The Answer Coaltion held a meeting in front of the White House under the slogan «No Funding for Neo-Nazis in Ukraine!» (1) on March 12, just prior to the meeting between President Obama and Ukraine's new Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. The organization has launched a new campaign to flood Congress and the White House with thousands of emails demanding that not one cent of taxpayers’ money be spent for the new Ukrainian government where neo-Nazis and semi-fascists hold many of the most powerful Cabinet positions including the Ukraine’s military. The organization’s website makes public concrete data on the new Ukraine’s regime personalities and offers strong judgments on antinational and fascist in nature putsch staged in Kiev…
Justin Raymondo, an Answer coalition activist and editorial editor of popular Antiwar.com, has gone farther than that by posting detailed information on neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s «interim government». He asks why Washington and Brussels turn a blind eye on the fact that the Ukraine’s junta has a fascist taint. In his article What Color is Ukraine’s ‘Color Revolution’? Washington whitewashes Ukraine’s brownshirts Raymondo writes that «as the real nature of Ukraine’s «democratic» and allegedly «pro-Western» opposition becomes all too apparent the pushback from the regime-change crowd borders on the comic. The War Party is stumbling all over itself in a frantic effort to cover up and deny the frightening provenance of the neo-fascist gang they’ve helped to seize power in Kiev». He cites sententious utterances by Amelia M. Glaser, associate professor of Russian literature at the University of California, San Diego, published by the New York Times, «The past decade has been a time of significant rapprochement between Ukrainian Jews and their countrymen, particularly among cultural and intellectual figures». Justin Raymondo sarcastically comments on what the pundit-lady says, «Well, that’s a relief: I was afraid all those white power symbols – including Confederate flags – adorning Kiev city hall and anti-Semitic rhetoric from Svoboda and Right Sector, was a sign of a neo-Nazi resurgence. I wondered whether Svoboda – which idolizes Stepan Bandera, leader of an armed gang that collaborated with the Nazis – and its torchlight parades signaled trouble».
Booed by American Protestants, Arseniy Yatsenyuk got warm reception at the Atlantic Council, a leading US conservative think tank. An ardent supporter of «Ukraine’s territorial integrity» he was spared from being reminded that in 2007 in Pristina he fervently called for the separation of Kosovo from Serbia and creating a militants’ enclave in the heart of Europe. Yatsenyuk never made precise what exactly kind of enclave the Kiev junta plans to create now in the vicinity of Russian border. Bombarded by questions on neo-Nazis, Pravy Sector and anti-Semitism, he evasively said that «a deputy prime minister in the new government «represents the Jewish community». The junta’s spokesman avoided the details about himself and other members of cosmopolitan oligarchy appointed to feed at the trough at the expense of south-eastern regions.
When the parliament of Crimea declared independence of the republic, the events related to the «self-determination» of Kosovo came to mind. There was no referendum held there, it was all rather easily done. In 2007 then Under Secretary Nicholas Burns quoted a telephone conversation with Serbia’s prime-minister Voislav Kostunica he had had earlier, when he told the man, «You lost Serbia eight years ago». He added that the region had been taken away and there was nothing to do about it. Back then he insisted that the Kosovo situation was unique, something neither Russia, nor US congressmen agreed with. Nicholas Burns lost his temper and explained to the participants of the hearings, «What makes the Kosovo situation unique is the fact that for the last 8 years 1,500 troops have been stationed in that province, at an annual cost of $250 million». And he added, «We should encourage the Russians to do the right thing and to allow Kosovo to become independent…we should remind the Russians that we have done the heavy lifting – our troops, our money, our involvement with Europe, and that no matter what happens the day after, no matter what the vote is, what the results of the voting are, we will be there…»
There is one more thing that adds up to what makes the US exert unprecedented pressure on Russia over Crimea; it goes against the grain for Washington to let $5 billion spent on Ukraine go down the drain. Since the time of the testimony described above, the unipolar world has cracked, Russia has emerged with a new foreign policy concept and, what’s more important, the attitude towards the Washington’s aggressive foreign policy has gone through drastic changes.
Overwhelming majority of Americans flatly refuse the idea of any intervention into the Ukraine’s internal affairs, according to surveys conducted by US trustworthy pollsters. For instance, according to Yougov poll held in early March, the «support for any US intervention to defend Ukraine against a Russian invasion is even lower. Only 18% say that the US has any responsibility to protect Ukraine, while 46% say that the US does not. Support for helping to protect Ukraine is higher among Republicans (26%) than among Democrats (13%) but just under half of both groups say that the US has no responsibility to defend Ukraine».
According to the Huffington Post, few Americans want the United States to get involved in policing the political turmoil in Ukraine even under extreme circumstances. As the source reports, pluralities of Democrats, Republicans and independents agree that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to protect Ukraine. According to such a renowned pollster as Pew Poll, «Currently, 52% say the United States «should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.» Just 38% disagree with the statement. This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. «minding its own business» in the nearly 50-year history of the measure».
US independent commentators find it hard to hold back the exasperation over any foreign policy steps taken by the government which are based on the assumption that every corner of the globe is of strategic importance for the United States. Suffice it to have a look at popular American blogs to see that the majority of Americans believe that those in the White House, who are responsible for national foreign policy, are egregiously incompetent. In his comments on Ukraine, Walter Patrick Lang, a retired military intelligence officer, writes in his blog that idiots prevail among those who influence the US foreign policy. This starting point for discussions has been recently picked up by bloggers to be elaborated on. Commenting the so called «executive order» of Barack Obama issued on March 6, he sarcastically notes that the second item of the order’s text contains an inadequate definition which says that the events in Ukraine pose an extraordinary and extreme threat to US national security and foreign policy, so the President emphasizes the need to declare a state of emergency to meet the challenge.
I’d like to add that the «executive order» is rather a scandalously inadequate document. Obama vests in himself, the Department of Treasury and State Secretary the power to take away the property of foreign citizens and impose sanctions at their own discretion against those who defend the right of peoples to self-determination, the right, which, among other things, is stated by the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Obama’s executive order threatens the property and other rights of those who take part in the March 16 Crimea referendum, as well as those who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine. Let me remember that the Ukraine’s government is illegitimate; it has come to power as a result of armed coup.
William Lang writes in his posts that he would support the idea of appointing somebody competent as State Secretary and fire Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, John Clapper and Samantha Power. Another blogger believes that Obama interprets international law to his heart content in line with his ideological preferences.
According to well-known journalist and researcher Robert Parry, the President has become a puppet on a string held by neocons that rally their ranks and occupy high positions in the Pentagon and State Department. Parry believes that this coalition blew the fire of unrest that led to the ouster of democratically elected President and the escalation of tensions over Crimea. W. Patrick Lang expresses a similar vision of US foreign policy in his book Drinking the Kool-Aid devoted to events that led to the Iraqi war. Herbert H.G. Wells in his days used to be an ardent supporter of British world rule. In his Open Conspiracy he said that Britain would cease to be a great nation if it didn’t act in terms of evil. Those who define the US foreign policy have adopted the philosophy of «open conspiracy». Any sovereign state, which has become a target for attacks launched by transnational clique, should realize that making concessions could be dangerous, or even pernicious.
Former US Assistant Secretary of Treasury Paul Robert Craig said, «Everyone needs to understand that Washington is lying about Ukraine just as Washington lied about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, just as Washington lied about Iranian nukes, just as Washington lied about Syrian president Assad using chemical weapons, just as Washington lied about Afghanistan, Libya, NSA spying, torture. What hasn’t Washington lied about? Washington is comprised of three elements: Arrogance, Hubris, and Evil. There is nothing else there».