Blog Archives


By Nikos Sverkos

In politics, whoever can better influence the international media to push forward their views has the upper hand, say political communications insiders. And this isn’t just the case during election campaigns: in the European Union, decision-making power depends not only on the size of a given player’s economy, but also on how it deals with international media.

It’s no secret that in Brussels lies a well-oiled media machine, which can distribute information to all major media outlets across the continent in a matter of hours. The machine, which has risen in influence since the financial crisis broke in 2008, operates on the basis of maintaining the anonymity of journalists’ sources that feed it; one of the sacred principles of journalistic ethics.

However, here this principle of anonymity is also used to protect the Brussels media machine itself and ensuring it remains hidden from public view. No journalist in the Belgian capital is prepared to risk their job to expose how the system works, thus preserving a ‘code of silence’ around it.

The hard core

The most influential group in the Brussels media machine is made up of the euro zone’s ‘hard core’ bloc. This means the Permanent Representation of Germany, located in Brussels, and assisted by political and financial satellite countries of Germany: Spain, Portugal, Slovakia and the Baltic states (among which, Latvia currently holds the EU presidency). France and Italy have clearly less influence and access in this system.

In terms of collection and distribution of news, the main players in the system are the three major European-level media outlets: the agencies Reuters and Bloomberg, and the Financial Times newspaper. Whatever this group reports, all other media outlets in Europe rush to reproduce. Thus – intentionally or not – articles published by the group are spread widely.

Information that enters the Brussels media machine comes from three sources: people working inside the EU bureaucracy who monitor critical meetings (interpreters as well as civil servants), the politicians themselves (or their aides) and senior officials of the European institutions. These sources are used to satisfy the need for timely, exclusive coverage of news events, which makes journalists extremely competitive in pursuing information on what is discussed during these meetings.

The most common means of communication from these sources to journalists is SMS. When it comes to more detailed leaks though, journalists from the three main media players (together with others from mostly German and British outlets) are invited to an unofficial press conference and briefed. This has been the case for the past few months.

In these meetings, the person doing the briefing is very often an official that also works at the European Commission’s Spokesperson’s Service. Of German origin, this man sets aside EU etiquette as well as the theoretical neutrality of his professional position.

A recent example that highlights how well this system functions was in Riga, during the recent Eurogroup meeting. On April 23, Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis participated in a dinner with his colleagues, in order to prepare the issues for the forthcoming meeting. Everything proceeded normally. But the following day, the media ‘revealed’ highly aggressive rhetoric against Varoufakis from his colleagues during the Eurogroup meeting itself.

The alien

That same senior official of the European Commission, moments after the conclusion of the Eurogroup meeting, invited eight journalists for the ‘established’ daily informal press conference. “There was a lot of anger towards the Greek delegation,” a Brussels-based journalist, who asked to remain anonymous, told us. “When we asked about Mr Varoufakis’ position in the meeting, the official said ‘The guy lives on another planet’, and made derogatory gestures. This isn’t something we’ve seen before – neither from EU officials nor this particular person.”

An identical ‘update’ was given by two further EU officials, one working for the Eurogroup and one from a diplomatic mission of a Southern European country. “They were equally aggressive; trying to present Mr Varoufakis as an ‘alien’”, said the journalist, who was present during these discussions. “When we got to the heart of the matter concerning the Greek economy, the ‘sources’ refused to say any more. They just blamed Varoufakis.” These briefings were followed by tough statements from various ministers, echoing the German government’s point of view.

This specific information about the events of the Eurogroup meeting in Riga was published in all three aforementioned major media outlets, giving the impression of a war-like atmosphere at the meeting and breaking the unwritten rule of maintaining a professional distance from harsh words. Following these events, the Greek delegation decided for Varoufakis to not attend the planned dinner on the evening of April 24, to express his displeasure with the way his colleagues treated him and Greece. However, the ‘aggression’ from ministers, EU officials and the media did not subside. On the contrary, Reuters presented Varoufakis as “isolated”, simply because he did not attend the dinner, without asking for a statement from the Greek side. They also commented on Varoufakis’ decision not to wear a tie.

The go-ahead for this latest smear campaign was given by SMS, from a German official to a journalist at one of the three major media outlets. The journalist in question then called some of his sources in Athens in order to warn them what was coming.

The wall

During the Eurogroup meetings last February, the Greek government tried to breach the seemingly impenetrable ‘media wall’ being built around it. “The fact that the draft of Jeroen Dijsselbloem’s ‘decision’ was leaked by the Greek delegation, which essentially subverted debate on it, outraged many people in Brussels,” the journalist told us. “War was declared, and from that point on, the Greek positions were repeatedly leaked to Peter Spiegel of the Financial Times,” he added.

“Will Mr Varoufakis be able to survive the pressure?” asked the journalist. “At least Mr Tsipras still trusts him,” we replied.

“Then inform them in Greece, both the government and the people, that they can expect even more of these attacks,” he said.

source :


Van Rompuy: If The Public Doesn’t Want EU Expansion, ‘We Do It Anyway’

In a crass and ill-timed intervention, the unelected president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy has warned Vladimir Putin that the EU intends ultimately to control every country on the western flank of Russia.


by M.E. Synon 1 May 2014

In an interview with De Standaard newspaper, Van Rompuy speaks about his “dreams” that all the Balkan states will join the EU. He calls it an “inspiring thought” that in the long term “the whole of European territory outside Russia” will be tied in some way to the EU.

He admits he does not know if there is public support for such a move, “But we do it anyway.”

Van Rompuy’s comments, released in the midst of the tensions which have followed moves by Brussels to put Ukraine on the path to EU membership, give credence to Putin’s fears that ultimately the EU intends to put its tanks on Russia’s lawn.

Building a common EU defence is one of the strategic priorities for the Brussels elite who are trying to build “a country called Europe.”

Most people in Britain are unaware of it, but a commitment by Britain and the other member states to common foreign, security and defence policies was written into the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

In recent years the EU has deepened the integration of the military forces of member states with the framing of the Common Security and Defence Policy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande are the leading voices for a common defence force for the EU.

In 2008, a report by a respected Dutch think tank warned that the EU is pursuing a secretive “military space policy.” It accused the EU of using the cover of the European Space Agency to develop technologies such as the Galileo satellite system for use by military as well as civilian. authorities

Last July, Martin Schulz, the German socialist President of the European Parliament who is now one of the top candidates to be the next president of the European Commission, said: “We need a headquarters for civil and military missions in Brussels and deployable troops.”

At the same time the European Commission proposed that it should “own and operate” its own surveillance drones.

Last December at a European Council meeting, member states agreed to “deepen defence cooperation.” At a press conference afterwards, David Cameron insisted Britain would block EU institutions from owning and operating their own military assets.

However, the fact is there is nothing Britain can do to stop a group of EU member states from creating their own “intergovernmental” defence force and asking the EU to administer it.

Now in this latest interview, Van Rompuy has said Brussels intends in effect to create an EU national border from the Arctic Circle to the Turkish border with Iraq.

This could threaten Russia’s historic, trade and political ties with Eastern Europe, so it is unlikely Russians will believe Van Rompuy when he insists the EU does not intend to create a “geopolitical shift.”

As long ago as 2007, José Manuel Barroso, the Portuguese former Maoist who is the president of the European Commission, said he liked to compare the EU “to the organisation of an empire.” He said “We have the dimension of an empire. I believe it is a great construction.”

Van Rompuy’s interview makes it clear that the EU elite intend for the empire to go right to the edge of the Russian Motherland.

In reply to Van Rompuy’s interview, a spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: “Europe’s diversity means a one-size-fits-all Europe will not work. You cannot impose a federal, close-knit union on such a varied group of states. There is not the political will to do so.”

“Only 31 per cent of the people across the European Union have a positive view of the EU. Two-thirds believe their voice does not count in the EU. This is not the voice of people who think a ‘United States of Europe’ is the answer to their problems. You have to treat Europe like a network not like a bloc.”

UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall said Van Rompuy’s words “demonstrate the frightening expansionist mentality of federalist fanatics.” He said Van Rompuy “does show a rare glimpse of honesty when he admits that the EU’s desire to expand comes without any public approval.”


And let us remember :

Ukraine under dissolution on the order of US-EU and instrument is the rise of the fascist extreme right


στα Ελληνικα

på Svenska

by Dimitris Kazakis

If you want to know who in all ways are strengthening the rise of fascism and nazi extremism in Europe, you do not need do anything else but to look at what is happening right now in Ukraine. Both the U.S. and Germany has under Europe’s cover story beautifully financed the resurrection of the 14.e Waffen SS division in Ukraine, which had been formed by Nazi Ukrainian nationalists during the Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union.

This horde of barbarians who stayed in the historical chronicles of the 2nd world war with the name Ukrainian SS, participated in mass cleansing of civilians, hundreds of villages was burnt as Distomo in Greece but first and foremost in Ukraine itself, but also in Belarus. The ferocity with which acted in many cases surpassed their comrades from Germany.

This is why their actions was rightly condemned not only by the Red Army and the partisans who were operating behind the lines of Hitler, but also by the western allies. Anyone arrested with insignias of this unit was sent directly to court martial and faced the firing 210px-Dyvizia_Galychyna_svgOrganization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists-M_svgsquad for heinous crimes against civilians. *Many of their insignia have clear Swedish roots and Swedish ultra-right and neo-Nazis openly demonstrate their support for the Ukrainian Nazis (This article highlights the truth about who financially, organisationally and logistically also supports the Swedish and the European new-Nazis and right-wing extremism).

The history of today’s confrontation

This horde was not the only one. The Ukrainian Galicia’s main city Lvov was historically the eastern region of the kingdom of Galicia, which until the first world war was attached to the Austro-Hungarian empire. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had annexed Galicia during the division of the kingdom of Poland in the 18th century. But because the region of Galicia status of exploitation and oppression was relatively mild compared with the Tsarist regime, many Poles along with other ethnic and religious minorities relocated in order to escape from the Tsarist pogroms that took place on a regular basis.

The House of Habsburg of Austria allowed this relocation to the attached Galicia so the area became a great mix of different populations in terms of religion, ethnicity, language, and so on. Polish nationalists claimed Galicia for their account. And because the Austrians wanted to counterbalance their activity they strengthened in every way the Ukrainian nationalism as a rival. A Ukrainian nationalism with a strong German reference. Very quickly Galicia became the field of confrontation of the Polish and the Ukrainian nationalism with populations experiencing ethnic cleansing for the rival camps to achieve “purity” in their own ethnic standards.

On June 23, 1917 Ukraine is established as a part of the original Russian Republic, where a few months ago, in February, the Russian people had overthrown the Tsar. After the overthrow of the Provisional Government in Petrograd by the Bolsheviks on November 7 (October 25 on the Julian calendar), 1917 and the passage of all power to the soviets, a Bill of Rights of the Peoples of Russia is published the 15 (2) November of the same year, which recognized “the right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination, to the point of secession and the creation of an independent state.” Few days later, ie on 20 (7) November, the Ukrainian Central Rada based in Kiev proclaimed the Ukrainian Democratic Republic.

Ukraine is established as an independent state

22 (9) January 1918 the Ukrainian Central Rada published the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine on the basis of which the People’s Republic of Ukraine was formed with socialist references and imperatives, but is directly hostile to the Bolsheviks. With the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed between mainly Germany and Soviet-Russia on March 3, 1918, Ukraine came under the control of the German Empire. For the first time in order to help the most extreme nationalist elements in Ukraine, Germany presses Austria to leave eastern Galiciain the control of Ukrainian nationalists.

With the direct help of the Germans and Austrians on 24-26 April 1918, the Cossack ataman Paul Skoropantski overturns the Central Rada and impose a brutal dictatorship. The gallows and executions are put on the daily agenda. All the old privileges of the aristocracy are restored. Paramilitary groups are threatening to burn the villages who are resisting and they spread terror on the population. With the capitulation of Germany and Austria, the Skoropantski regime is overturned in December 1918.

The People’s Republic of Ukraine is re-established a new Central Rada where Simon Petliura prevailed, who found the opportunity to demand with the support of the French who disembarked in Odessa in November 1918  to occupy the vacuum left by the capitulation of the Germans.

The Ukrainian Rada participate in the 19 countries invasive war against Soviet Russia, run by the Entente. But repeated defeats and the growing popular discontent, are leading the Rada – at the suggestion of France and England – to form an alliance with Poland’s dictator Pildouski in April 1920 to continue the war against Soviet Russia.

On March 18, 1921 the peace treaty of Riga was signed between Poland and Soviet Russia under which Galicia, which was passed by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to the ownership of Ukraine, is attached to the first. From then until the second world war the Poles implemented savage ethnic cleansing operations against the local population who refused to consider themselves Polish, as well as against anyone who opposed the partition of the region into latifundia in favor of Polish aristocrats.

The emergence of Ukrainian Nazis nationalists

In 1929 reportedly in Ukrainian Galicia the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), weas founded and was composed mainly of followers of individual terrorism and paramilitary action. Their ideology ranged from an extreme nationalist racial perception of Ukrainian blood purity, to openly Fascist and Nazi beliefs. Until the beginning of the Nazis invasion against the USSR on June 22, 1941, this organization has focused in pogroms against the Poles, Russians, Jews and generally against anyone without “pure” Ukrainian blood on one hand and, on individual acts of terrorism against the Polish establishment on the other hand.

In the preparations of the Nazi aggression against Poland, but also during the OUN helped especially by acts of sabotage and assassination attempts. This has built excellent relations between Ukrainian nationalists and German Nazis. Indeed, the latter to ensure their cooperation, had promised to handover the rule throughout Galicia which was under Polish occupation. Something that didn’t happen since the treaty Riebentrof-Molotov came between in September 1939 on the basis that Nazi Germany recognized the domination of the USSR in Galician that was annexed by Poland from Ukraine in 1921.

However, the OUN’s cooperation with the Nazis didn’t stop. Instead it was intensified and used by the Nazis as a fifth collon against the Soviets in the territory of western Ukraine. And therefore unsurprisingly with the Nazi invasion of the USSR, the OUN found the opportunity to announce on 30 June 1941 the Ukrainian state established in Lviv, the capital of the Ukrainian Galicia and led by Stjepan Banderas.

This Act of Declaration mentions among other things the following: “The newly established Ukrainian state will work closely with the great National Socialist Germany, led by the leader Adolf Hitler who is forming a new order in Europe and the world and help the Ukrainian people to be relieved from Moscows occupation. The Ukrainian People’s Revolutionary Army, who has established themselves on Ukrainian land, will continue to fight alongside the allied German Army against the Moscow occupation for a sovereign and united state, as for a new world order.”

Although the new Ukrainian state was pure Nazistic, Nazi Germans had other plans for Ukraine. They saw it as the breadbasket of the German 3rd Reich flooded by German settlers. And therefore they did not recognize the fledgling state only when it was too late for them in 1944 when they where under wild retreat from the Red Army. Nevertheless the OUN functioned as the political cradle of the Ukrainian SS and helped greatly with recruitment by the Nazi Germans regular and irregular portions of volunteers who fought alongside them and distinguished themselves as few SS-units of  atrocities against the people of Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Austria.

The remains of these units after they were renamed to 1:st division of the Ukrainian National Army they surrendered to Anglo-Americans on May 10, 1945. Americans smuggled both Ukrainian Nazis, but also German Nazi officers of the division and made ​​sure to dispense the countless war crimes mainly committed against civilians in the areas they acted. In this way, they resurrected the old OUN and used it as a means of recruiting and training agent provocateurs often sent for sabotage and subversive activity in Soviet Ukraine.

Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR

When the USSR was dissolved and Ukraine passed into the hands of the former party oligarchy that over a night turned into “democrats” they turned the country into their own private plot. And as happened everywhere in the former existing socialism, the former party members cooperated with the old dissidents agents of the West in order to plunder as much as possible from the countries that inherited the mercy of party autocracy. This happened in Ukraine, which in 1993 entered the orbit of the IMF to completely collapse the social cohesion of the country and the crash the economy.

Architect of Destruction Viktor Yushchenko, the first governor of the independent by Western standards newly created central bank of Ukraine. Yushchenko as head of the Central Bank was responsible for the deregulation of the national currency in the context of the “shock therapy” imposed by the IMF in October 1994.

In November 1994, the World Bank sent negotiators to consider the reform of the agriculture of Ukraine. With the liberalization of trade (which was a part of the financial package from the IMF), the surplus grain from the U.S. and the “food aid” functioned as dumping of the domestic market, contributing to the destabilization of one of the largest and most productive economies in the world in wheat (eg comparable with Midwestern U.S. states).

Until 1998, the liberalization of the grain market resulted in a reduction of production of grain by 45% compared to the level of 1986-1990. The collapse of livestock production of poultry and dairy products were even more dramatic.

The cumulative decline in GDP as a result of the financial package and the “structural reforms,” by the IMF was over 60% in the period 1992-1995. This temporary sacrifices was necessary for Ukraine to acquire a bright future, the IMF staff said over and over again. While the failure of the “economic package” the blamed, where else, on the corrupt political leaders of Ukraine.

In 1999, after heavy pressure from Washington, the central bank governor Yushchenko was appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine. Following his appointment, Yushchenko immediately put in motion a comprehensive range of bankruptcy on most industrial companies in the country, under the aegis of the IMF. He also tried to undermine the bilateral trade in oil and natural gas between Russia and Ukraine on behalf of the IMF, which had demanded that the trade be made in U.S. dollars and not in exchange of goods.

The destruction of the industrial infrastructure of the country and the loads of exchanges with the main trading partner, Russia, led to the climax of the mass migration of the Ukrainian population, but also to the “advertisement” of Ukraine to the West through the most famous export goods, Ukranian girls that in ‘myriads’ became victims of human trafficking with white flesh.

This fact together with the fact that the selling off of the country was generalized did cost the orange government the elections. Viktor Yanukovych won the presidential elections of 2010, a typical politician from a corrupt establishment, who in order to manage the massive popular anger and the collapse of the country away from the appetites of the West, was forced to turn east towards Russia.

The Nazis in U.S. and EU’s service

On 21 November 2013, the government resign from the signing of the association agreement that was proposed by the European Union. The opposition reacts with protests in Kiev and in the western part of the country, which are rapidly turning into a rebellious look. It prompts a call for early presidential and parliamentary elections and refuses to form a government when approached by President Yanukovych after the Prime Minister resigns. These events were baptized Euromaidan, before Eurorevolution, from Radio Free Europe, which is operated by the State Department.

At first glance, the motion appears to be an attempt to organize a second “Orange Revolution.” But on January 1, 2014, the power changes hands on the streets. The Nazi party “Freedom” organized a torchlight procession in Kiev in memory of Stepan Bandera, the Nazi nationalist leader who allied himself with the Nazis against the Soviets. And that is why the by the west adored Yushchenko wanted in the eve of his fall to anoint a national hero of Ukraine, collecting the responses from the greater portion of his countrymen, and many Jewish, Polish and Russian organizations. The rally was attended by over 15,000 Nazi with swastikas and symbols of the old Ukrainian SS. Since then, the capital has been covered with anti-Semitic slogans and terrorism prevails against anyone who is considered an “outsider” or “pro-Russian” by the Nazis.

This Nazi organization became possible the with money from the embassies of the U.S. and German primary, whilst organized the first occupation of Lviv ensured free passage to the West for supplies of money, arms and all sorts of supplies. Today on the streets of Kiev the faltering government is confronting the revived Ukrainian SS with training, weapons and money from Germany, USA and the European Union. The intentions of the staffs of the ‘democratic’ West is no longer a simple coup d’etat. They seek the complete dissolution of Ukraine, its shredding so that its people no longer will be able to escape the Wests control.

Already in Kiev and elsewhere armed Nazi groups act and with specially trained commandos in the West, veterans of the “civil wars” in Syria and Libya in order to not allow the repressive forces of the Ukrainian government to gain the upper hand. And so the streets are stained with the blood of innocent. On the other hand, the Ukrainian government seems unable to deal with such a situation quickly escalates towards open military intervention with support from outside.

The armed forces of the country have since long been dismantled by the previous “orange revolution” and the “financial packages” of the IMF, so they are now not in a position to resist the armed dismantling of the country. Add to that, that many current and former military personnel have discovered that it is highly profitable to fight from the lines of the modern Ukrainian SS.

The threat to the “soft underbelly” of Russia

With all that Ukraine tends to evolve into a key attack corridor against Russia. The prevalence of the Nazis in Ukraine will mark not only the end of Ukraine itself, but also the beginning of armed infiltration operations in the border of Russia. Just like the U.S. are used to do to Syria, Iran, and generally to any country they intend to wrap in the flames of an artificial civil war. With this notion today in Ukraine both the Nazis and the big bosses in Washington, Berlin and Brussels are struggling to get revenge for the defeat of the army of von Paulus, which ultimately failed to cut off Russia from the energy sources in Caucasus.

Apart from the fact that these developments from far smell widespread war, the question is: how far is Greece from tasting the recipe of Ukraine on its own territory? In a situation of social and economic collapse comparable with that of Ukraine? How far?

Posted in Greek by Dimitris Kazakis February 24 at 9:26 at EPAM’s website

Translated to English by Kosmas Loumakis in accordance with the original text


When the article was written the government of Ukraine was still in power as some of the comments at the end of the article comes from that horizon.

*Footnote by the translator, in relevance to Sweden.

Ukraina under upplösning på beställning av USA-EU och instrumentet är ökningen av den fascistiska extremhögern


in English

στα Ελληνικα

av Dimitris Kazakis

Om du vill veta vem som på alla sätt stärker uppgången av fascistiska och nazistiska extremhögern i Europa, behöver du inte göra annat än att titta på vad som händer just nu i Ukraina. Både USA och Tyskland har under EU’s täckmantel vackert finansierat  återuppståndelsen av den 14.e Waffen SS divisionen i Ukraina som hade bildats av nazistiska ukrainska nationalister under den nazistiska tyska invasionen av Sovjetunionen.

Denna hord av barbarer som namnges i de historiska krönikorna under det 2:a världskriget som det Ukrainska SS, deltog i massutrensningar av civila, hundratals byar brändes ner av dem så som Distomo i Grekland men först och främst i det egna Ukraina, och även i Vitryssland. Den grymhet med vilken de agerade överträffade i många fall deras kamraters från Tyskland.

Det är för övrigt därför de med rätta fördömdes för sitt agerande, inte bara av den röda armén och partisanerna som var verksamma bakom Hitlers linjer, men också av de allierade. Den som greps med insignier och symboler ur denna enhet skickades direkt till 210px-Dyvizia_Galychyna_svgOrganization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists-M_svgkrigsrätt och dömdes omedelbart till arkebusering för avskyvärda brott mot civila. *Många av deras insignier har klart svenska rötter och svenska ultrahögern och nynazister visar öppet sitt stöd till de Ukrainska nazisterna (Denna artikel belyser sanningen om vilka som finansiellt, organisationsmässigt och logistiskt också stödjer den svenska såväl som den Europeiska ny-nazismen och högerextremismen).

Historien om dagens kraftmätning

Denna hord var inte den enda. Det ukrainska Galiciens största stad Lvov var historiskt den östra delen av kungariket av Galicien, som fram till första världskriget var knutet till det österrikisk-ungerska kejsardömet. Det österrikisk-ungerska imperiet hade infogat Galicien under uppdelningen av kungariket Polen under 1800-talet. Men på grund av att utsatthet för exploatering och förtryck var relativt mild i regionen Galicien i jämförelse med den tsaristiska regimen, flyttade många polacker tillsammans med andra etniska och religiösa minoriteter dit för att fly från de tsaristiska pogromerna som ägde rum med regelbunden basis.

Huset Habsburg av Österrike tillät att de migrerade till det inlämmade Galicien och så blev området en stor blandning av olika populationer ur religiöst, etniskt, språkligt perspektiv och så vidare. Polska nationalister hävdade Galicien för sin räkning. Och eftersom österrikarna ville bemöta deras verksamhet, stärkte man på alla sätt den ukrainska nationalismen som en rival. En ukrainsk nationalism med en stark tysk karaktär. Mycket snabbt blev Galicien slagfältet för mätningen mellan den polska och den ukrainska nationalismenen med befolkningar som upplevde utrensningar så att de rivaliserande lägren skulle uppnå den eftersökta “renheten” enligt sina egna etniska standarder.

Den 23 juni 1917 grundas Ukraina som en del av den ursprungliga ryska republiken, där det ryska folket för några månader sedan, i februari, hade störtat tsaren. Efter störtandet av den provisoriska regeringen i Petrograd av bolsjevikerna den 7 november (25 oktober enligt den julianska kalendern), 1917 och överföringen av all makt till sovjeterna, publicerades den 15 (2) november samma år Deklarationen för de ryska folkens Grundläggande Rättigheter, som erkände “rätten för folken i Ryssland till sitt självbestämmande, tills graden för avskiljning och skapandet av en självständig stat.” Några dagar senare , det vill säga den 20 (7) November, utropade det Centrala Ukrainska Rådet baserat i Kiev den Ukrainska Folkrepubliken.

Ukraina etablerades som en självständig stat

22 (9) januari 1918 publicerade det Ukrainska Centrala Rådet, Deklarationen för Ukrainas Självständighet, grunden från vilken Folkrepubliken Ukraina bildades med socialistiska referenser och imperativ, men direkt fientlig mot bolsjevikerna. Med fördraget i Brest-Litovsk, som undertecknades mellan främst Tyskland och Sovjetryssland den 3 mars 1918 kom Ukraina under det Tyska rikets kontroll. För första gången, och för att hjälpa de mest extrema nationalistiska elementen i Ukraina, pressar Tyskland Österrike att lämna östra Galicien i de ukrainska nationalisternas kontroll.

Med direkt hjälp av tyskarna och österrikarna den 24-26 april 1918 kullkastar kosackernas ataman Paul Skoropantski  det Centrala Rådet och inför en brutal diktatur. Galge och avrättningar kommer upp på dagordningen. Aristokratins alla gamla privilegier återställs. Paramilitära grupper hotar att bränna byarna som motsätter sig och de sprider skräck hos befolkningen. Med Tysklands och Österrikes kapitulation, störtas Skoropantskis regim i december 1918.

Folkrepubliken Ukraina återupprättas med det nya Centrala Rådet som leddes av Simon Petliura, som passade på att ta makten i skydd av fransmännen som landsteg i Odessa i november 1918 för att täcka vakuumet som tyskarnas kapitulation hade lämnat efter sig.

Det Ukrainska Rådet deltar i 19 länders invasiva krig mot Sovjetryssland, som leds av ententen (överrenskomelsen). Men de på varandra följande nederlagen och det växande folkliga missnöjet, leder Rådet – på förslag av Frankrike och England – att bilda en allians med Polens diktator Pildouski i April 1920 för att fortsätta kriget mot Sovjetryssland.

Den 18 Mar 1921 undertecknade fredsfördraget i Riga mellan Polen och Sovjetryssland under vilket Galicien, som enligt fördraget i Brest-Litovsk ägdes av Ukraina, nu anslöts till den första. Från och med då fram till andra världskriget genomför polackerna vilda etniska rensningsaktioner mot lokalbefolkningen som vägrade att betrakta sig som polacker, liksom mot alla som motsatte sig delningen av regionen i latifundier till förmån för polska aristokrater.

Framväxten av nazistiska ukrainska nationalister

1929 grundades enligt uppgift i Ukrainska Galicien Organisation för Ukrainska Nationalister (OUN), huvudsakligen bestående av anhängare av enskild terrorism och paramilitära aktioner. Deras ideologi varierade från en extrem nationalistisk rasuppfattning om det ukrainska blodets renhet, till öppet fascistiska och nazistiska övertygelser. Fram till början av nazisternas invasion mot Sovjetunionen den 22 juni 1941, var denna organisation inriktad på pogromer emot polacker, ryssar, judar och i allmänhet emot alla som inte hade “rent” Ukrainskt blod och vidare också i enskilda terrordåd mot det polska etablissemanget.

Vid förberedelserna av nazist-aggression mot Polen, men även under själva ockupationen hjälpte OUN särskilt till med sabotage och mordförsök. Detta byggde goda relationer mellan ukrainska nationalister och tyska nazister. För att säkerställa samarbetet, hade de senare till och med lovat att överlämna makten över hela det polsk-ockuperade Galicien till dem. Något som inte blev av då Riebentrof-Molotov fördraget kom emellan i September 1939 i vilket Nazityskland erkände Sovjetunionens herravälde över Galicien som Polen infogat från Ukraina 1921.

Emellertid så avbröts inte OUN’s samarbete med nazisterna. Istället intensifierades det och användes av nazisterna som en femte kolonn mot Sovjet i västra territoriet av Ukraina. Och därför, så som tedde sig naturligt med den nazistiska invasionen av Sovjetunionen, tog OUN tillfället att den 30 juni 1941 deklarera den ukrainska staten etablerad i Lviv, huvudstad i den Ukrainska Galicien med Stepan Banderas som ledare.

Denna Deklarations-akt nämner bland annat följande: “Den nybildade ukrainska staten kommer att ha ett nära samarbete med det Nationalsocialistiska Stortyskland, under ledning av ledaren Adolf Hitler som bildar en ny ordning i Europa och världen och hjälper det ukrainska folket att befria sig från Moskvas ockupation. Det ukrainska folkets revolutionära armé, som etablerat sig på ukrainsk mark, kommer att fortsätta att kämpa tillsammans med den allierade tyska armén mot ockupationen av Moskva såväl för en suverän och enad stat, som för en ny ordning i världen.”

Även om den nya ukrainska staten var rent nazistisk, hade de tyska nazisterna andra planer för Ukraina. De såg det som brödkorgen åt det tyska 4:e riket som översvämmats av tyska bosättare. Och därför erkände man inte den nybildade staten igen förren först när det var för sent för dem, 1944 då de var under vild flykt undan den Röda armén. Trots detta fungerade OUN  som den politiska vaggan för det ukrainska SS och de hjälpte i hög grad de nazistiska tyskarnas rekrytering av reguljära och irreguljära delar av volontärer som kämpade tillsammans med dem och utmärkte sig som få SS-enheter med grymheter mot folken i Ukraina, Vitryssland, Polen, Tjeckien, Slovenien och Österrike.

Resterna av dessa enheter, efter att de bytt namn till den Ukrainska Nationella Arméns 1:a division, såg till att kapitulera till Anglo-amerikanerna den 10 maj 1945. Amerikanerna smugglade både ukrainska nazister, men också tyska nazistiska officerare ur divisionen och såg till att befria dem från åtal för de otaliga anklagelser för krigsförbrytelser och då främst mot civila i områdena de agerat i. På detta sätt, återupplivades gamla OUN och används som ett medel för rekrytering och utbildning av provokatörer som ofta skickats för sabotage och omstörtande verksamhet i det sovjetiska Ukraina.

Ukraina efter Sovjetunionens upplösning

När Sovjetunionen upplöstes och Ukraina kom i händerna på den tidigare parti-oligarki som på en natt förvandlats till “demokrater” och förvandlade landet till sin privata tomt. Och så skedde överallt i den f.d gällande socialismen, f.d partimedlemmar samarbetade med gamla oliktänkande agenter ifrån väst för att plundra så som inte gick för sig i de länder som ärvde parti-autokratins förskoning. Detta hände i Ukraina, som 1993 gick in IMF’s omloppsbana för att helt kollapsa den sociala sammanhållningen i landet och krascha ekonomin.

Förstörelsens arkitekt Viktor Jusjtjenko, den första direktören i den oberoende enligt västerländsk prototyp nybildade centralbanken i Ukraina. Jusjtjenko som överhuvud för centralbanken var ansvarig för avregleringen av den nationella valutan i samband med “chockterapin” som infördes av IMF i oktober 1994.

I november 1994 skickade Världsbanken förhandlare för att undersöka en reform av jordbruket i Ukraina. Med avreglering av handeln (som var en del av finansieringspaketet från IMF), fungerade överskottet av spannmål från USA och “livsmedelsbiståndet”  som dumpning av den inhemska marknaden, vilket bidrar till en destabilisering av en av de största och mest produktiva ekonomierna i världen i vete (t ex jämförbart med mellanvästern amerikanska delstater).

Fram tills 1998, hade avregleringen av spannmålsmarknaden resulterat i en minskning av spannmålsproduktionen med 45% jämfört med nivån 1986-1990. Kollapsen av djuruppfödning, fågel- och mejeriprodukter var ännu mer dramatisk.

Den ackumulerade nedgången i BNP som en följd av det finansiella paketet och “strukturreformerna” från IMF var över 60%  perioden 1992-1995. Det handlade om tillfälliga uppoffringar som krävdes för att Ukraina skulle kunna skaffa sig en ljus framtid, sa man åter och åter igen från IMF. Misslyckandet med de “ekonomiska paketen” skyldes på, var annars, de korrupta politiska ledarna i Ukraina.

1999, efter kraftiga påtryckningar från Washington, blir centralbankschefen Jusjtjenko utsedd till premiärminister i Ukraina. Efter sin utnämning, Jusjtjenko satte genast i gång ett omfattande utbud av konkurs flera industriföretag i landet, under ledning av IMF. Efter sin utnämning, satte Jusjtjenko genast i gång en omfattande konkurs-turné på de flesta industriella företagen i landet, under IMF’s ledning. Han försökte också att undergräva den bilaterala handeln med olja och naturgas mellan Ryssland och Ukraina på uppdrag av Internationella valutafonden, som hade krävt att handeln skall göras i dollar och inte i utbyte av varor.

Förstörelsen av den industriella infrastrukturen i landet och det massiva utbytet med den viktigaste handelspartnern, Ryssland, ledde till en klimax av massutvandring av den ukrainska befolkningen, men också att “marknadsföra” Ukraina till väst genom den numera mest kända exportvaran, Ukrainskor som i ‘myriader’ föll offer för människohandel med vita kroppar.

Detta faktum tillsammans med att utförsäljningen av landet generaliserades, kostade till slut den oranga regeringen valet. Presidentvalet under 2010 vann Viktor Janukovitj, en typisk politiker ur ett korrupt etablissemang, som för att hantera den massiva folkliga vreden och kollapsen av landet undan västs aptit, blev tvungen att vända sig österut mot Ryssland.

Nazisterna i USA’s och EU’s tjänst

Den 21 november 2013 avsäger sig regeringen  från undertecknandet av samarbetsavtalet som föreslogs av Europeiska unionen. Oppositionen reagerar med protester i Kiev och den västra delen av landet, som snabbt får ett upproriskt utseende. Den uppmanar till tidiga president-och parlamentsval, och vägrar att bilda regering när de kontaktas av president Janukovytj när premiärminister avgår. Dessa händelser döptes till Euromaidan, innan Eurorevolution, av Radio Free Europe, som drivs av USA’s State Department.

Vid första anblicken verkar övergången vara ett försök att organisera en andra “orangea revolution.” Men den 1 januari 2014 byter makten händer på gatorna. Nazistpartiet “Frihet” organiserade fackeltåg i Kiev till minne av Stepan Bandera, den nazistiska nationalistiska ledaren som allierade sig med nazisterna mot Sovjet. Och vilken Jusjtjenko, västs gunstling, före sitt fall ville smörja som nationell hjälte i Ukraina, mottagandes reaktionerna från den större delen av sina landsmän, och många judiska, polska och ryska organisationer. I manifestationen deltog över 15.000 nazister med hakkors och symboler från det gamla ukrainska SS. Sedan dess har huvudstaden täckts med antisemitiska slagord och terrorism råder mot alla som anses vara “utomstående” eller “pro-ryska” av nazisterna.

Denna nazistorganisation kom till med pengar från till största delen USA’s och Tysklands ambassader, efter att man först organiserade den första ockupationen av Lviv för att säkerställa fri passage till väst för leveranser av pengar, vapen och alla sorters förnödenheter. I dag på gatorna i Kiev konfronterar den vacklande regeringen det återupplivade ukrainska SS med träning, vapen och pengar från Tyskland, USA och EU. Intentionerna från de ”demokratiska” västs staber är inte längre en enkel statskupp. De söker fullständig upplösning av Ukraina, dess sönderstyckning för att inte längre dess folk skall kunna undfly västs kontroll.

I Kiev och på andra håll agerar redan nazister med väpnade grupper och med särskilt utbildade kommandosoldater i väst, veteraner från “inbördeskrigen” i Syrien och Libyen i syfte att inte låta de repressiva krafterna från den ukrainska regeringen få övertaget. Och så färgas gatorna med oskyldigas blod. Å andra sidan verkar den ukrainska regeringen oförmögen att handskas med en sådan situation som eskalerar snabbt emot öppen militär intervention med stöd utifrån.

De väpnade styrkorna i landet har för länge sedan upplöst av den tidigare “orangea revolutionen” och de “finansiella paketen” från IMF, så att de nu inte är i stånd att stå emot den beväpnade nedmonteringen av landet. De väpnade styrkorna i landet har för länge sedan upplöst av den tidigare “orangea revolutionen” och de “finansiella paketen” från IMF, så att de inte är nu i stånd att stå emot nedmonteringen av beväpnade landet. Lägg till att mycket nuvarande och tidigare militär personal har upptäckt att det är mycket lönsamt att slåss från det moderna ukrainska SS linjer.

Hotet mot Rysslands “mjuka buk”

Med allt detta tenderar Ukraina  att utvecklas till en viktig attackkorridor mot Ryssland. Utbredningen av nazister i Ukraina kommer att markera inte bara slutet på själva Ukrainas, men också början på väpnade infiltrationsverksamheter i gränsen till Ryssland. Precis så som USA brukar göra  i Syrien, Iran och i allmänhet i vilket land somhelst som man har för avsikt att linda i lågorna av ett artificiellt inbördeskrig. Ur den meningen kämpar i dag i Ukraina såväl nazisterna som de stora arbetsgivarna i Washington, Berlin och Bryssel för att ta revansch för von Paulus armés nederlag, som i slutändan misslyckades med att skära av Ryssland från  energikällorna i Kaukasus.

Bortsett från faktum att denna utveckling från långt håll luktar utbrett storkrig, är frågan: hur långt bort är Grekland från att smaka på samma recept som Ukraina på sin egna mark? I ett tillstånd av social och ekonomisk kollaps jämförbar med den i Ukraina? Hur långt bort?

Upplagd på grekiska av Dimitris Kazakis 24 Feb kl 09:26 på EPAM’s hemsida

Översatt på svenska av Kosmas Loumakis i enlighet med originaltexten


När artikeln skrevs var fortfarande regeringen i Ukraina vid makten så några av kommentarerna i slutet av artikeln utgår från den horisonten.

*Fotnot, i relevans till Sverige av översättaren.

%d bloggers like this: