There’s been much celebration in U.S. political and media circles over the violent ouster of Ukraine’s democratically elected president. Nearly everyone is hailing this putsch and ignoring that it was spurred on by neo-Nazi militias, Robert Parry reported on Feb. 26, 2014.
The revival of some of the worst anti-Russian, Cold War rhetoric has been heard in the impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill. What hasn’t been heard, in a bi-partisan cover-up, is talk of the opening act of this political drama, which started the entire mess in Ukraine, as explained by our founding editor Robert Parry as the events were still unfolding.
By Robert Parry
Special to Consortium News
Feb. 26, 2014
There was always a measure of hypocrisy but Official Washington used to at least pretend to stand for “democracy,” rather than taking such obvious pleasure in destabilizing elected governments, encouraging riots, overturning constitutional systems and then praising violent putsches.
But events in Ukraine and Venezuela suggest that the idea of respecting the results of elections and working within legal, albeit flawed, political systems is no longer in vogue, unless the “U.S. side” happens to win, of course. If the “U.S. side” loses, then it’s time for some “shock doctrine.” And, of course, the usual demonizing of the “enemy” leader.
Ukraine’s ousted President Viktor Yanukovych was surely no one’s idea of a pristine politician, though it looks like there are few to none of those in Ukraine, a country essentially controlled by a collection of billionaire oligarchs who jockey for power and shift their allegiances among corrupt politicians.
But Yanukovych was elected in what was regarded as a reasonably fair election in 2010. Indeed, some international observers called the election an important step toward establishing an orderly political process in Ukraine.
But Yanukovych sought to maintain cordial relations with neighboring Russia, which apparently rubbed American neocons the wrong way. Official Washington’s still-influential neocons have been livid with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin because he cooperated with U.S. President Barack Obama in averting U.S. wars against Iran and Syria.
In both cases, the neocons thought they had maneuvered Obama into confrontations that could have advanced their long-term strategy of “regime change” across the Middle East, a process that started in 2003 with the U.S. invasion of Iraq but stalled with that disastrous war.
However, last year, prospects for more U.S. military interventions in two other target countries Iran and Syria were looking up, as Israel joined with Saudi Arabia in stoking regional crises that would give Obama no choice but to launch American air strikes, against Iran’s nuclear facilities and against Syrian government targets.
That strategy was going swimmingly until Putin helped bring Iran to the negotiating table over guarantees that its nuclear program would not lead to a nuclear weapon. Putin also brokered a deal to avert threatened U.S. air strikes on Syria over disputed evidence regarding who launched a chemical attack on civilians outside Damascus. Putin got the Syrian government to agree to eliminate its chemical weapons arsenal.
So, Putin found himself in the center of the neocons’ bulls-eye and given some of his own unforced errors such as defending Russia’s intolerance toward gays and spending excessively on the Sochi Olympics he became the latest “designated villain,” denounced and ridiculed across the neocon-dominated op-ed pages of the Washington Post and other major news outlets.
Even NBC, from its treasured spot as the network of the Olympic Games, felt it had no choice but to denounce Putin in an extraordinary commentary delivered by anchor Bob Costas. Once the demonizing ball gets rolling everyone has to join in or risk getting run over, too.
All of which set the stage for Ukraine. The issue at hand was whether Yanukovych should accept a closer relationship with the European Union, which was demanding substantial economic “reforms,” including an austerity plan dictated by the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych balked at the harsh terms and turned to Ukraine’s neighbor Russia, which was offering a $15 billion loan and was keeping Ukraine’s economy afloat with discounted natural gas.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the EU was driving too hard a bargain or whether Ukraine should undertake such painful economic “reforms” or how Yanukovych should have balanced the interests of his divided country, with the east dominated by ethnic Russians and the west leaning toward Europe.
But protesters from western Ukraine, including far-right nationalists, sought to turn this policy dispute into a means for overthrowing the elected government. Police efforts to quell the disturbances turned violent, with the police not the only culprits. Police faced armed neo-Nazi storm troopers who attacked with firebombs and other weapons.
Though the U.S. news media did show scenes of these violent melees, the U.S. press almost universally blamed Yanukovych and took almost gleeful pleasure as his elected government collapsed and was replaced by thuggish right-wing militias “guarding” government buildings.
With Yanukovych and many of his supporters fleeing for their lives, the opposition parties seized control of parliament and began passing draconian new laws often unanimously, as neo-Nazi thugs patrolled the scene. Amazingly, the U.S. news media treated all this as uplifting, a popular uprising against a tyrant, not a case of a coup government operating in collusion with violent extremists.
In the upside-down world that has become the U.S. news media, the democratically elected president was a dictator and the coup makers who overthrew the popularly chosen leader were “pro-democracy” activists.
A Curious History
There’s also a curious history behind U.S. attitudes toward ethnically divided Ukraine. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency as he escalated Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union one of his propaganda services, Radio Liberty, began broadcasting commentaries into Ukraine from right-wing exiles.
Some of the commentaries praised Ukrainian nationalists who had sided with the Nazis in World War II as the SS waged its “final solution” against European Jews. The propaganda broadcasts provoked outrage from Jewish organizations, such as B’nai B’rith, and individuals including conservative academic Richard Pipes.
According to an internal memo dated May 4, 1984, and written by James Critchlow, a research officer at the Board of International Broadcasting, which managed Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, one RL broadcast in particular was viewed as “defending Ukrainians who fought in the ranks of the SS.”
Critchlow wrote, “An RL Ukrainian broadcast of Feb. 12, 1984 contains references to the Nazi-oriented Ukrainian-manned SS ‘Galicia’ Division of World War II which may have damaged RL’s reputation with Soviet listeners. The memoirs of a German diplomat are quoted in a way that seems to constitute endorsement by RL of praise for Ukrainian volunteers in the SS division, which during its existence fought side by side with the Germans against the Red Army.”
Harvard Professor Pipes, who was an adviser to the Reagan administration, also inveighed against the RL broadcasts, writing on Dec. 3, 1984 “the Russian and Ukrainian services of RL have been transmitting this year blatantly anti-Semitic material to the Soviet Union which may cause the whole enterprise irreparable harm.”
Though the Reagan administration publicly defended RL against some of the public criticism, privately some senior officials agreed with the critics, according to documents in the archives of the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. For instance, in a Jan. 4, 1985, memo, Walter Raymond Jr., a top official on the National Security Council, told his boss, National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, that “I would believe much of what Dick [Pipes] says is right.”
This three-decade-old dispute over U.S.-sponsored radio broadcasts underscores the troubling political reality of Ukraine, which straddles a dividing line between people with cultural ties oriented toward the West and those with a cultural heritage more attuned to Russia. Though the capital Kiev sits in a region dominated by the western Ukrainians, the Russian-allied Ukrainians represent most of the population, explaining Yanukovych’s electoral victory.
Loving a Putsch
Now, right-wing militias, representing those historical resentments toward the Russians and hostility toward the Jews, have seized control of many government buildings in Kiev. Faced with this intimidation, the often-unanimous decisions by the remaining legislators would normally be viewed with extreme skepticism, including their demands for the capture and likely execution of Yanukovych.
But the U.S. press corps can’t get beyond its demonization of Putin and Yanukovych. The neocon Washington Post has been almost euphoric over the coup, as expressed in a Feb. 24 editorial:
“Ukraine has shaken off its corrupt president and the immediate prospect of domination by Russia, but at the risk of further conflict. The decision by Viktor Yanukovych to flee Kiev over the weekend triggered the disintegration of his administration and prompted parliament to replace him and schedule elections for May.
“The moves were democratic, members of Mr. Yanukovych’s party joined in the parliamentary votes, but they had the effect of nullifying an accord between the former government and opposition that had been brokered by the European Union and tacitly supported by Russia.
“Kiev is now controlled by pro-Western parties that say they will implement the association agreement with the European Union that Mr. Yanukovych turned away from three months ago, triggering the political crisis.
“There remain two big threats to this positive outcome. One is that Ukraine’s finances will collapse in the absence of a bailout from Russia or the West. The other is that the country will split along geographic lines as Russian speakers in the east of the country, perhaps supported by Moscow, reject the new political order.”
The Post continued, “What’s not clear is whether Mr. Putin would accept a Ukraine that is not under the Kremlin’s thumb. The first indications are not good: Though Mr. Putin has been publicly silent about Ukraine since Friday, the rhetoric emanating from his government has been angry and belligerent. A foreign ministry statement Monday alleged that ‘a course has been set to use dictatorial and sometimes terrorist methods to suppress dissenters in various regions.’”
So, The Washington Post’s editors consider the violent overthrow of a democratically elected president to be “democratic” and take comfort in “democratic” actions by a legislature, despite the curious lack of any no votes and the fact that this balloting has occurred under the watchful eye of neo-Nazi storm troopers patrolling government offices. And, according to the Post, the Russian government is unhinged to detect “dictatorial and sometimes terrorist methods.”
The New York Times editorial page was only slightly less celebratory, proclaiming: “The venal president of Ukraine is on the run and the bloodshed has stopped, but it is far too early to celebrate or to claim that the West has ‘won’ or that Russia has ‘lost.’ One incontrovertible lesson from the events in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, is that the deeply divided country will have to contend with dangerous problems that could reverberate beyond its borders.”
There has been, of course, a long and inglorious history of the U.S. government supporting the overthrow of elected governments: Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Allende in Chile in 1973, Aristide in Haiti twice, Chavez in Venezuela briefly in 2002, Zelaya in Honduras in 2009, Morsi in Egypt in 2013, and others. After Yanukovych, the next target of these U.S.-embraced “democratic” coups looks to be Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela.
In these cases, it is typical for the mainstream U.S. news media to obsess over perceived flaws in the ousted leaders. On Wednesday, for instance, The New York Times made much of an unfinished presidential palace in Ukraine, calling it “a fugitive leader’s folly.” The idea seems to be to cement in the minds of impressionable Americans that it is okay for the U.S. government to support the overthrow of democratically elected presidents if they have flaws.
The outcomes for the people of these countries that are “saved” from their imperfect leaders, however, often tend to be quite ugly. Usually, they experience long periods of brutal repression at the hands of dictators, but that typically happens outside the frame of the U.S. news media’s focus or interest. Those unhappy countries fade from view almost as quickly as they were thrust to center stage, next to the demonization of their elected leaders.
[For more on Ukraine, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons and the Ukraine Coup.”]
The late investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. He founded Consortium News in 1995 was its editor until his death in 2018.
Who cheers, who does not give a damn, and can they who condemn ever do but more than condemn, much like a movie audience does the villains.
While they who orchestrated what happened in Ukraine will be celebrated by those who whose job and reason for being and are engaged elsewhere hoping for same results.
It is but part and parcel of the world view of US governments active participants and those who own it, towards rest of world as theirs to own.
The ability to elevate itself is done in such a way as to leave those we supposedly saved for democracy as still having character flaws, that our continuance in Ukraine’s political, military and financial affairs will be needed there for years in future.
Oh there will always be those in the masses who achieve vicarious orgasms in thoughts of US superiority, they too will cheer, but on the whole US populace could care not one whit about issue.
No need to care because it has no impact nor of import in their daily lives.
We in US have came to accept death, torture and misery caused by our political financial leaders elsewhere in world, and even the death of our military personnel a s no more than ordinary.
What results from our governments policies and it’s minions is out of our hands, and has become no more than fantacy group think, mental masturbation.
The media mouthpieces tell lies and ignore history with no affect. Either they believe their own lies, or they are hewing to a particular propaganda line and know they are lying and are practiced at it.
An object lesson on the profound loss of Bob’s prose & analysis… sigh.
Well said, Robert Parry, and well worth reading more than five years later.
What a terrible shame the United States puts so much effort and treasure into destructive projects.
That’s just the nature of empire though. Respect for rule of law has no place.
By the way, the plug-ugly fascists are still a working force.
Ukraine’s new president, despite signs of an enlightened attitude, seems incapable of movement on the Donbass region and the Minsk Accords. He’s afraid of another putsch. The Paris Summit made no real progress, except building some trust.
And who pays for them, the plug-uglies, I mean?
Joe Biden as Obama’s proconsul to the Ukraine coup, was photographed with a big smile, enthusiastically shaking hands with the commander of the Azov Battalion.
And members of Azov have appeared in Hong Kong, too. Expensive travel for a poor country.
I wanted to say that the canadian gov. and the U.S. and west European govs. should be condemned for supporting the right wing in Ukraine.These govs. just want the cheap labour in the Ukraine. The working class in the Ukraine got nothing to gain by been part of the EU.Just ask the working class in former East Germany how they made out when the country was united.
The working class in the Ukraine is not been heard and they are the ones that will decide what happens.
“These govs. just want the cheap labour in the Ukraine.”
With respect, no. Western governments, led by the US, are using Ukraine as an excuse to further bludgeon Russia, which policy has been in place since the collapse of the USSR (with brief periods during the Yeltsin era when the “Allies” hoped to use that drunken puppet as a proxy ruler).
See, especially, the Wolfowitz Memo and the Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard.”
Inventing threats to â€œUS National Interestsâ€
This is the only clear-minded assessment of the events in Ukraine I have seen so far.
Bravo, Mr. Parry!
Pay no heed to the witless detractors who deny the truth. You are in the good company of Professor Francis Boyle, Professor Emeritus Stephen F. Cohen and the intrepid Max Blumenthal. That anyone would try to argue that the events in Ukraine are anything but a fascist putsch are hopelessly delusional. The unanimous votes in the parliament with opposition members arrested or in flight for their lives mirror nothing so much as the last Reichstag votes presided over by Hermann Goering, complete with paramilitary thugs maintaining “order and discipline”. The internet is strewn with images of the perpetrators sporting the wolfsangel, the hakenkreutz, and “88” designating the double-letter H for “Heil Hitler”. Yet the western media continues to deny there is any significant neo-Nazi element involved. Shame on them and kudos to you. BRAVO!
I agree. In addition to Boyle, Blumenthal, Cohen and Parry – Paul Craig Roberts has written some great pieces on this as well.
With so-called liberals like Kerry, Clinton, Zbiggy B., and Susan Rice, who needs the “neocons”?
Bravo, Bob! (and Bravo F.G.!)
Who knows where it will all end up, but I’m guessing that if the U.S. foolishly continues to push the envelope and issue more threats or ‘F-Us’, when its all said and done, the constitutionally elected President of Ukraine will be reinstalled in all of the provinces in the East and South at the behest of their regional leaders, and with the no-nonsense help of Putin- including everywhere bordering the Black Sea, leaving the U.S. and EU with the rest in the West to subsidize. Such a deal, Ms. Nuland, for the $5 billion you so indiscreetly said the U.S. had “invested” to get it all.
I do not know if you are hopelessly muddled Mr. Parry or what. You say, “But events in Ukraine and Venezuela suggest that the idea of respecting the results of elections and working within legal, albeit flawed, political systems is no longer in vogue, unless the â€œU.S. sideâ€ happens to win, of course. If the â€œU.S. sideâ€ loses, then itâ€™s time for some â€œshock doctrine.â€ And, of course, the usual demonizing of the â€œenemyâ€ leader.” That is absurd! That is a fairytale view of the government going back at least as far as the US invasion of Mexico in defense of Southern slavery, or the invasion of Cuba to snatch independence from the hands of the Cubans in their fight against Spain and the same with the Philippines. In fact, you might want to read or re-read “Killing Hope” by William Blum who goes through what seems like hundreds of such cases. Or, you might want to read or re-read Philip Agee’s diary of his actions as a CIA office in Latin America doing exactly the things the CIA is doing in Venezuela and the Ukraine. So, how is what you are saying different from the misinformation that the Times is pushing? In fact, you might also read the documentation of reporters from the Times and other media outlets who work for the CIA (either for pay or for free) and publish articles either written for them by the CIA or from and outline provided.
If you want to reply in a serious, factual way, to the article by Mr. Parry, the honest way is to do so factually. If anything written by him is found to be faulty facts, by you, address those facts, and reply to why they are faulty.
For you to simply state that the article is wrong, a generalization, and to diffusely say that you think he is wrong, is to take the easy way out. To, likewise, refer to other’s written books, without any specificity, does not either live up to the requirements of an honest, logical, debate.
May it be that your intention is not an honest, clarifying debate, but to sow doubt, instead? Might you be connected to some party that were active, in those tragic days, on which Mr. Parry had the civil courage and human decency, to report?
If a “cause” fakes $ billion, to make it be heard, in the Ukraine (the “investment”, by the US State Department, into various US-sponsored NGOs in the Ukraine, in advance of the coup, this according to the State Department itself, at a lunch at the Press Club in New York, in December 2014), is it then really a “cause” of the Ukrainian people?
Or is it a “cause” of someone else? Like the US State Department?
It is correct by Mr. Parry to point out that the coup was carried out by thugs and Neo-Nazis (often the same). They hail from the Western-most part of the Ukraine, from the province of Galizia (not the one, of the same name, in Spain), and, specifically, from the “Bandera-party”, the Nazi Party of the Ukraine, at the time before, and during, WWII, the only Nazi Party in the Ukraine, at that time — and after (since it was resurrected, in 1991). They hail the Swastica, at their meetings and they do the Hitler-salute.
The Party Secretary said at a meeting, in modern time, that he would not rest, until the Party, once they had grabbed power, had “hunted out, or killed, every single Russian, and Jew, being in Ukraine”.
And then they grabbed the power — supported by the US State Department.
That’s why the Russians are opposed to it. Their fathers and grandfathers — and even their grandmothers — died at a rate of over 3,000 per day,of the war — every single day — from the start of it, on the 22 of June, 1941, until the capitulation of Germany, at the 9th of May, 1945.
As a comparison, the much vaunted and filmed “D-day” cost the Western Allies about 2,000 dead, shared on 3 nations — and that was only on one single day — the other days meant much lower casualties.
Mr. Parry has exhibited the same amount of courage, in his work, as those did, then.
I am not educated in US history or foreign policy, but isn’t well-known documented fact that the USA has a history of removing democratically elected leaders since the incarnation of the USA? I understand this mayor happen through actually US presence in another country, but that has never stopped others doing the dirty work for them. What baffles the mind, it’s like a cheating husband, the USA. He’ll use you until he needs you no longer, than when done, you are trash and expendable. Why would any country, even if “right-wing” actually trust the actions of the USA? I was born in the US as were both my parents, if I were not, chances are, I would be in any if the hundreds if not thousands of countries the US gov has invaded and occupied in some way or another. If this was the case, I am sure u would hate the US gov enough to fly a plane into a building or blow myself up somewhere. I honestly don’t know why more incidents like that have not taken place in my life time. If you were to ask any American, if they were on the other side of the US’ involvement in a country, theirs, would they be willing to die to get revenge. I’d say its safe to assume, most Americans would. I hope I am gone the day that America suffers the Blowback it deserves. I don’t think people from other countries who occupy this land will be any nicer than the US’ who occupy others. It’s angering and extremely sad to have been brought up in a country created on lies. Sure, I am very fortunate to have been born here, but at what price to other people’s lives across the globe? Is my life so much more important than theirs? I don’t think so, but many Americans do, which is the most distressing part of it all.