The U.S. is backing Ukraine’s extreme right-wing Svoboda party and violent neo-Nazis whose armed uprising paved the way for a Western-backed coup. Events in the Ukraine are giving us another glimpse through the looking-glass of U.S. propaganda wars against fascism, drugs and terrorism. The ugly reality behind the mirror is that the U.S. government has a long and unbroken record of working with fascists, dictators, druglords and state sponsors of terrorism in every region of the world in its elusive but relentless quest for unchallenged global power.
When the British came to India, Bengal was India’s richest province.
The British would back certain Indian princely states with financial and military resources over others, or alternatively install puppet rulers during rule disputes, then in return for their backing they would demand immense sums of revenue which the princely states would be unable to procure leading to increasing and basically unpayable debt—at which point the British would take over politically. When this happened in Bengal the British started using the tax revenues from Bengal to pay for Bengal’s own exports to Britain. Essentially a policy of total wealth extraction, draining Bengal’s resources and causing, previously unthinkable, famines that wiped out perhaps 50% of Bengal’s total population.
When the British left India, Bengal was India’s most impoverished province.
What may or may not be technically possible with regard to sustainable high technology we will never know until we try. Unfortunately the window to develop sustainable high technologies, with existing technology, is rapidly closing with the depletion of high energy return on energy invested, energy sources. If we are to have any shot, the socialist revolution is going to need to be successful quickly for the necessary productive forces to be directed at the task. Given this I feel it is very irresponsible to continue to plan for something close to the best case scenario, especially with regard to attempting to provide a high quality of life for the disabled.
I don’t ask things anonymously because if I am going to say something I am going to own up to it, but I think I would get a lot more asks answered if I sent them anonymously.
— Worlds Apart (@WorldsApart_RT)March 5, 2014
related: Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders - leaked EU’s Ashton phone tape — http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
Jump to 8:20 to hear about snipers
The man facing down Putin’s aggression as secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. He oversees national security for the nation having previously served as security commandant during the anti-government protests in Kiev.
Parubiy was the founder of the Social National Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler’s Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.
The Social National Party would go on to become Svoboda, the far-right nationalist party whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok was one of the three most high profile leaders of the Euromaidan protests - negotiating directly with the Yanukovych regime.
Overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security is Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Right Sector - a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who previously boasted they were ready for armed struggle to free Ukraine.
Introducing large scale multi axis 3D printing in metal!
Pretty soon we’ll be 3D printing everything, perhaps even your house one day.
If there is one absolutely undeniable fact about Ukraine, which screams from every election and every opinion poll since its independence two decades ago, it is that the country’s population is deeply divided between pro-Russian and pro-Western sentiments. Every election victory for one side or another has been by a narrow margin, and has subsequently been reversed by an electoral victory for an opposing coalition.
What has saved the country until recently has been the existence of a certain middle ground of Ukrainians sharing elements of both positions; that the division in consequence was not clear cut; and that the West and Russia generally refrained from forcing Ukrainians to make a clear choice between these positions.
During George W. Bush’s second term as president, the U.S., Britain, and other NATO countries made a morally criminal attempt to force this choice by the offer of a NATO Membership Action Plan for Ukraine (despite the fact that repeated opinion polls had shown around two-thirds of Ukrainians opposed to NATO membership). French and German opposition delayed this ill-advised gambit, and after August 2008, it was quietly abandoned. The Georgian-Russian war in that month had made clear both the extreme dangers of further NATO expansion, and that the United States would not in fact fight to defend its allies in the former Soviet Union.
In the two decades after the collapse of the USSR, it should have become obvious that neither West nor Russia had reliable allies in Ukraine. As the demonstrations in Kiev have amply demonstrated, the “pro-Western” camp in Ukraine contains many ultra-nationalists and even neo-fascists who detest Western democracy and modern Western culture. As for Russia’s allies from the former Soviet establishment, they have extracted as much financial aid from Russia as possible, diverted most of it into their own pockets, and done as little for Russia in return as they possibly could.
Over the past year, both Russia and the European Union tried to force Ukraine to make a clear choice between them—and the entirely predictable result has been to tear the country apart. Russia attempted to draw Ukraine into the Eurasian Customs Union by offering a massive financial bailout and heavily subsidized gas supplies. The European Union then tried to block this by offering an association agreement, though (initially) with no major financial aid attached. Neither Russia nor the EU made any serious effort to talk to each other about whether a compromise might be reached that would allow Ukraine somehow to combine the two agreements, to avoid having to choose sides.
President Viktor Yanukovych’s rejection of the EU offer led to an uprising in Kiev and the western and central parts of Ukraine, and to his own flight from Kiev, together with many of his supporters in the Ukrainian parliament. This marks a very serious geopolitical defeat for Russia. It is now obvious that Ukraine as a whole cannot be brought into the Eurasian Union, reducing that union to a shadow of what the Putin administration hoped. And though Russia continues officially to recognize him, President Yanukovych can only be restored to power in Kiev if Moscow is prepared to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and seize its capital by force.
The result would be horrendous bloodshed, a complete collapse of Russia’s relations with the West and of Western investment in Russia, a shattering economic crisis, and Russia’s inevitable economic and geopolitical dependency on China.
But Western governments, too, have put themselves in an extremely dangerous position. They have acquiesced to the overthrow of an elected government by ultra-nationalist militias, which have also chased away a large part of the elected parliament. This has provided a perfect precedent for Russian-backed militias in turn to seize power in the east and south of the country.
March 5, 2013: Death of Comrade Hugo Chavez, leader of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution.
"Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías breathed his last breath one year ago today. He was only 59. The untimely death of this brilliant human being was a sad loss for humanity, and leaves a gap which is very difficult to fill. One has to guard against hero worship and the Hollywood-style individualised version of history, but there’s no denying that certain people - through their strength of purpose, their understanding, their determination, their heroism, their leadership skills, their creative brilliance, their charisma, their devotion to the people - play an outstanding role.
"Hugo Chávez was such a person. He worked ceaselessly in pursuit of his vision: for a socialist Venezuela; for a united and sovereign Latin America; and for a fair, multipolar world order free from imperialist domination. His vision was infectious, and served to inspire people around the world. He breathed life into a global revolutionary process that had been little in evidence since the upswing of the 1970s (Mozambique, Angola, Chile (1970-73), Guinea Bissau, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe). In the intervening period we saw the decline and fall of the ‘Eastern Bloc’, the rise of neoliberal economics, the spread of ‘structural adjustment’, the genocidal impact of HIV/AIDS, and a deep disillusionment among much of the left. The Bolivarian Revolution brought new hope. Who wouldn’t be inspired by the successes of a socialist-oriented programme that prioritised the needs of millions of ordinary people: the slum-dwellers, the workers, the peasants, the unemployed, the indigenous, the African, the disenfranchised - the type of people that politicians rarely thought about in this Washington-led ‘new world order’.
"Furthermore, Chávez understood that countries do not exist in isolation and that the Bolivarian Revolution couldn’t survive alone in the face of the enemy to the north. Venezuela’s example and support has been decisive for the progressive governments in Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina. Chávez pursued the deepest of ties with socialist Cuba. He was a friend to the entire socialist and non-aligned world, from China to Zimbabwe, from South Africa to Belurus, from Iran to Brazil, from Syria to Vietnam. When it was deeply unfashionable to do so, he defended Libya and Syria from Nato-led regime change campaigns. In a world of cowardice and fickleness, he stood up and said: "I am not a coward, I am not fickle."
"His work and his example will stay with us forever. Work like Chávez!"
Via Carlos Martinez
George Galloway: US approach to Ukraine ‘ludicrous, nonsensical’