Category: Ukraine
Ukraine’s Chief Military Psychiatrist Fired After Uncovering Horrifying Secret
| September 25, 2017 | 8:13 pm | Ukraine | No comments

Ukrainian servicemen at the opening of a multinational training of Ukrainian Armed Forces units held on the territory of the International Peacekeeping and Security Centre of the National Hetman Petro Sahaidachnyi Land Forces Academy in Lviv Region

Ukraine’s Chief Military Psychiatrist Fired After Uncovering Horrifying Secret

© Sputnik/ Stringer

Get short URL

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry has sacked chief military psychiatrist Oleh Druz, who told lawmakers that 93% of veterans from the conflict in the country’s east need treatment for mental health issues. Radio Sputnik contributor Vladimir Filippov says Druz’s remarks, and Kiev’s reaction, are a testament to the senselessness of the country’s civil war.

Last week, Ukrainian Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak dismissed Colonel Oleh Druz, the head of the psychiatry clinic of the Main Military Clinical Hospital “in connection with the unsatisfactory fulfillment of his official duties.” The dismissal followed remarks by the top military psychiatrist at a round table of parliamentary committees, where Druz revealed that over 90% of the veterans of Kiev’s military operation in Donbass require mental help and pose a potential danger to society.

Commenting on the scandal, Radio Sputnik contributor Vladimir Filippov said that Druz’s real problem was that he decided to tell the truth.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko attends a ceremony to hand over weapons and military vehicles to servicemen of the Ukrainian armed forces in Chuhuiv outside Kharkiv, Ukraine, October 15, 2016
© REUTERS/ Mikhail Palinchak/Ukrainian Presidential Press Service

The journalist recalled that according to Kiev’s own official statistics, “nine out of ten participants of the fighting in the Donbass have medical and social problems, while a third are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Experts say a state-run program of support for vets is needed, but for now this is something done mainly on a voluntary basis.”

In his remarks before lawmakers, Druz warned that veterans’ disorders include heightened levels of aggression, decreased ability to return to civilian work, the development and exacerbation of chronic diseases, growing rates of alcoholism and drug addiction, shortened life expectancy, and increased suicide rates. Statistics reveal that 63 veterans took their own lives in 2016 alone.

In light of these horrifying figures, Filippov suggested that Kiev’s reaction was highly “original.”

“They simply dismissed the chief psychiatrist. Why? Probably because he said too much. Someone might think that among the [Donbass vets] are completely mentally unstable people. In fact, to shoot one’s fellow citizens is already beyond the realm of a normal worldview. And if one kills unarmed civilians, children and the elderly, what kinds of mental state can one speak of?”

According to the analyst, the hard truth is that Ukraine’s authorities couldn’t care less about its vets, with the government allocating precious little money for them, most of its defense funds either stolen outright or allocated to weapons purchases.

Filippov suggested that as far as Kiev is concerned, the only problem posed by the vets is the political danger they pose to the government – “to their soft chairs and their wealth. They have no plans to share with the veterans, hence the need to drive their problems deep out of sight and out of mind. No one needs them. They are cannon fodder, spent material.”

“That’s why Poltorak got so anxious,” the analyst stressed. “Because the 93% figure is a military secret – top-secret information! Capable of undermining the military capability of the regime,” Filippov concluded.

Ukraine’s Continuing Descent Into a Swamp of Fascism and Ultra-Nationalism
| September 5, 2017 | 12:24 pm | Fascist terrorism, political struggle, Russia, Ukraine | No comments
Открытие  памятника С. Бандере во Львове

Ukraine’s Continuing Descent Into a Swamp of Fascism and Ultra-Nationalism

© Sputnik/ Miroslav Luzhetskiy

Get short URL
John Wight

The recent abduction of Russian journalist Anna Kurbatova in Kiev and her subsequent deportation by the country’s state security service (SBU), on allegations of “smearing” Ukraine, is yet more evidence of the turmoil that has engulfed the country in the wake of the coup which toppled its last legitimately democratically-elected government in 2014.

According to a 2016 report compiled by the global accounting firm Ernst & Young, Ukraine tops the European corruption league, and is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, based on the perception of its citizens in a wide-ranging poll. It is an onerous title the country has held each year since the so-called Euromaidan movement toppled the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych with the active support of Washington and its European allies.

People will recall that one of the main justifications for forcing the Ukrainian president from office back in 2014 was his alleged corruption, with claims that he’d been engaged in the widespread mismanagement of government funds and the disbursement of bribes. Yet corruption at the highest levels of power in Ukraine was endemic prior to Yanukovych’s election to the presidency in 2010, while remaining endemic since his forced departure.

A conflict that has slipped off the radar of the mainstream media continues in eastern Ukraine at significant human and humanitarian cost. In April 2017 the European Commission revealed the extent of the cost paid by those Ukrainians in the eastern part of the country, who have steadfastly refused to recognize the writ of a government that came to power with the active and violent support of avowed neo-Nazis and fascists.

In a conflict in which 9,900 people have been killed and 23,246 injured, the EU Commission report reveals that an estimated 3.8 million people in eastern Ukraine are in need of humanitarian aid. We’ve learned that “damage to housing and critical civilian infrastructures, particularly water supply and electricity systems is increasing. Conflict affected resident population and internally displaced persons (IDPs) face difficult access to health care and other essential services, socio-economic exclusion, loss of income and livelihood and suffer from psychological distress.”

These are the bitter fruits of a conflict that the West helped to bring about with the opportunistic and reckless support for violent demonstrators, many of them neo-Nazis, in a part of the world where the scars of the Second World War remain deep and raw over 70 years on.

Indeed, today, more than anywhere in Europe, including Germany, the past and the present have merged to produce not so much historical amnesia but an outbreak of historical revisionism when it comes to the Nazi invasion and occupation of Ukraine (when it was part of the Soviet Union), and the ensuing atrocities and orgy of murder unleashed by the SS with the participation of Ukrainian auxiliaries.

In an wide-ranging interview with the UK Morning Star newspaper, Petro Symonenko, leader of the Communist Party of Ukraine, points out that “right across Ukraine there is…a war between the ideologists of Hitler and the Nazi collaborators of the OUN, and the anti-fascists, whose leaders have always been Communists.” Moreover Symonenko identifies the role of the coup government’s Institute of National Memory in ‘falsifying history and promoting neonazism (sic) as state ideology.”

What he is referring to with regard to the Kiev’s Institute of National Memory is a campaign it is engaged in to rewrite the history of the Second World War, while sanctioning the eradication of monuments and statues commemorating the role of the Red Army in liberating Ukraine from the scourge of fascism at enormous human cost. It comes as part of a narrative in which all things Russian are deemed abhorrent and evil, an “eternal enemy and aggressor”, regardless of the indisputable ethnic and cultural bonds both countries share, stretching all the way back to the 9th century and the Kievan Rus Federation out of which both Russia and Ukraine emerged.

The idea that a historical figure such as Stepan Bandera, the famed (infamous) Ukrainian nationalist who actively colluded and collaborated with the Nazis during the occupation of Ukraine, is now venerated and lauded as a patriot in anti-Russian parts of the country is surely offensive, when considering the indisputable barbarity that was visited on countless millions throughout the Soviet Union and elsewhere in service to their monstrous creed and ideology.

Yet this is western Ukraine today, a repository of ultra nationalism and fascism, driven by an irrational desire to destroy and substitute an alternative history for actual history.

In supporting the 2014 coup in western Ukraine, and thereby precipitating a civil war, the West created a monster. For not only has the result been civil war, it has plunged relations between Russia and Washington to the lowest point since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the world came the closest it ever has to nuclear Armageddon.

Today, three years after the coup in Kiev, there are thousands of NATO troops on Russia’s border, along with aircraft and a missile defense shield in Romania. Cynics among us may be tempted to speculate that this was part of the script all along, given Russia’s recovery and emergence as a strategic counterweight to Western hegemony in recent years. But whatever the motives the catastrophic outcome cannot be denied.

It is something to ponder that whereas during the Second World War Russia and the West were united in a common struggle to defeat fascism, in the second decade of the 21st century the West is supporting a country that, though not governed by fascists, is undeniably infested by a recrudescence of fascism.

“As crimes pile up,” Brecht reminds us, “they become invisible.”

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. 

Check out John’s Sputnik radio show, Hard Facts.

Yanukovych’s “Trial” in Ukraine: a Coup That Doesn’t Let to Forget Itself
| August 16, 2017 | 8:44 pm | Ukraine | No comments
Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych interviewed by RIA Novosti

Yanukovych’s “Trial” in Ukraine: a Coup That Doesn’t Let to Forget Itself

© Sputnik/ Iliya Pitalev

Get short URL
Dmitry Babich

A British writer and journalist Edward Lucas, one of the pioneers of the theory presenting Russia as an existential threat to the US and the European Union, several years ago coined the term of “whataboutism.”

The term is supposed to denote the inclination of Russian media to question the moral ground of Western accusations against Russia by pointing to the West’s own failures: “What about the war in Iraq,” “what about tapping the phones of citizens in the US,” etc.

Edward Lucas, however, forgot to mention the way in which the mainstream Western media answers “whataboutist” questions. The usual answer is “Let’s move on!”

Hundreds of thousands died in Iraq with the so-called Islamic State (Daesh in Arabic) and other terrorists still occupying a large chunk of the country 15 years after the US-led invasion? Let’s move on!

The Western powers, led by France, helped to destroy the state in Libya in 2011, promising democracy and prosperity to the country, which is still in raptures of a civil war six years after the Western-applauded “Arab spring”? Let’s move on!

Such an attitude could be called Let-us-move-on-ism. The moral credentials of Let-us-move-on-ism are obviously much shakier than the moral credentials of “whataboutism,” the latter being a reflection of the “globalist” epoch of international ratings and worldwide competition, with its passion for comparison.

Reality Does Not Move On

There are cases, however, when reality just does not want to move on. One such case is the crude nationalist nature of the new regime of Petro Poroshenko in Ukraine, which came to power in 2014 as a result of a violent protest openly supported by both the US and the EU. This Kiev-based regime does not move on changing its nature, with thousands of Russian books and films, as well as hundreds of Russian artists (including those of Ukrainian descent) still banned in Ukraine.

This regime reminds everyone of its existence every day, and not only by the continued military confrontation between the west and the east of the country, which somehow had never turned violent before 2014 under the ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych.

Now Poroshenko’s regime is holding a trial in absentia of Mr. Yanukovych, who had to flee for his life to Russia. Yanukovych leads his defense from Russia, using lawyers, since he was not allowed by the court to defend himself in the framework of a televised conference. Yanukovych has no other place for asylum, since he is still presented in the Western media as the main culprit of the violence that accompanied “peaceful” protests leading to his ouster in February 2014.The violence left dead 106 people (with 23 policemen among them), which makes “spontaneous peaceful protests” look more like a concerted Western-supported violent revolution that started in November 2013, after Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the association agreement with the EU.

A Lost Secret Which Millions Knew

At the trial held in Kiev, Yanukovych is accused of high treason, with the prosecutor claiming that Yanukovych “invited” Russian military to Ukraine.

The defense stresses the fact that the war started after the so called “peaceful protesters” took by storm the presidential residence on Bankovaya street in Kiev, as well as the buildings of the government and the parliament (Rada), which immediately started making very different statements from the ones it made under Mr. Yanukovych.

Defending himself, Yanukovych referred to the “Agreement on the Settling of the Political Crisis in Ukraine,” guaranteed by the German, French and Polish foreign ministers on February 21, 2014.However, when Yanukovych’s lawyers addressed the administration of the new president Petro Poroshenko asking to produce all documents related to the Agreement, it transpired that the original of the Agreement… could not be found by Poroshenko’s men!

In an official response to Yanukovych’s lawyers, whose copy was published by them via RIA Novosti news agency, Poroshenko’s administration stated that it had in its archives the documents pertaining to the fact that Yanukovych’s residence was visited on February 20-21 by the German, French and Polish foreign ministers. But “the other information that you required is absent.”

A Scandal That Just Isn’t There

The problem is that this response from Poroshenko’s administration is a scandal! The Agreement of February 21, 2014, was widely published and lauded by the world’s media, since its fulfillment provided hope for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

According to this agreement, Yanukovych agreed to pre-term presidential election which would be held “not later than in December 2014” and made other concessions, while the “peaceful” opposition promised not to burn more government buildings and stop other violent actions.The Agreement was signed on the opposition’s side by the future prime minister Arseny Yatsenyuk and the future mayor of Kiev Vitaly Klitschko, so “losing” it is simply a crime, a mockery of justice.

It is clear, why the Western governments and the media hate to be reminded of the Agreement: the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland did nothing to “guarantee” the Agreement, even though they were specifically bound by the text to do so. Hours after the Agreement was signed, the “peaceful protesters” of Maidan, led by the neo-Nazis from the so called Right Sector group, took by storm and burnt to the ground the Kiev headquarters of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, killing several civilians in the process.

Next the Maidan activists occupied the government quarter, with the Right Sector‘s commander, Dmitry Yarosh, saying he and his men were not bound by the Agreement. The Western governments happily forgot the Agreement, saying it was put aside by the push of people towards freedom. The “let-us-move-on” attitude prevailed.

After the “loss” of such a document, Yanukovych, quite expectedly, said he did not want to take part in the trial with a predetermined outcome. The Western media immediately interpreted it as an acknowledgement of guilt by the former president.

Impunity as the Root of New Conflicts

And here we come to one of the main dangers of the “let-us-move-on” attitude, namely to the total impunity for the culprits.

Yarosh later took part in the elections in “free post-Maidan” Ukraine as the leader of his party The Right Sector, he was even appointed an adviser to the minister of defense in the new government, which used the Right Sector as the backbone for “volunteer battalions” quelling the “pro-Russian separatists” in Eastern Ukraine.

Together with other participants of the violent actions against police and pro-Yanukovych civilians, Yarosh was amnestied during the first week of the existence of the new nationalist regime in Ukraine.The then German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the main guarantor the Agreement, later became the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. Steinmeier’s presidential office recently turned down a request from Yanukovych’s lawyers for Mr. Steinmeier to attend the trial in Kiev. The French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and his Polish colleague Radoslaw Sikorski, the two other “guarantors,” later quit their positions as part of normal government rotations and never mentioned the Agreement in their speeches. They routinely blame Russia for the civil war in Ukraine, which followed he violent “regime change” in Kiev.

“Let-Us-Move-On” in Other Places

A similar let-us-move-on-ist attitude was adopted by the Western press to many other wars, including the Russo-Georgian conflict of 2008.

The independent Fact-finding Mission headed by a Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini found out that it was on the orders from the then Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, that the Georgian artillery started bombarding the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, thus triggering a conflict.

Despite this conclusion, the Western media continues to write about the “Russian aggression” against Georgia in 2008.

However, the let-us-move-on-ist attitude sometimes falters, mostly due to time distance, which simply loosens the grip of the Western media and leaders on the past and its interpretation. For example, on the day of the 25th anniversary of Georgia’s aggression against Abkhazia in August 1992, the current prime minister of Georgia Georgy Kvirikashvili called the introduction of Georgian troops to the Abkhazian territory a quarter of a century ago “a big mistake” of the then Georgian authorities.

But the Western media for many years talked about “Russian occupation” of a part of the Georgian territory, and some of them continue to use the same language, becoming even greater Georgian nationalists than the current Georgian leadership.

No wonder Russia does not give much credence to the promises of the current Western leaders. With the current anti-Russian military exercises in the Baltic countries, Poland and Romania, one can barely remember the assurances of chancellor Angela Merkel that “NATO is not directed against Russia” or even “views Russia as a partner.”.

And, of course, one can only smile sadly remembering the statements made on the day of the signing of The Founding Act on NATO-Russia relations in 1997. The Western leaders, gathered in a big palace in Paris, then kept repeating that NATO has no intention of moving its military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Rogozin: Ukraine Could Have Sold Missile Engines Directly to North Korea
| August 16, 2017 | 8:41 pm | DPRK, Ukraine | No comments
People walk in front of a monitor showing news of North Korea's fresh threat in Tokyo, Japan, August 10, 2017.

Rogozin: Ukraine Could Have Sold Missile Engines Directly to North Korea

© REUTERS/ Toru Hanai

Get short URL

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Wednesday it is possible that either details about Ukrainian missile engine technologies were leaked to North Korea or Kiev sold the engines to Pyongyang directly.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The New York Times published an article on Monday suggesting that Pyongyang may be using a modified RD-250 high-performance liquid-propellant engine (LPE) for its latest missile. According to a study by Michael Elleman, which was quoted in the story, such engines used to be developed at Ukraine’s state-owned Yuzhmash and Russia’s Energomash companies. Elleman said as quoted the engines for North Korean missiles likely came from Ukraine, and probably by illicit means.

“There was either a leak of information, or a direct sale of the engines. It would have been difficult [to produce engines] without experts, who should be on the site and organize the production,” Rogozin told the Rossiya 24 broadcaster.

Yuzhmash, as well as the State Space Agency of Ukraine (SSAU), has denied any involvement in North Korea’s space or defense-related missile programs. The aerospace manufacturer also pointed out that it had produced neither missiles nor missile systems since Ukraine became an independent state after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksandr Turchynov also said Monday that Ukraine’s defense and aerospace companies did not supply any weapons or military technologies to North Korea.

North Korea has carried out a number of missile tests within the recent months, which have prompted international criticism, resulted in new sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council and caused an escalation of the situation in the region.

Ukrainian PM Says Transfers of Missile Technology to North Korea ‘Impossible’
| August 15, 2017 | 9:43 pm | DPRK, Ukraine | No comments
Ukrainian Parliament Speaker Volodymyr Groysman attends a parliament session in Kiev, Ukraine, March 15, 2016

Ukrainian PM Says Transfers of Missile Technology to North Korea ‘Impossible’

© REUTERS/ Valentyn Ogirenko

Get short URL
0 24333

Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman denied on Tuesday reports suggesting a possible transfer of Ukraine’s military technologies for ballistic missiles to North Korea.

KIEV (Sputnik) — The New York Times newspaper reported on Monday that Pyongyang could be using for a modified RD-250 high-performance liquid-propellant engine (LPE) its latest missiles, the kind that used to be developed at Ukraine’s state-owned Yuzhmash and Russia’s Energomash company.

The article, citing classified assessments by US intelligence agencies and a study by Michael Elleman, senior fellow for missile defense with the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank, read that the engines for North Korean missiles likely came from Ukraine, “probably illicitly.”

“Regarding a scandal with Yuzhmash, this is a clear provocation against Ukraine. This is nonsense and something like this is impossible. I rely on the statements by Yuzhmash and the National Security and Defense Council,” Groysman said on Twitter.

Yuzhmash on Monday denied any involvement in North Korea’s space or defense-related missile programs. The plant also pointed out that it had produced neither missiles nor missile systems since Ukraine became an independent state after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, whereas its only exported serially-produced engine was designed for use in space and was not suitable for ballistic missiles.

Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksandr Turchynov also said on Monday that Ukraine defense and aerospace companies did not supply any weapons or military technologies to North Korea.

The IISS on its part said its report did not suggest that the government in Kiev or Yuzhmash leadership executives were involved in this affair. Alexander Degtyarev, the general designer at Ukraine’s Yuzhnoye State Design Office, said that some country might have been able to copy the designs of missile engines developed in Ukraine.

A Thirty Year History of ‘Russian Aggression’
US flag

A Thirty Year History of ‘Russian Aggression’

CC0 / Pixabay

Get short URL
Neil Clark

Repeat after me (by orders of the Neo-Con Thought Police): “Russian aggression,” “Russian aggression,” “Russian aggression.” The phrase has become a mantra, to be repeated (with all the correct arm movements and feigned expressions of outrage), by anyone wanting to be regarded as a “credible” foreign policy commentator in the elite western media.

So let’s talk “Russian aggression” shall we? There’s been quite a lot of it, comrades.


In 1999, “Russia” and its Warsaw Pact allies illegally bombed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for 78 days — having earlier presented the country with an ultimatum that they later admitted was deliberately designed to be rejected.

Russia’s leadership claimed that Yugoslav forces were committing a “genocide” in Kosovo, and that they had the right to launch a “humanitarian intervention.”

Still from Serbian TV from April 4, 1999 showing a bridge over the Danube in Novi Sad, northern Serbia, some 70 km (40 miles) north of Belgrade, which was destroyed a day earlier by NATO warplanes.
Still from Serbian TV from April 4, 1999 showing a bridge over the Danube in Novi Sad, northern Serbia, some 70 km (40 miles) north of Belgrade, which was destroyed a day earlier by NATO warplanes.

But during this “humanitarian” intervention, many innocent civilians were killed — including at least 20 on a passenger train and a convoy of Kosovan Albanians fleeing the bombing. “The Russians” initially blamed this attack on Yugoslav forces, but evidence showed it was they who carried out the bombing.

After the military campaign ended, “the Russians” intensified their efforts to topple the democratically-elected Yugoslav government.

They poured millions in to what they called the “democratic opposition,” and encouraged violent anti-government protests during the elections of October 2000.

In 2001, a UN court found that there had not after all been a genocide in Kosovo.

An aerial view taken 15 June 1999 of the Pristina central post office which was destoyed by NATO bombing.
An aerial view taken 15 June 1999 of the Pristina central post office which was destoyed by NATO bombing.

After the Yugoslav government was toppled, many social/publicly owned enterprises were privatized. Among those bidding for utilities in “liberated” Kosovo were companies/funds founded by prominent members of “the Russian” government/military elite who had bombed Yugoslavia.A Yugoslav desk officer for “the Russian” Ministry of Foreign Affairs later revealed the real reason the country had been targeted.

“In post-Cold War Europe no place remained for a large, independent-minded socialist state that resisted globalization.”


In 2001, “Russia” and its Warsaw Pact allies invaded Afghanistan. “Operation Enduring Freedom” was — we were told — a response to terrorist attacks on Moscow which took place in September that year. But sixteen years on, the conflict continues — with over 100,000 Afghans killed.

“Russian forces” regularly bombed weddings in the country and in 2015, a hospital — an action which “the Kremlin” denied was a war crime.

In this Friday, October 16, 2015 photo, an employee of Doctors Without Borders walks inside the charred remains of their hospital after it was hit by a US airstrike in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
© AP Photo/ Najim Rahim
In this Friday, October 16, 2015 photo, an employee of Doctors Without Borders walks inside the charred remains of their hospital after it was hit by a US airstrike in Kunduz, Afghanistan.

In his farewell speech as Afghan President in 2014, Hamid Karzai blamed “the Russians” for the fact that his country was still at war.

“Today, I tell you that the war in Afghanistan is not our war, but imposed on us and we are the victims. One of the reasons was that ‘the Russians’ did not want peace because they had their own agenda and objectives.”


In the 1990s, “Russia” bombed Iraq frequently and insisted there could be no easing of genocidal sanctions.

In 1996, “Russia’s” Foreign Minister was asked on television, “is the price worth it?” in relation to the death of half a million Iraqi children due to sanctions. He replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

In 2003, “Russia” and its allies launched a full-scale “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq, claiming the country possessed weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to the entire world.

“He [Saddam] claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods,” declared “Russia’s” Defense Minister.

A US soldier looks through a pair of binoculars as a fire in the Rumeila oil field burns in the background in southern of Iraq, Sunday, March 30, 2003.
© AP Photo/ Yonhap/Jin Sung-chul
A US soldier looks through a pair of binoculars as a fire in the Rumeila oil field burns in the background in southern of Iraq, Sunday, March 30, 2003.

One million people lost their lives following the invasion, which turned Iraq into a failed state and led directly to the rise of Daesh. The WMDs — surprise, surprise — never showed up.As in Yugoslavia, “the Russian” leadership had lied.


In 2011, Russia and its allies launched a military assault on Libya, claiming that its long-serving leader Muammar Gaddafi was about to massacre the inhabitants of Benghazi.

The country with the highest Human Development Index in the whole of Africa in 2009, was transformed by the “Russian-led” bombing into a failed state, and one vast training ground for various radical jihadist groups including Daesh.

Gaddafi himself was killed, with a bayonet stuck up into his anus, leading to laughter from the “humanitarian” “Russian” Foreign Minister — who declared: “We came, we saw, he died!”

Five years later, a report from parliamentarians in one of “Russia’s” key ally states concluded: “The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benhgazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

But by now, it was too late. Libya had already been destroyed.


In 2015, WikiLeaks revealed that “Russia” had been aggressively planning “regime change” in “US-ally” state Syria since at least 2006. A leaked cable from the “Russian” charge d’affaires in Damascus outlined strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government.

Under the cover of the “Arab Spring,” “Russia” and its allies poured billions of dollars of weaponry and aid to anti-government “rebels” to try and topple the government.

This Friday, August 23, 2013 file photo, black columns of smoke from heavy shelling in Barzeh, a suburb of Damascus, Syria.
© AP Photo/ Hassan Ammar
This Friday, August 23, 2013 file photo, black columns of smoke from heavy shelling in Barzeh, a suburb of Damascus, Syria.

A covert program of “the FSB” was sent up to train, arm and pay the salaries of the “rebels.” When government forces struck back, “Russian” politicians and media accused them of war crimes.

“Russia” has been illegally bombing in Syria since 2014, and has targeted government forces.

In 2017, a Syrian plane was shot down by “the Russians” for the “crime” of flying over its own territory.

Between 300,000-475,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict.

And this is not all.

Other examples of “Russian aggression” include:

  • Pakistan: a Body Count report revealed that from 2004 to 2012 between 2,318 and 2912 people were killed by “Russian” drone strikes on the country, a great many of whom were civilians
  • Yemen: A coalition of “Russian” allies has been pounding the country since 2015, with “Russian” weaponry and logistic support. Over 10,000 people have been killed, with the war helping to cause what has been described by the UN as the world’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe since World War Two. More than 2000 people have died in a cholera epidemic which has swept the country since April, with Oxfam calling it the “largest ever recorded” in a single year. But “Russia” continues to support the military campaign.
  • Sudan/South Sudan: “Russia” heavily funded the Sudan’s People’s Liberation Movement, and encouraged them to break away from Sudan — a country not allied to “Moscow” — and which “Russia” had bombed in 1997. But South Sudan has been wracked with war — and famine. Yet another Russian intervention resulting in violent chaos.

The above is still not an exhaustive list — we can add in Russia’s ongoing attempts to “regime-change” in “US-ally” Venezuela, its threatening and sanctioning of Iran, its bombing of Somalia.

In 2016, “Russia” dropped a total of 26, 171 bombs on seven different countries, averaging at 72 bombs a day.

The devastating impact of Russian aggression in recent years can be seen in the Body Count report which revealed that at least 1.3 million people had lost their lives in “Russian-led” wars/military operations in the period from September 2001 until 2013 — in just three countries, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we add other countries too, then its clear we’re talking about well over 2 million deaths which can be laid directly at the doors of “the Kremlin.”

Pretty shocking eh? But of course, the above didn’t happen. Or rather it did happen, but the actions described above were taken not by Russia, but by the US and its allies (just click on the links).

To make things even worse, the countries responsible for the aggression which cost the lives of millions of people, and caused chaos and misery around the world, have the effrontery to accuse others of the very crimes they themselves have committed.

Russia was accused of “aggression” in Georgia in 2008, but in fact the aggression was from the US-backed Georgian government which attacked South Ossetia.

Russia was accused of “aggression” in Ukraine, but again the crisis started because of actions from the US and its allies who backed the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected government.

Police officers and opposition supporters are seen on Maidan Nezalezhnosti square in Kiev, where clashes began between protesters and the police.
© Sputnik/ Andrey Stenin
Police officers and opposition supporters are seen on Maidan Nezalezhnosti square in Kiev, where clashes began between protesters and the police.

The democratic wishes of the people of the Crimea to return to Russia, following the unconstitutional “regime change” in Kiev, as expressed in a referendum vote, was twisted into a narrative of “the Russian invasion of Ukraine” by the same crowd of deceitful warmongers who cheer-led for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Here you can listen to the US-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland discussing who should/shouldn’t be in the new “democratic” government in Ukraine with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt:

Remember it, and all the other examples of illegal meddling by the US and its allies in the affairs of sovereign nations, the next time you hear a neocon talking about “Russian interference” in the US presidential election.

Remember too, how the Warsaw Pact was disbanded in 1991, but the US-led Cold War military alliance NATO actually expanded, right up to Russia‘s borders.

Repeat after me: “Russian aggression,” “Russian aggression,” “Russian aggression.”

Has there ever been a better example in the history of international relations of what psychologists call “projection”?

Follow @NeilClark66 on Twitter

Support Neil Clark’s Anti-Stalker Crowd Fund

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.  

How Venezuelan Protests Demonstrate ‘Kiev-Style Maidan’
Anti-government protesters throw stones from a highway overpass at a passing police patrol in Caracas, Venezuela, Monday, April 24, 2017

How Venezuelan Protests Demonstrate ‘Kiev-Style Maidan’

© AP Photo/ Fernando Llano
Latin America

Get short URL

In Venezuela, where most of the country’s residents voted against the convening of a constituent assembly in a popular referendum, a pattern similar to that of Maidan in Kiev back in 2014 was seen, according to the head of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISI) Center for Public Relations Igor Pshenichnikov.

On Sunday, the opposition organized the so-called popular referendum, in which over 98 percent of 7.2 million voters opposed Maduro’s decision to call the Constituent Assembly. The country’s government believes that results of the referendum do not have legal force as only the electoral authorities have the right to hold such events.

“We are seeing a classic Maidan in Venezuela in the same pattern that was conducted by the US in Kiev in 2014,” Pshenichnikov said in a video posted on the RISI website.The expert stressed that the United States is the main cause of unrest in Venezuela. “Due to certain circumstances, the current parliament — the opposition, is completely opposed to Maduro and its main goal is to remove him from power,” Pshenichnikov said.

By removing President Nicolas Maduro from power the United States wants to regain its positions in oil-rich Venezuela.

“This is the root of what is happening and this is the way to consider all the events that are taking place in Venezuela,” he said.

Pshenichnikov noted that since the beginning of April there have been mass protests in the country after the decision of the Supreme Court to severely restrict the power of the National Assembly.

“Had Maduro tried to ban the holding of a referendum, the situation could have gone completely out of control,” the expert said.

However, he noted that only the opposition forces participated in the voting.”We must understand that Venezuela is sliding slowly, but confidently to the brink of a civil war,” Pshenichnikov warned.

Venezuela has been experiencing a period of political instability amid the drastic economic situation in the country. The most recent protests erupted in April after the country’s Supreme Court tried to take over legislative powers from the opposition-controlled National Assembly.

The top court reversed the ruling but the step did not stop mass demonstrations.

In May, Maduro announced his decision to call the National Constituent Assembly, which was regarded by the opposition as an attempted coup and resulted in further escalation of tensions that resulted in the deaths of over 90 people.

Venezuela will hold voting on July 30 to elect the Constitutional Assembly, set to rewrite the constitution as a way out of the political turmoil, which started in January 2016, when a new legislature was elected and relations between Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the parliament became strained.