rothschild
group entered in 1991-95. Likewise MI6 entered with a free hand.
Basically all western intelligence
agencies had a free hand in Ukraine. That's why some experts call Ukraine the
sandpit of the intelligence agencies. The CIA has a whole floor
dedicated to Ukraine. We got this information now. But those who worked under
cover in Ukraine in the late '90s were already reporting that SBU is a
subsidiary of the FBI
and the CIA, who were actively working there. Likewise the BND (German
intelligence) were very actively working with their Banderite underground. And
MI6 was working more unnoticed.
I'm not even going to mention the
Israeli agents. I'll come to that later. Basically they all had a completely
free hand. Firtash soon became the main partner of the Rothchilds. His partner
from the Rothchilds was Robert Shetler-Jones. He is considered by experts to be
the instigator of the gas wars between Ukraine and Russia. He was the one
getting Ukraine and Russia to fight over gas. Notice the Rothschild group is at
work in the East of Ukraine. That's the area they want to get their hands on,
in particular the Dnepropetrovsk region, where the bank "Rothschild
Europe" and their "Royal Dutch Shell" are operating.
The interests of the Rothschilds
strongly clash with the interests of Russia. Remember that when we talk about
the interests of the USA and of Britain, there are different interest groups in
these countries. Not for nothing the great French geopolitical analyst
Alexandre Del Valle talks about not the foreign policy of the US, but the
foreign politicians of the US. There are different clans. The clans behind
Obama want one thing, and the clans behind the neo-cons want something
completely different. So they really have different foreign policies. The
Rothchilds busily exploit crises and chaos which can be manipulated by the
world players in order to buy up assets in Ukraine, likewise in Central Asia,
and where possible in Russia. It's about gaining control of resource economies.
That's a very important aspect.
The Rockefellers have more modest
interests. For example, Chevron Corporation, which is in the Rockefeller
empire. The Ivano-Frankivsk region was basically handed to them by Yanukovych.
It's hard to even say whether Ivano-Frankivsk belongs to Ukraine or belongs to
Chevron Corporation. The Rockefellers are more interested in Western Ukraine
than Eastern.
Israeli
interests in Ukraine
The next player in Ukraine is
Israel, which is represented in Ukraine by Mossad and practically all of the
Israeli intelligence services. Including the Komemiyut management, that's an
administration within Mossad, whose business is the physical removal of
Mossad's opponents. Komemiyut is Hebrew for "sovereignty". This Komemiyut
administration, for example, they were the ones who killed the Iranian nuclear
scientists. They are very effective, like Mossad generally. Aman is military
intelligence service of the Prime Minister. Shabak is the internal security
service. Shin Bet, Nativ - they are all present in Ukraine. Israel's current
ambassador in Ukraine is Reuven Din El - formerly a Mossad resident in the CIS
countries, he was thrown out of Moscow, and then received in Ukraine as
ambassador.
Vlad Lerner of Nativ is the First
Secretary of the Israeli embassy. In this respect you have to give them their
dues, the Israeli intelligence services, for how they work in Ukraine. Also
important to be clearly aware of - Mossad operates in close contact with CIA
and MI6. It's a unified snake of intelligence agencies, which gets the job
done.
All of the western intelligence
agencies, including Israel's, are very active in the higher education
establishments in Ukraine. This year I gave a lecture at the Seliger youth
forum. Guys from Kiev told me that in almost all large institutes of higher
education in Ukraine, especially in Kiev, there is a NATO room, a NATO
department. If you want to make a career, you have to attend several of their
programs. That's what's going on. The Anglo-american intelligence services are
not falling behind Mossad.
What is Israeli intelligence doing?
Under the guise of looking for students who are Jewish or have Jewish roots,
they try to pick out all the talented students with good prospects, and send
them to study in the West. Of all the universities in the West, where I have
taught, Columbia, Yale, New York, the most powerful where I taught, was the
Central European University of Soros, where only Jews are educated, moreover
very well-prepared and carefully selected ones. On the course I lectured on
there were three guys from Russia. Not from Moscow, but from Arkhangelsk,
Ivanovo and Petersburg. These guys were really chosen ones, genuinely powerful.
Central European University is the only university where I gave lectures. I was
dealing with junior colleagues more than with students. The standard pace of
study at the Central European University is 400 pages per day, as it was with
comrade Stalin. Many can't endure it.
I know a student who came from the
Russian State University for the Humanities, for example, who studied for a
month, and said that she physically can't continue, and she went home. And of
course the tuition is conducted in English, although they welcome people with
more languages.?
The
wider global context
Let's look at the situation in and
around Ukraine in a wider, global context, considering the role which the West
collectively, by their various games, has assigned to Ukraine.
- Firstly - the battle against Russia.
- secondly - the clash with China, and
- thirdly - concerning the unleashing of war in the Middle East.
Let me repeat, By no means is it all groups in the West, who want to
unleash war in the Middle East. But quite a few of them are interested in it.
Likewise Saudi Arabia and Israel are interested, for a whole series of reasons.
And these three vectors converge in Ukraine - all three plans unite into one.
That is, the global geo-economic and
geo-political re-distribution of assets in the course of the global economic
crisis.
The
"Yellowstone Threat"
Of course, there is this Yellowstone
threat - I mean the super-volcano. That could completely change the rules of
play at any time. The super-volcano could solve for the Western elite the very
problems which they've been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have
been unable to. An eruption of the volcano could solve those problems. But
that's another subject.
Wikispooks
note: On its face this seems a bizarre
diversion from the subject in hand - suggestions on Fursov's reasons for the
diversion welcome on the discussion
page
The
origin of the current situation
Let's look at how the situation came
about that preceded the current situation, namely: It's 1991. The USSR has
collapsed. After 10 years of robbery the Americans are wondering "should
we go for more?" Evidently they decided not to, as it would have fallen
to the Chinese. Besides, Yeltsin's team seemed to be running the country into
the ground. Then suddenly in 2001 came the attacks in New York. The Americans'
political vector shifted to the Middle East. They became occupied with the
Middle East. i.e. they got distracted from the goals.
Then we had Iraq, Afghanistan.
During this time the Russian Federation got room to breathe, rise onto its feet
again. Then there was the war of 08.08.08, which showed the West they had
somewhat let go of Russia.
After that the Medvedev episode,
when we didn't react on Libya. Evidently, 08.08.08, Putin's coming to power,
and our position on Syria, in spite of the West's pressure, changed the
approach toward Russia of those who brought Obama to power.
Two points to note:
- Obama established his military doctrine during his address to the Australian parliament on 17 Nov 2011, and
- And a new military doctrine of the US, established by Obama on 05 Jan 2012.
In the new doctrine of 05 Jan 2012
is established that the US can wage one war and some other indirect actions in
other parts of the world. Previously it said two wars - meaning they're not up
to that any more. More interesting statements made by Obama in the Australian
parliament 17 Nov 2011: This was said in Obama's vague style. But if we call a
spade a spade, it means:
Firstly: in this doctrine: political-economic encirclement of China.
Control over the flow of energy into China. That's why we have seen their naval
power being moved to the straits between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. This
is why land-based energy supply routes are so important for China. Sea-based
supply routes can be easily interrupted by the Americans.
Secondly: applying pressure on the Russian Federation, as a partner
of China, and as a country beginning to rise up.
Really, Obama didn't say anything new here.
[…]
Why
did this happen now?
Firstly - Ukraine is an absolutely non-viable, artificial construction,
which could only function normally within the framework of the Soviet Union.
Despite being the only post-soviet state, apart from Russia and Belarus, which
could have stood on its own feet, it didn't. The Ukrainian SSR was in ways very
important in the Soviet Union. Who remembers where Ukraine was placed at the
National Exhibition of Economic Achievements (????)? Right in the center! Now
it has fallen into neglect, but they are at the center of that Exhibition. The
importance of Ukraine was emphasized in every way. And Ukraine could only exist
within the framework of the USSR.
Outside the USSR Ukraine is not
capable of developing. What has kept it afloat? The Soviet heritage, which they
have been eating their way through for twenty years. One can marvel again at
what a heritage it was, when the Ukrainian oligarchs have been stupidly eating
through it more stupidly than the Russian oligarchs, and it lasted twenty
years. But, as they said in ancient Rome, "Nihil dat fortuna
mancipio" ("Fortune gives nothing forever.") and in 2013 that
heritage was finally eaten up. Moreover, Yanukovych was very busy eating it up.
Ukraine stood over the precipice. Russia could have saved them. But that was
categorically undesirable for the US. That was the first part.
Secondly. After the 2004 Maidan, as I said,
the Western puppet-master presumed that it was sorted: people like Yuschenko
and Tymoshenko could solve all the problems. But it turned out they couldn't.
Yanukovych came to power. He played almost all the same games. Played very
inconsistently. Played with the Americans, with Russia. In the end he
overplayed his hand.?
The scorecard from these twenty
years is positive for the West. They have been very busy in Ukraine: with the
help of various non-commercial, non-governmental organizations, they have done
a quite fantastic job. Dozens of non-commercial Western organizations have been
at work. As for us... do we have any non-governmental organizations busy at
work in the sphere of foreign policy? "Russkiy Mir". When did
they appear? Not long ago. Their effectiveness... Any other organizations?
There is "Rossotrudnichestvo", who have little money. "Institute
of CIS Countries" - that's an institution. "Gorchakov
Fund" exists too. But all of this is recent initiatives and these
organizations don't have the funds.
The Americans have been pumping
massive amounts of money into the place. Besides, all these years there has
been a Banderite underground operating in Ukraine, in cooperation with the
American and West-German intelligence agencies. Moreover, geographically
Ukraine is not a Baltic state. Incidentally, who knows when the last "Forest
Brother" was killed in the Baltic states? 1960? - 1974. But, you know,
there's nowhere to hide really in the Baltic states, but in Ukraine there is.
And the Banderite underground has always been there. Of course, the West has
always been working with them.
Obviously there were serious
domestic reasons for the events of December, January, February (2014).
Impoverishment of the population. Dissatisfaction with this miser-oligarch
regime of Yanukovych. Now what do we see? The family of Yanukovych is gone. In
their place has come the family of Tymoshenko. One family of oligarchs has been
replaced by another. They've been putting oligarchs in charge of the cities of
the East. Not by chance I quoted the words of Marx and Engels regarding the
European revolution of 1848. "We now know what role stupidity plays in
revolutions, and how scumbags will exploit it." Indeed, exploit they
did.
As far as we can tell from the
unfolding events, the greed of the ruling clan was exploited in general and in
specific ways from the eventful situation. "D"-day and "H"-hour
came on 21 Feb.
Since I am in science and not
intelligence, my information is only indirect, but it is confirmed by another
analysis too. Towards 18:00 on 21 Feb half of the Maidan was cleared. And it
could have ended at that. But you know, between 18:00 and 20:00 ... There were
about 15,000 Maidan protesters. There were being shifted by a group of about
3,000 some of whom gave me this information. Walking behind them was Berkut.
They reported that all of a sudden Berkut stopped. "We were proceeding,
but Berkut stopped." They had been given the order to stop. What
happened between 18:00 and 20:00 ? Let us re-create the events. This is my
version. I'm not forcing it upon anyone, by any means.
At that point Yanukovych decided
that he had won and could start negotiations. Moreover, the Americans had told
him they knew where his billion was stashed. Here Yanukovych decided to play a
stupid country-boy trick. He decided to trick the Americans, not realizing that
they would trick him, by not respecting the agreement. Any they wouldn't
exactly forget his betrayal anyway. At this point, when the opportunity to
clear out Maidan was lost, events turned in a different direction. I was saying
on the 21st, 22nd, that this is a situational loss for Russia, because if the
only pro-Russian force we could set up in 20 years was the one fronted by
Yanukovych, then that is a poor performance by us.
[…]
What
the West wanted
Now let's look at what the West
wanted, what their plan was. What did the West need out of this situation?
Let's think like the Westerners. That is, those who planned this. This is
really the right approach.
In the summer when I was in London,
I read the English papers. There was a marvelous editorial in the Financial
Times. This editorial was basically slamming tutors of economics at English
universities. They were saying that if you want to train an economist, don't
hammer into their heads what is written by economists. Teach them to think like
economists. Incidentally, likewise we need to teach people to think the way the
politicians do. Our political science is reduced to a model where people only
know the theories of political science. But the theories of political science
are very far from reality. Indeed, they exist to hide the thinking of
politicians. It's a misdirection.
Plan "Minimum": the West establishes a Slavic, neo-Nazi, Banderite Reich.
Constant pressure on Russia, provocations by various means. If Russia reacts -
tell everyone that "the huge totalitarian Russia is harassing the free
Ukraine" The same template was used on Yugoslavia: "Those poor
Albanians - victims of the evil Serbs."
Plan "Maximum": same as when the German Nazi Reich was established in the
1930s. Set up the forces, which, if necessary for the West, will take on the
decisive part of the war against Russia. Some will say: "What a
nightmare! How are you supposed to go to war against Russia?" There
are different situations. Who in Europe could wage war against Russia? Romanians,
you think, could conduct a war? Poles - not themselves. What's needed is a kind
of "pit bull terrier" state, which would be prepared to start
at least a local conflict, to show the weakened Russia how events could
develop.
[…]
We are peaceful people, but our armored train is ready in the
sidings. So the changes which happened in February-March was the end of the era
of defeats. Leaving the era of defeats is necessary not only on the external
front, but also domestically. There are still plenty of odious characters
around from the time of Yeltsin. Some have gone to Ukraine. There's a
journalist Kiselëv - Evgeny Kiselëv, who shares a surname with Dmitry Kiselëv.
He's been in Ukraine since many years ago. He's a Berezovsky-Gussinsky person.
Has been broadcasting in Ukraine for many years. Now he says he´s ashamed to be
Russian. "Ashamed", for God's sake ...Well, we shouldn't be ashamed to learn from the West how to operate in the informational domain. Their policies are of an offensive nature. If you are reacting, then you're one step behind and you're going to lose. In the Crimean Victory we won because our leadership, above all the president, he was always a step ahead of the opponent. He took a step. They reacted. He set the agenda.?
-------------
RELATED ARTICLES
=======
