While the Russian opinion polls in support of President Putin now has reached a record level of 89% he is simultaneously target of a very dirty smear campaign in the West. Putin, we are told, is a power-hungry dictator intending to restore the Soviet Empire. He is portrayed as a danger to world peace, a dictator with a background as a KGB officer, who controls the “communist” Russia with an iron fist. All is completely absurd and hides an obvious purpose.
What is called “Putin’s annexation of Crimea” is taken as an example of his aggressiveness. The fact that Crimea has been a province of Russia since 1758 is not mentioned in Western media. Khrushchev handed over Crimea to Ukraine at a time when both were part of the Soviet Union and the whole thing was purely administrative.
Russia has since 250 years had its Black Sea fleet based in Crimea, and a leasing agreement with Ukraine gave them the right to have 25,000 troops there. After the so called “annexation” Crimean streets were full of jubilant inhabitants who had again become Russian citizens. Not a single shot was fired, and a referendum showed that 96% of the people wanted to return to Russia.
This is not surprising because seventy percent of the Crimeans have relatives in Russia, and forty percent of Russians have relatives in Crimea. Despite the fact that reports from the OSCE confirmed that the poll followed all rules for referendums western media claimed that it was illegal and rejected it as propaganda. Informed observers know that the annexation was nothing more than Crimea’s reconnection with the motherland.
Ex-president Jimmy Carter said that:
“It was something that Crimean residents wanted.”
Even anti-Russian Forbes Magazine wrote:
“One year after annexation locals prefer Moscow before Kiev.”
Putin in the Western media and the coup in Kiev
However, western media have kept silent about this and argues with the persistence of a fool that Russia has conquered Crimea militarily, and therefore should be sanctioned.
The western elite wants to keep the public unaware that the United States was behind the coup in Kiev and the US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland appointed the Ukrainian Government not the Ukrainian people. Her discussion with the US ambassador to Ukraine about who they would put in the government has been leaked and is available to listen to on the Internet (1).
The US invested 5 billion USD in Ukraine to support “democracy-building” (a more correct term would be “subversion-building”) to so called non-profit organizations (2). If the coup had succeeded, it would have deprived Russia of its military base in the Crimea, and locked Russia out from the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.
All of a sudden the Ukraine people found themselves facing a government with strong Nazi elements whose first decision was to ban the Russian language! Their hatred for everything Russian has resulted in a genocide in eastern Ukraine, where the military indiscriminately murders the Russian-speaking population including children and elderly.
At least 5,000 civilian Russian-speaking Ukrainians have been murdered and a couple of million have fled, most of them to Russia (3). Crimea’s reconnection to Russia has saved its people from a similar fate.
Nazi groups such as Svoboda and the Azov Battalion are driving forces, but Western media still denies the existence of Nazism in the country. A US bill to congress suggests otherwise saying:
“Nazi groups in Ukraine will no longer be supported.”
However, this has been silenced, and western media continue to assert that Russia is in war with the Russian population in Ukraine, which is extremely absurd but apparently the best they could come up with; who else would shell the Donetsk civilians?
The only measure Russia has taken is sending caravans of trucks with food and medicine to the badly affected population, whose pensions and social support has been taken from them by their own government. However, the US, Canada and other NATO countries have sent both weapons (which Obama has allegedly stopped but that George Friedman of the Stratfor think tank says is happening) and military personnel to them.
The reason for the coup, which forced the democratically elected President Yanukovych to escape, was definitely not more democracy for Ukraine’s people, but had political causes that can be traced back to a single one, namely the US global hegemony that does not allow any other country to challenge them.
The Wolfowitz doctrine spells out the US foreign policy strategy;
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.”
In other words Washington’s primary goal is not peace, not prosperity, not human rights, not democracy, not justice. Washington’s primary goal is to remain the only superpower in the world. (4)
If war is necessary to defend this, the world will have to accept it! A well-functioning cooperation between Germany and Russia is, according to presidential advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the only power formation that could threaten the US hegemony. To drive a wedge into the cooperation between them, was an obvious reason for the coup in Ukraine.
Another thing was that Russia does not support the World Government under control of the financial elite, which they have been planning for a long time and which is now being slipped into western countries, without the citizens being aware of it.
Putin shocked the elite when he commented on the world government issue (he used the words unipolar world), in a speech in Munich in 2007, where he said:
. . . ” what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.
And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.”
After this statement the campaign against Putin has intensified.
End of Democracy
The role democracy will play in the planned world government is clearly revealed by David Rockefeller when he thanked a select group of media invited to share its planning.
“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
In other words, the world has to look forward to the bankers’ dictatorship! Democracy is over! This applies also to Sweden, where the removal of cash is a first step making us completely dependent of the banks’ greed and unpredictability. This means that during a power outage, we will have no money at all! During a power outage for two months – which can be arranged – we will have difficulty even surviving. The elite claims the world is overpopulated and its intention is to reduce world population from the present seven billion to 500 million, and this may be one tool in their effort to kill off 6,5 billion people – the biggest genocide ever!
The American Sharon Tennison (5) began already during the Soviet era to arrange journeys for Americans to Russia, her private initiative to reduce tension in the world. She has closely followed the change ever since:
“It is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and took over a country that was flat on its belly. . . During this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement, and stores were becoming stocked with food.”
It shouldn’t be surprising that Putin is loved by the Russians, but hated by those who want to remove him from power. He has the nerve to act as an exceptionally skillful head of state who works for the best of his country and people, something that every politician should do, but which still few countries can enjoy.
A year ago a passenger plane from Malaysia Airlines was shot down over the Ukrainian war zone. Western media immediately accused Russia. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (6) says about this in an interview:
“I think they intended for the airliner to be shot down. The latest evidence is that it was shot down by air, by a Ukrainian jet fighter using a missile. This is the best evidence we have at this time. What is suspicious about this is that the instant that the airliner was reported to have been shot down, the entirety of the Western media was already programmed to blame Russia. Before there was any evidence, before there was any explanation, we had all of the Western media blaming Russia – even the BBC, which used to be a respectable news organization. So this suggests the whole thing was preplanned.
And if you look at the development of this we see that Ukraine has not released any information about its contacts with the airliner. And we see that Washington, which had a spy satellite directly over the area at the time, refuses to release its information. So the only information we have comes from the Russians, and the Russians say that if this had happened on a ground-to-air missile, this Buk system, that their radar in Rostov would have picked it up and yet it shows no such happening.
So I think the reason that we can’t get to the bottom of this is that it’s been used against Russia by Washington in order to break off Russia’s relationships with Europe. It’s the foundation of the sanctions and it’s part of Washington trying to break up the political and economic relationships between Russia and Europe. In my opinion, all the evidence we have, as of this time, supports no other conclusion. . .
” So that’s really what it’s all about and shooting down an airliner for Washington this doesn’t mean anything; they kill more people than that while we are talking, in Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, in wherever. For 14 years the US has been killing people all over the Middle East and Africa and why are they so worried about a couple of hundred on an airliner, they kill that many every hour.
So the whole thing is directed to demonize Russia in order to force Europe to comply with Washington’s will, which is: “We have to stop the rise of Russia, we can’t have another independent power, we are the uni-power, we have hegemony over the world, we must not permit other countries to be able to block us in any way.” That’s what it’s all about.”
Why has the Dutch crash report not been published?
- Could it be that it does not show what Russia has been accused of ever since the crash?
- Is it perhaps that Washington now wants to refer the whole case to a UN commission which they can control and let them judge that Russia is the perpetrator, without having to bother about the facts of the final crash report?
By Ingemar Wärnström | Also read Part 2
 Paul Craig Roberts previously associated with Reagan also was an editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts worked for The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fortune, London Times and The Financial Times. He has also been giving several lectures at universities.