UKRAINE: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT

by Gregory Kay
gkay

Too many Southerners, including Southern Nationalists who ought to know better, take things at face value and go with their knee-jerk, instinctive, emotional reaction, rather than analyzing carefully, analytically, and unemotionally in order to determine if they're being lied to.

southernnationalistflag1

That's usually fine if you're dealing with honest people; it's foolishness if you're talking politics. And the higher the politics, the greater the dishonesty, and when you're talking about geo-political events on a global scale, nothing is ever what it seems!
Take the recent events in Ukraine for example. According to what you read in the mainstream Western press, a popular revolution spontaneously erupted when a president became tyrannical and ordered his thuggish police to fire on unarmed demonstrators, and was then forced to flee the country in the face of their righteous anger. Then Russia, seeing an opportunity, invaded and occupied the Ukrainian state of Crimea, and is threatening the hard-won freedom of all Ukrainians and thus starting another Cold War with freedom-loving America and threatening the peace and stability of the entire free world.
If you want to know what this premise really is, take off your shoes and go for a walk in a cow pasture; when you feel something squishing up between your toes, you will have hit upon the perfect definition of this story.
COVER-of-Third-Revolution-by-Gregory-Kay-part-12
Southern Nationalists want to believe it though, because
(a) they're mentally incapable of divorcing themselves from the USA that's occupying them;
(b) they're still stuck in the R = C (Russia = Communist) equation of the Cold War that was over decades ago;
or (c) because a very similar scenario – at least the first part – is a dream of ours, with some events almost ripped from the pages of my book series, THE THIRD REVOLUTION.
The only problem lies in the fact that it's just as fictional, because, as in my aforementioned novels, it's a good-sounding story someone made up. If you want to get technical, it's even less true, because my novels plainly state that they are fiction, while this is being passed off as truth by the US and EU governments and their controlled media.
In other words, it's what we independent journalists call a lie, and I'm going to show you who, why, how, and what lessons we can learn from it.
First, a little background.
Western Ukraine is generally far more western culturally than its eastern states, especially the Crimea, which have more in common with Russia; it was even part of one of the pre-World War I European empires at one time.
Eastern Ukraine, on the other hand, has always been closely-tied to Russia; in fact, Crimea was literally part of Russia until 1954, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev unilaterally gave it away without regard to what anyone else thought about it, including the Crimeans themselves.
The western section of the country speaks mostly Ukrainian; the eastern part, including Crimea, is far more likely to speak Russian, and both languages were accepted both by practice and by law.
The west, while majority Orthodox, is still a Ukrainian Catholic stronghold, while the east is overwhelmingly traditional Orthodox.
Further, while officially part of Ukraine, Crimea is an autonomous state, meaning it can govern itself pretty much as it pleases...or could until the revolutionaries took over in Kiev, the nation's capital, located in the west. One of their first acts was to ban the use of the Russian language in any official communication within the country in order to psychologically distance their population from Russia, which Crimea understandably saw, not only as a slap at them, but an attack on that autonomy.
Ukraine as a whole had and has a series of problems, however; to put it bluntly, it's economy is in the toilet, one of the worst in Europe.
Ukraine, and especially the Crimea, also has the misfortune to occupy one of the most strategically important areas in the world, and has been fought over for centuries.
It is especially important to the Russian Federation, as it is their only real naval gateway to the Black Sea; not only are they not willing to give up that access, they simply can't afford to do so. That status also makes it a primary target of Western governments intent on neutering the RF.
In former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, THE GRAND CHESSBOARD, he said, “Ukraine...is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia.
Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire...However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia...Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player...Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots.”
Brzezinski, who openly believed that the US should continue to dominate the entire world, also wrote that “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America.”
All of that aside, this is a time when the US – Democrats and Republicans alike for those who self-deluding people who still feel the need to pretend there is actually any real difference – needs a new bogeyman to replace the 'War on Terror,' which is just about played out even with the most stupid of the American sheeple, the EU wants a 'crumple zone' in front of them to take the brunt of any future (historically-speaking, it's pretty much inevitable) war with the Russian Federation, the Zionist banksters, as always, want more money, and it all came together in a perfect storm over Ukraine.
This isn't the first time Western interference has had an impact there; in 2004, it paid for and engineered the so-called 'Orange Revolution' to put their puppet Yushchenko in power, who promptly ran the economy so far into the ground he only managed 10% of the vote in the next election, but their financial situation never recovered. (Note: The West also bought and paid for similar revolutions in the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Kyrgyzstan during the same period, in 2003 and 2005 respectively, with pretty much the same results, not to mention the other revolutions in the so-called “Arab Spring.”)
This time, they went all-out (other than the recycled fliers, which were, word-for-word, identical to the ones the US produced for the Arab Spring in Egypt, which they also planned and paid for, with only the language itself being changed).
A phone call from State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland's was hacked by persons unknown, where she not only said “*@#$ the EU,” something that was all over the news at the time, but also something that wasn't reported; she went on to describe how the US had invested $5 billion in US taxpayer funds to “promote democracy” in Ukraine by undermining its democratically-elected current President Yanukovich.
Hacked emails purportedly between US Embassy Assistant Army Attache Lt. Colonel Jason Greche and Ukrainian Colonel Igor Protsyk discussing the logistics of planned false-flag attacks in the country's southeast designed to cast blame on the RF also came to light. At the same time, as revealed by still more hacking done by Anonymous Ukraine, the people in the US-funded opposition were also taking in copious amounts of funds from the EU, Germany in particular, with the money going to opposition leaders' personal accounts in Lithuania. Still more hackers have exposed even more financial support for a particular opposition faction – the Crimean Tatars, an Islamic Turkic people – coming in from (big surprise) Islamic Turkey.
In fact, support seems likely to have come from several NATO countries, and from one notable non-NATO entity in particular: Israel, who is the only country confirmed (although several more are strongly suspected) to have troops on the ground there.
Now, lest you accuse me of being one of those paranoid individuals who shout “Jew!” every time a problem comes up and have to look for them under my bed before I can go to sleep at night, this came from the Israeli papers, who said “former (Yeah, right...) IDF troopers (were) leading units” of revolutionaries against the elected government in Ukraine (They also admitted having regular troops on the ground as “advisors” in Georgia at the time the RF dropped the hammer on that country.). Unconfirmed reports are also out there alleging Al Qaeda terrorists from Kosovo, Chechnya, and Syrian dissident groups (also Israeli allies) were there fighting on behalf of the rebels, along with US, UK, and various EU special operations forces, not to mention a large number of mercenaries, including those from the American company formerly known as Blackwater. No wonder the Ukraine Government lost.
One or more of these might well explain the sniper attacks that supposedly started the violence (because apparently the previous attacks on the police with clubs and firebombs were not violent, according to the press) and provoked an armed response from the people. The West claims President Yanukovich or one of his cabinet gave the order, but no evidence for any such order exists. What does exist, however, is the unquestionable fact that between a quarter and half, and possibly more of the fatalities were among the heavily armed, well-trained police, who were clad in body armor, supposedly inflicted at the hands of an untrained mob of civilians with makeshift weapons. The problem is that this scenario not only defies common sense, but exists nowhere else in history. A large enough mob could defeat the police in a shooting war, certainly, but death toll in the process would be staggering, with the vast majority of fatalities inevitably ending up on the civilian side. Instead, it has been theorized that some professionals may (again) have pulled another page out of THE THIRD REVOLUTION and targeted the demonstrators, fueling their rage, and then turned their guns on the police in order to cause them to react. In other words, non-Ukrainians took control of the action, and thereby controlled the reaction. Can you say 'false flag' boys and girls? It was the perfect thing that really get that party started.
Some of you, I know because I've seen your comments on the web, want to support the White nationalists fighting the Ukrainian Government, the same ones Russia labeled “neo-nazis.” That would be all well and good, except for a few inconvenient facts.
Among them might well be that these groups are anything but White nationalist, in that they've declared themselves allied with the Chechen Al Qaida and urged terrorist attacks on White Russian civilian targets, plus, when it came time to appoint revolutionary governors, the government they're allegedly a big part of appointed billionaire Oligarchs...Jewish ones, whose government they apparently prefer either to Ukraine's White elected one or to the equally White Russia, currently in control of the Ukrainian state of Crimea, which, at the time of this writing, is holding a referendum on staying with the Ukraine or becoming part of Russia once more.
These 'nationalists' also took part in selling their own country, lock, stock, and barrel, to the international banksters: Jews, in other words.
Part of the agreement for Ukraine to come into the EU's orbit requires, not only the surrender of national sovereignty and ultimately national identity that the European Union demands, along with accepting non-White, third world immigration, but the same type of so-called “austerity measures” that have been destroying Greece (and that Iceland had the guts to avert), that includes a massive currency devaluation, a 50% reduction in pensions to starve the most vulnerable, and a huge sell-off of assets (which has already begun; China just purchased several million hectares of prime Ukrainian farmland to produce more food to feed its own teeming masses), with the money going right in the pockets of the Zionist banksters.
If those guys are really White nationalists, they're doing a damned poor job in taking care of their White people, I would think.
As for Russia's 'invasion' of Crimea, those 16,000 troops were already there, and there legally. You see, as part of the Partition Treaty at the breakup of the Soviet Union, the RF retained the lease on the Crimean Peninsula's naval bases that house its Black Sea Fleet, and is actually allowed to keep 25,000 there under its terms if it so desires, so the Western outrage over the 'invasion' is really nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, at least at the time of this writing, a lie designed to drum up support for the US and hatred for the RF.
So, what can we Southern Nationalists learn from all this?
The followers don't have to learn anything from it, because they'll do what their leaders tell them, but it's the leaders who need the lessons this situation teaches. Bear in mind I haven't explicitly listed all the twists and turns of the domestic news articles, because you've already read them and I'll be covering them generally below.
    1. Propaganda works because the masses, even the most educated ones, tend to believe it, especially if it is expressed in terms that fit into their already-existing paradigms. Never hesitate to beat your enemy over the head with it every time even the smallest opportunity arises. This includes your political opponents; the Republicans are busily and successfully rallying their troops by castigating Obama for his actions (or rather, lack thereof) concerning the Ukraine/Crimea, not because any of them, with the possible exception of “insane McCain,” would do any different (I mean, seriously, who would be crazy enough to actually want to start a nuclear holocaust?), but because that kind of talk fits their supporting followers' simple-minded notions of how things should be.
    2. Stirring up old hatreds and grievances works. The West is appealing to the brain-dead, who are still locked in the Cold War mentality and incapable of separating the Russian Federation from the USSR that it was part of (“Once a commie, always a commie!” I read in one comment.), and Turkey, besides wanting to reestablish the Ottoman Empire that once ruled Ukraine, also resents being kicked out of it. Then there is the historic bad blood between Ukraine and Russia; in the early days, millions of Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death by the Soviet leader, Stalin (who was Georgian, not Russian). Understandably the survivors were a bit put out at this, so much so that, when the Germans invaded during World War II, many and possibly even most Ukrainians – certainly the bulk of the Cossacks – welcomed them as liberators and thousands fought on their side. In the meantime, during their push into Russia and battling the entire way, these same Germans caused tremendous damage and death, and left a sour taste in the mouth of Russia that wasn't wiped away by the Soviets' even more severe occupation of East Germany that came later. Words like “German” and “Nazi” still provoke a powerful, visceral reaction with them, and they regarded the Ukrainians who served under Hitler as traitors, and slaughtered or gulaged thousands of them after the war. Then Khrushchev gave the traditionally Russian Crimea to Ukraine, probably because he was at least rumored to be ethnic Ukrainian himself. This historical strife provided built-in grist for the propaganda mill on both sides. The West and the Ukrainian revolutionaries pointed to the mass starvation of the Holodomor, the post-war oppression, and the horrors of Communism in general, and Russia trotted out the “Nazi” appellation calculated to stir up its own people, along with talk of German invasion, with wasn't too difficult, really, once Merkel's Germany was caught bankrolling some of the revolutionaries. Old grievances make a great tool for the revolutionary or the counter-revolutionary alike, especially when you can add name-calling, like “Communist!” or “Nazi!” that really gets people really stirred up. Always be willing to use this tool to your advantage; even if you have, say, Nazi leanings yourself, don't be afraid to call the other guy that...in fact, that's the best time to call the other guy that.
    3. Learn from history. Many Ukrainians, especially in Crimea and the rest of the east, realize the country is being played as nothing more than a pawn by larger powers, and suspect that they are being set up as a sacrificial goat by the West, just like Poland was by Britain and France when those countries convinced them they didn't really need to accede to the reasonable German request for a corridor into the Danzig. No one in their right mind wants their country to become a battlefield between great powers, because no matter which of the big boys win, you are the one who loses, and loses big.
    4. For a revolution to be successful, nothing is off the table as to what you will do; witness the snipers, for example. Normally, the side willing to go the farthest against the other will win, regardless of simple numbers. If you're not willing to go as far as it takes, don't start it, because all you'll be doing is wasting lives on both sides until you finally lose, which you will.
    5. No successful modern revolution is ever fought without outside help or interference, and few if any unsuccessful ones are either. Just be sure to choose you help carefully, and never actually be stupid enough to believe they're helping you because “your cause is just!” No country has ever done that, and, frankly, it would be irresponsible and a disservice to their own people if they provided assistance with nothing to gain from doing so.
    6. You'd better make sure beforehand that the price that will be extracted by that outside help will be worth it. There's no point in exchanging one master for a worse one.
    7. Not everyone will want to be part of your revolution, so decide what to do ahead of time (You can't simply kill them en masse in the information age, at least overtly.) and have your propaganda demonizing them already in place and ready to go.
    8. Every revolution, by its very nature, bears within it the seeds of its own destruction. If one revolution is good, it will take a lot of well-thought-out propaganda to make people believe a second one is bad...unless you're talking about Americans, and one was US backed while the other was not, which is all this particular (and I suspect many other) proletariat needs (or wants) to know. Just wave the flag real hard, have propaganda ready, with separate ads to appeal to conservatives and liberals, and you're in like flint.
    9. Not everyone is who he claims to be. Actions, not words, define the man. Actions and money demonstrate who is really on your side.
    10. Learn from past successful revolutions, and copy them. Learn from failed ones, and don't do whatever they did. Ukraine is a direct copy of the (also) Western-backed and planned “Arab Spring,” for example.
    11. False flags will happen; that's a given, so you might as well be the one to make them happen, because (see 11).
    12. The one who controls the action controls the reaction. When you undertake an action, there are only so many logical reactions to it. Action is infinite, and reaction is finite, limited. When planning an action, determine the possible reactions and have a plan already in place to deal with them.
    13. No revolution ever happens in a vacuum; others will be involved, one way or another, so make allies out of the right ones, meaning the ones who will give you the most while asking the least. Find out who on the outside has the most to gain by backing you and go with them.
    14. Be ready and have the mechanism in place to immediately depose or execute your leaders if they sell you out. The truly nationalistic Ukraine revolutionaries failed to do this, and will come to regret it later.
    15. Fully trust no one, not even yourself.
    16. If you're a leader or have any ambitions to be one, you can't afford to make decisions based on how something feels; you have to think. Leaders think, followers feel, and propaganda experts under the command of the leaders direct those feelings. A leader who believes his own propaganda is as sure as recipe for self-destruction as the drug dealer who starts getting high on his own supply; either one no longer thinks clearly and logically.
    17. NEVER, ever, ever trust an email or phone call to be secure.
    18. If you're willing to take the “official” story from anyone about anything at face value, you're an idiot, and, when the revolution comes, if I'm a leader, do us both a favor and stay well away from me...unless you're a follower and I am your main source of propaganda, that is. Otherwise...well, I'd really hate it if you became a liability, because then I might have to kill you. Don't worry though, because I'd either make you an object lesson or, far more likely, a useful hero and martyr by claiming the other side did it, just like they did in Ukraine.
I think that about covers it, don't you?