Burisma an Empty Decoy?
Did Biden’s 1.8 Billion Overthrow a Democratic Government?
The Full Story
By Chip Howard, PhD
2019 © IndependentArizona.com
Now that there is no more Trump blood to squeeze out of Russia, it is on to Ukraine? The indications of dastardly deeds make for a very long list and they are all over the map. Just to name a few in a long list:
Allegedly, Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate corruption involving Joe Biden and his son.
- Hunter Biden received 3.4 million dollars from a shady oligarch after the US contributed 1.8 billion dollars to the oligarch’s business.
- Joe Biden bragged on tape about threatening to withhold 1 billion dollars in US aid unless Ukraine fired their prosecutor who was investigating corruption (including Biden’s son). Biden said in the interview, “And son of he bitch, he got fired”.
What in the world is going on in Ukraine, aside from a several-year simmering military conflict with Russia? The subject is now occupying nearly 100 percent of our news. But what if this is all a sideshow with the true evil hiding in plain sight.
In order to make any sense of this, it is essential that the reader frame the matter with some knowledge of Ukraine-Russia history. If you will please indulge me with a brief (and admittedly incomplete) summary of essential background information, I believe that some things will become very obvious and painfully clear. Shame on our media for, in my opinion, misinforming us and misdirecting the attention of the public. And shame on elements of our government for some of their deeds that have yours and my names stamped on them.
The Turbulent Interactions of Two Neighbors
In modern history, Russia and Ukraine have been two completely separate countries, although the border between the two has changed locations drastically over time. What’s more, the backgrounds of the peoples of the two countries are very different. That said, a thousand years ago, at the hands of the Scandinavian Vikings, Kiev was the main political and cultural center of eastern Europe. That region, then known as Kievan Rus, was largely populated with Slavic peoples. The first non-Slavic ruler of more-eastern origin was Grand Prince Vladimir who decided to do away with paganism and sent agents to investigate areas where Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions were practiced. They reported back that the only place that religious people seemed to have fun (and alcohol was consumed) was at the Christian Hagia Sophia cathedral in Constantinople (which I recently visited in present-day Istanbul). So, Christianity it was. Two Byzantine missionaries came in and, in 988, had a mass baptism of the residents of Kiev (and created the Cyrillic language). To this day, Russians consider Kiev to be the mother of all Russian cities.
In the 13th century, the Mongols (Genghis Kahn and his colleagues known as the Golden Horde) invaded and took over most of Russia and Novo Russia. Ukraine was incorporated into Lithuania and Poland. Today, many western Ukrainians consider themselves to be of Polish decent. Crimea and the area known today as Novo Russia (Novorossiya) was populated with Turks (somewhat indigenous peoples known as Krims) and was governed by a Mongol Kahn. Novo Russia and Crimea were hence known at that time as the Crimean Khanate. The Crimean Khanate later became subservient to the Ottoman Empire. Under the Crimean Khanate and Ottomans, the whole region was a primitive and backward land and was known as the “Wild Fields”. It was a grassy steppe with very few inhabitants.
Tsar Peter the Great, ruling from Moscow from 1682 to 1725, set out to make Russia a modern country like those of western Europe. His efforts were accelerated by Empress Catherine the Great (1762 to 1796) who was actually born in Germany. During her reign, Russia became an enlightened society of culture, intellect and art as well as a great military power. To enable commerce and military dominance in the south, she also expanded Russia to the area of the Black Sea by taking over the Crimean Kahnate and absorbing some lands that had been Poland. Those lands are for the most part what became known today as Novo Russia and Crimea. In order to solidify the land as “Russian”, she moved Russian citizens (as well as a diversity of other Europeans) into the sparsely-populated region. Today’s populations of Novo Russia and Crimea are largely descendents from that migration and identify themselves as “Russian” even though the Novo Russia is presently within Ukraine (a key point). Catherine founded Odessa in 1794 as a Black Sea port for commerce. She also used Russian muscle and political savvy to take control of the Crimean peninsula from Ottoman Turkey which she formally annexed in 1783 (Crimea was never affiliated with Ukraine until 1954). An early source of disparity that today’s Ukrainians have not forgotten is that Catherine’s Russian immigrants were made “nobles” and generously given land. The few Polish pheasants living in Novo Russia were made “serfs” to serve the nobles.
The Crimean peninsula was then and is today one of the most strategic locations in the world. Extending into the middle of the Black Sea, possession of Crimea was essential for Russia to exert military presence the region and likewise protect its southern regions. The same is true today. The city of Sevastopol (in Crimea), is Russia’s only deep-water seaport in the south of the country capable of supporting a navy and is home to the Black Sea Fleet. Possession of Sevastopol has been the subject of many wars including the Russian-Turkish war, the Crimean war in the 1850’s and the epic battles of the Second World War. For Russia, then and now, possession of Sevastopol is considered essential for it’s existence. More on that later.
Novo Russia Becomes Ukraine
With the October Revolution in 1917, the Russian Empire collapsed into a five year civil war between the Red Bolsheviks and the White anti-Bolsheviks. Novo Russia was initially White anti-Bolshevik. But by 1922, the Bolsheviks had won and both Russia and Ukraine became members of the Soviet Union. At that time, the map was redrawn to show what was Novo Russia as part of Soviet Ukraine, although a mere formality as all were governed by the Soviet Union. Even though the existence of a Ukrainian government during soviet time was a mere formality, it may be that the Soviets wanted to make Novo Russia part of Soviet Ukraine in order to increase Russian influence into the Ukrainian population. Crimea formally remained in Soviet Russia. This innocuous redrawing of the map IS the source of all of today’s Ukraine turmoil.
The Soviet Time
In general, most western Ukrainian people (those west of Novo Russia and of non-Russian heritage) wanted no part of the Soviet Union or being governed from Moscow. Rather, they considered Ukraine to have been “occupied by a foreign power”. In general, the Soviets (especially under Stalin) were very brutal to the Ukrainian people, although they were brutal to everyone, including Russians. In the late 1920’s, the Soviets ordered that small private farms be confiscated, become property of the Soviet Union and be consolidated into large government farms. The citizens would then work on these “collective” farms and all harvests would become state property. The former owners (known as Kulaks) of private farms wanted to eat or sell their own harvests and refused to collectivize. Stalin is reputed to have said, “If farmers are the problem, no farmers, no problem”. Some of the farmers were executed, some were deported to Siberia and the remainder had every ounce of food confiscated. The result is known as the Ukrainian Holodomor (death by hunger) that killed somewhere between 5 and 10 million Ukrainians. The Holodomor was largely carried out by Nikita Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian, under the directives of Stalin.
The Ukrainians were so brutalized by the Soviets that when the Germans and their allies invaded during the Second World War, many Ukrainians considered them to be liberators. Throughout the war, many Ukrainians collaborated with or even fought with the Germans. Unfortunately for them, Germany lost the war. As the Soviets pushed the Germans back and recaptured Ukrainian territory, the Ukrainians again felt Stalin’s wrath. Stalin ordered Nikita Khrushchev to publically execute massive numbers of the traitors as examples to the population. Ukraine was then well decorated with hanging corpses with signs attached to illustrate the fate of those not loyal to the Soviets. The Ukrainian people had a lot of reasons to hate the Soviets, which they equated, perhaps incorrectly, to the Russian people. Those feelings have not been completely forgotten as every family has tragic stories of the not-so-distant past.
Crimea – The True Story
Unlike Novo Russia, Catherine didn’t populate Crimea with other European peoples, only Russians who mixed with the pseudo-native Krims of Turkish/Mongol decent. The Krims have been largely repressed ever since which remains a sore spot today.
When Stalin died in the early 1950’s, Nakita Khrushchev became the leader of the Soviet Union. He almost immediately gave a private speech to the government officials declaring the horrors and of the Stalin era and how it perverted the Soviet ideology. That speech leaked to the world and caused disillusioned communists (including those in the Communist Party USA) to abandon communist doctrine.
In order to sooth the Stalinist crimes against the Ukrainian people, and make amends for his own involvement, Khrushchev decided to throw the Ukrainian people a bone. That was, he deeded the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine in 1954. It was nothing more than a meaningless bureaucratic gesture as all territories were singularly governed by the Soviets in Moscow and there was no resulting changes. There is a belief among Russians that the transfer of the deed excluded Sevastopol.
All was well until 1991 when Boris Yeltsin declared that at that moment, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. The next morning, the ethnic Russians in Novo Russia and Crimea woke up to the terrible recognition that they were now citizens of Ukraine and under the governance of an ethnic-Ukrainian government that wasn’t terribly fond of Russians. The 10 percent of the Crimean population that were the Krims may have been pleased but the other 90 percent who were Russians never accepted the Ukraine concept, not for one second. I can witness this fact both from friends who live there and my personal experiences having visited Crimea a number of times, both before and after the 2014 revolution. When I first arrived at the Simferopol airport in 2007, the international airport of Crimea, I thought, this is very strange. This is supposed to be Ukraine but the Russian flag is flying proudly over the airport. While there, my mobile phone stopped working and I couldn’t figure it out as the menus were in Russian and my Russian language skills are limited to niet and da. So I went into a telephone store and told the young people working there that I don’t speak Ukrainian. A young man working there, a big young man, with a finger in my chest shoved me across the room informing me in no uncertain terms that he is Russian, not Ukrainian. The message did not require translation. I quickly understood that the ultimate insult to a citizen of Crimea was to suggest that they are Ukrainian.
Technically, it is argued that Crimea was never actually part of Ukraine even after 1954. The peninsula was formally designated as “The Autonomous Crimean Republic of Ukraine” and had it’s own separate constitution. Before 2014, there was even a ceremonial ditch dug across the isthmus separating Crimea from the mainland. The bottom line is that from the time that it was established by Catherine the Great until the present day, Crimea was never Ukraine. Other than a few Ukrainian ships and some military personnel (only between 1991 and 2014), there was never a significant Ukrainian population or presence there, only Russian. Since Catherine, Crimea has primarily been a Russian military base (and a lot of wonderful wine vinyards). The suggestion by our media that Russia invaded Crimea is an exaggeration as they have always been in physical possession of the peninsula.
After the Soviet collapse in 1991, the Ukrainian government in Kiev took every opportunity to mess with the citizens of Crimea. I witnessed the total dilapidation of roads and infrastructure. The people believed that they were shortchanged in every way because of western Ukraine’s grudge against Russians. Just for example, the Ukrainian government decided to change peoples’ names and issue them new passports. My friend Tatiana (Russian spelling) was renamed Tetyana (Ukrainian spelling). Similarly, my friend Dmitry was renamed Dima. Even when the new government was formed in 2014, its first act in it’s first hour was to outlaw the use of Russian language in Crimea. Again, contrary to the propaganda that we receive, Crimea was never Ukraine in any functional or human sense.
Novo Russia Post 1991
As mentioned, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991, the self-identified “Russian” citizens of Novo Russia found themselves being governed by Ukrainians in Kiev for the first time in history. In the confusion of the times, there was a very formal movement to create a new country (or at least an autonomous region) named Novo Russia (Novorossiya). After much effort, the concept fizzled and the region remained Ukraine. Novo Russia consists partially of the eastern and southern cities of Kharkov and Odessa, the second and third largest cities in Ukraine, respectively. The citizens of those cities, though exclusively Russian speaking, are a mix of ethnic Russian and Ukrainians who coexist very peacefully. The small villagers in those areas are primarily Ukrainian speaking. I visited a construction site in the city of Kharkov during the turmoil of 2014. I asked a few of the workers what they thought of all if the political problems. One answered, “If we are Ukraine, I love Ukraine! If we are Russia, I love Russia! If we are Poland, I love Poland! I just want my family to have a good life.” That typifies the general feelings in the Kharkov and Odessa regions of Novo Russia.
In contrast, the Donbass region of Novo Russia in the far east of present-day Ukraine is overwhelmingly ethnically Russian and the people identify almost purely as Russian. Given a choice, they would almost universally prefer to be citizens of the Russian Federation.
Eastern Versus Western Ukrainians
For the most part, Ukrainians are extremely peaceful people and the ethnic/cultural differences are only minimally perceived. Though the two groups generally coexist very well, there are distinct differences in the peoples.
Ukrainians (west Ukraine)
- Slavic-Polish origin
- Ukrainian language
- Catholic Christians
Self-Identified Russians (east Ukraine)
- Russian origin
- Russian language
- Orthodox Christians
In general, where you find the two populations blended is in the western border of Novo Russia, particularly the cities of Kharkov and Odessa. In that blended area, the city dwellers are Russian speaking and the villagers are Ukrainian speaking.
However, there is an undertow of extreme nationalists on both sides which are geographically centered in the very west and very east. What are known as “Ultranational Ukrainians” are generally from the area of Lviv, near Poland. The Nationalistic Russians are centered in the Donbasss area (Donetsk and Luhansk provences) near the Russian border. The Ultranational Ukrainians despise Russians because of the repressive history. The Nationalistic Russians despise Ukrainians because they believe that they are persecuted by the Kiev government and they wish to be part of the Russian Federation.
The Georgia War
Just before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States was negotiating the East and West Germany situation with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The US asked for the Soviets to reunite the two countries and bring them under the umbrella of the West and NATO. For the Soviets, that meant abandoning control of East Germany and giving it to the West. This was difficult for Gorbachev to sell back home as Germany had tried to destroy the Soviet Union not long previous including killing 28,000,000 of it’s citizens in the attempt.
What made the deal acceptable to the Soviets was that the West promised to draw the line of influence at Germany. You may easily find historical accounts of US Secretary of State James Baker promising “not one inch eastward” of western influence or military presence beyond Germany.
(https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early) and (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629)
Well, our word wasn’t good for long as both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush soon brought almost all of East Bloc countries, including former Soviet states, into NATO. That is, excluding Ukraine on Russia’s western border and Georgia to the south. In doing this, we took advantage of the absolute weakness that Russia was experiencing in that immediate post-Soviet era. When Russia objected in every manner that they could, they were told “You should have gotten it in writing”. In the never-ending desire to mess with Russia, George W. Bush many times floated the intention of bringing both Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, thus essentially surrounding all of western Russia and part of the south with US troops. Ponder how we would accept Russian troops on the Canada/US and the Mexico/US borders (I think that we learned the answer to that in Cuba in 1962). Especially after the carnage of the German invasion of Russia in 1941, such a concept was and still is viewed in Russia as an act of war.
In the country of Georgia, affairs not unlike Ukraine were happening in the early 2000’s. In November 2003, the US State Department / George Soros partnership created the bloodless Rose Revolution in Georgia. The democratically-elected government was overthrown and the new President of Georgia was Mikhiel Saafashvili, an American educated puppet of John McCain.
Two of the many provinces in Georgia are populated by ethnic Russians who are sympathetic to Russia, not unlike Novo Russia in Ukraine. On August 7, 2008, while Putin was attending the Beijing Olympics (August 8 – 24, 2008), the Georgian military launched a full-blown military assault on the civilians of the two ethnic-Russian provinces. Our media immediately claimed that the Russians were invading then months later, everyone conceded that they were wrong and that the Georgians started it. Days before Russia responded, a friend of mine sent me a cell phone video taken by a soldier in the hatch of a Georgian tank while in an urban intersection. As the turret rotated, the big machine gun inside blasted away at the surrounding buildings. Putin then returned home and after a few days of organizing, the Russian military came in and crushed the Georgian military. It was over by August 12. Later they withdrew from Georgia except for a protective peace-keeping force left behind in the ethnic-Russian provinces. As you will see later, we have a habit of doing such things during Olympic games when we believe that the opponents will be unable to quickly respond. As for President Mikheil Saafashvili, he remained President of Georgia until 2013. But, as we will see later, that is not the end of him or his utility to covert US engagements in foreign democracies.
This is when things got very interesting. On December 25, 1991 when Boris Yeltsen declared that the Soviet Union ceased to exist, along with the other now-former Soviet republics, Ukraine found itself with no government structure, no working institutions, no ownership of industry and no ownership of property.
The West stepped in to assist with stabilization and the creation of a new form of government. Our agents and think tanks essentially created the country from scratch. Between 1991 and 2013, the US admits to spending 5.1 billion dollars in Ukraine through USAid and various agencies. Little known to us, we likewise created the Russian governmental structure also. In order to transition from nothing to a democratic government, an interim hybrid authoritarian-democratic government was created. In other words, it was designed as a temporary bridge while a free market economy and democracy developed.
The Orange Revolution
In 2004, as planned, the constitution was changed to give the parliament increased powers (the evolution to democracy). Also in 2004, a presidential election was held and former prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, was the winner. However, the election was portrayed as corrupt (because we didn’t like the result, sound familiar). With the orchestration of George Soros organizations (and the US State Department), the citizens were urged to not accept the election results. I think that we can conclude that the big brother powers did not appreciate that Yankuovych had friendly relations with Russia as that was about the time that George W. Bush suggested making Ukraine and Georgia members of NATO. Following bloodless protests (the Orange Revolution), the election was nullified. In a revote, the “western-leaning” Viktor Yushchenko won the presidency and Yulia Tymoshenko won as prime minister with 52% of the vote (surprise). Eastern Ukraine had voted heavily for Yanukovych and western Ukraine voted heavily for Yushchenko. It was perceived by eastern citizens that the democratically-elected government had been overthrown by the Western powers. In the subsequent several years, eastern citizens perceived that they were being treated as second class and largely deprived by the Ukrainian government. My personal observations support that notion.
Back to Yanukovych
By 2010, both eastern and western Ukrainians perceived that the government (which they then believed to be a puppet of the US) was looting the entire country. In the presidential election that year, Viktor Yanukovych (who had been run out 6 years previous) again won defeating Yulia Tymoshenko . The voting illustrated a clear east/west divide as Ukrainian-speaking citizens voted for Tymoshenko whereas Russian-speakers voted for Yanukovych.
Afterward, based on my personal observations from my Ukrainian friends, the West began a subtle pull-in-our-direction campaign for the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian people.
You Must Choose Either East or West
By 2013, the West was trying to recruit Ukraine to join the European Union (EU). The country was in dire economic condition and ripe for the picking. There is no way that the West could have afforded to rehabilitate Ukraine. However, our motives were not to actually help Ukraine but to mess with Russia. That is demonstrated by our anti-Russia actions in Georgia some years earlier. My western Ukrainian friends were giddy with delight at the prospect as the West was promising to pave their streets with gold. At the same time, Russia was forming a trade union (not unlike NAFTA) with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Because of geography and existing trade, it was logical that Ukraine would be a better fit with the East, at least for the financial wellbeing of the Ukrainian people. After all, 68 percent of Ukraine’s foreign trade was with Russia and nearly all of its energy came from Russia.
Ukraine was being courted by both the West (the US and European Union) and Russia. Yanukovych was leaning toward the West. But in late 2013, he announced that it may be in Ukraine’s best interest to lean toward Russia as the West attached unreasonable strings to the deal designed to divorce practically all relations with Russia. In November, 2013 when Yanukovych refused to sign a “European Association Agreement”, the problems began.
The Maidan Revolution – The Part We Saw
Independence Square in the capital city of Kiev is a very beautiful plaza, about two city blocks in size. One side is surrounded by a horseshoe arrangement of tall skinny buildings. The other side is encompassed by a large hotel and government buildings. Within the plaza are various monuments and fountains. Underneath the whole plaza is a three-level stunning shopping center and Metro station.
The contemplation of leaning toward Russia was more than the western Ukrainians (and the US deep state) could stomach. Beginning in November, 2013, the whole plaza became the center of massive protests with the western Ukrainians demanding that the country join the EU. Thereafter, this location became the epicenter of what became known as the Maidan Movement, a pro-Western “freedom” movement. Independence Square became known as “The Maidan”.
For a few months, the Maidan was seen on our television as a 24/7 protest that was mostly peaceful except for occasional brushes with the police. Constant pro-“independence”, anti-Russian speeches were undoubtedly the work of the Soros organization and US agencies who also had plenty of covert operators engaged. Likewise, Russian interests were also present behind the scenes creating a proxy conflict. It was obvious that the event was highly organized propaganda and not just a bunch of speakers spontaneously wandering in off the street.
Not-so-covert John McCain gave a speech to the protesters in Maidan on December 4 encouraging Ukraine to seek their freedom (from what?) and join with the West. Being a vehement Russia-hater, John was the perfect cheerleader. John assured that Europe is Ukraine’s destiny and we would be with them to give them all the assistance they could possibly need. You will find countless recordings of the McCain speech on the internet.
John McCain’s sentiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5_MBYXDg-g (via RT television)
You will also find lots of videos suggesting meetings behind the scenes with partisan groups and officials. Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, made her first of several visits on December 5 for meetings with various anti-government groups and to lean on officials and push regime change.
(The comments following the video do a good job of illustrating the hypocrisy in her speech).
Given that the three-month standstill was not budging, on February 18, an element of the crowd turned the situation violent. Hardened thugs started attacking police and turned the Maidan into an inferno of Molotov cocktails, burning tires and airborne bricks. Soon, there was gunfire and, in the end, 130 people including 18 police were dead. The media convinced most of the pro-Western population that the Yanukovich government had done the violence and the killing. This notion was contrary to thoughtful reason as the violence could produce only one result, the pro-Western wish to run the pro-Russian president Yanukovich out of office. Plus, why would the Government have killed police as well as protesters. The sole reasonable goal would have been to create total chaos and anger against the Government. That is exactly what happened. On February 22, in fear for his life, Yanukovich fled the capital and on February 23, a new (pro-Western) government was formed including an interim President. The first acts of the new government in it’s first hour were to outlaw the use of Russian language and to sign the European Union Association Agreement. Job well done!
Who did the shooting that killed protestors and police? At least some is attributed (by the West) to an elite anti-riot police known as Berkut.
What We Didn’t See or Hear from Our Media
The thugs that initiated the violence were a large group of ultra-nationalistic extremist Ukrainians believed to be from the Lviv region. In logical hindsight, most believe that they were actually a mercenary group that was in some way orchestrated by Western agencies. As expected, the Western voices claim that it must have been Putin. Of course, the people that do organize such things are professional enough to not leave fingerprints. That said, small pieces of circumstantial evidence suggested that they were hired agents of the US. As for the gunfire that killed the protesters and police, in addition to the Berkut, most believe the shooting was done by pro-West snipers perched in the tall buildings that encompassed one end of the plaza. To this day, there is no concrete evidence to identify the snipers but there is only one logical conclusion.
Why did the orchestrators of the violence choose February 18? For one, the protests had gone on for three months without delivering a desired result. At some time soon thereafter, the movement would have fizzled due to fatigue so they were getting desperate. More importantly, remember when the West chose to launch violence in Georgia during the Olympics knowing that it would be difficult for Russia to immediately respond? Well, even more crippling, the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia (February 7-23, 2014) were underway but soon to end. How could Russia launch a military response while they were hosting the Olympic games? Brilliant, but that should solidify any doubt about which side caused the violence.
Before and during this revolution that overthrew a democratically-elected Ukrainian government for the second time in ten years, was the United States and the Obama administration in the bleachers cheering for the well-being of the Ukrainian people? Or, were they deep in the swamp orchestrating the events for the forever purpose of messing with Russia as they had done in 2004 and just as the U.S. had unsuccessfully attempted in Georgia in 2008? Of course, the U.S. claimed to be hands off, although even the publicly-seen overtures were substantial. During that time, our news programs were focused on Kiev with McCain and other officials constantly being interviewed with the golden domes of Kiev cathedrals in the background.
The veil of innocence was removed during a phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine in January 29, 2014. There they discussed the structure of the government to replace the current one after the revolution. They discuss having the UN show up to “glue it together” and having Joe Biden give it a pat on the back. Then when asked about the European Union, Nuland famously responded, “F___ the EU”. Little did they know that the call was being recorded and showed up a few days later on Youtube, courtesy of the Russian government.
The imperative question that remains unproven to this day is, exactly who were the apparent mercenaries that turned the Maidan protests violent and shot the people from the sniper positions. Although the replacement government and the propagandists claim that they are Russian agents, that defies logic. It is generally believed that they were ultra-nationalist Ukrainians from the Lviv region and were directly or indirectly paid by the West. More on that later.
After the Maidan
The overthrow of the East-leaning government did not set well with many of the ethnic Russians, especially in the Donbass region and Crimea where the populations overwhelmingly self-identify as Russian. A movement to create a separate autonomous region of Novo Russia again emerged as it had twice before since the Soviet era. Organizational meetings were held in Odessa but it didn’t get off the ground. Meanwhile, the new government did a lot to provoke the ethnic Russians and certainly Russia played the propaganda game too. Several small bombs went off but most were in locations where nobody was hurt. There were plenty of protests by both the pro-Western and pro-Russians with shouting matches and a few clashes where there were injuries.
Personally, I visited the area during the contentious time, twice to Kharkov and a few times to Odessa and the surrounding region. Even though the populations were primarily Russian speaking, I observed that the majority of the sentiment leaned West. But, even in those “blended” areas, the people were generally very peaceful. What they really wanted was for the trouble to stop. The numbers of local instigators on either side were quite small. My many friends in Odessa (on both sides) reported that there were daily marches in the streets, usually one pro-West and one pro-Russian. Afterward, the participants were likely at the same pub for happy hour.
That said, there were a few instigators that tried to create chaos and incite the local populations. Each side blamed the other. It should be mentioned that all official reports came from the West-leaning government so the validity of their claims of Russian agents is in question. The pro-Russians claimed that the instigators were the same ultra-national Ukrainians that sowed the Maidan violence. The latter is likely more true. Most neutral persons, including me, believe that most incidents were false flags perpetrated by Westerners made to look like pro-Russian deeds in attempt to incite anti-Russian anger. One thing that all agreed upon is that virtually all violence was incited by non-local agents.
While the contention simmered throughout Novo Russia, it became most violent in the Donbass region. Initially, most was attributed to ultra-national Ukrainians from outside the area that attacked ethnic Russians. For example, an acquaintance of mine from the Baltics was attending a football game between the Donetsk team and that from a nearby Russian city. He called me to say that he couldn’t believe his eyes. The Ukrainians were stopping cars with Russian license plates and beating both the cars and occupants. After a short time, pro-Russian militias organized and the then serious warfare began. As the Ukrainian instigators continued heading south, there was no violence on the Crimean peninsula, mainly because there were few ethnic Ukrainians there. Those that were there, other than a few Ukrainian military, were likely associated with the Russian military forces. More on that later.
The Odessa Tragedy
As time passed, somebody was scheming to incite violent clashes in order to further a bigger-picture agenda. It was obvious that the new West-supported government was emboldened by their supportive relationship with the US. Their news media (and ours at the time) were ripe with arrogant anti-Russian messaging. For the Ukrainian government, it was easy to be bold when the US was pushing them from behind the curtain. For the US, it is easy to be confrontational when it is somebody else’s sons dying. On May 2, 2014, a pro-Russia group was having one of their typical peaceful street marches. What happened after remains largely a mystery of conflicting accounts but it should be noted that the semi-serious investigations were all conducted by pro-Westerners. I will recount from the versions told to me by several friends that were there and who, by the way, are pro-Western Ukrainians. During the march, a sizeable group of guys that no locals recognized charged the marchers and began beating them with clubs, seriously injuring a large number. There were some reports of gunshots. The marchers then fled to get away from the attackers and many ran into a multi-story office building. The attackers began throwing firebombs into the building and soon it was ablaze. Many died inside the building and 10 died either from jumping or were beaten to death outside by the attackers. In total, 42 died in the fire or outside the building. Photos from inside the building suggested that the fire had not been substantial enough to have killed the people and many suspect that gas was used. Autopsies indicated chloroform in the bodies, which the government claimed that Russians pre-positioned earlier. All parties agreed that the perpetrators were not from the Odessa region but almost all victims were locals.
My friends who were there are absolutely convinced that the perpetrators were ultra-national Ukrainians from Lviv, probably mercenaries, who were attempting to create war among the pro-West and pro-Russians citizens of Odessa. Odessa is a very international city with a very peaceful population. They were stunned that such violence had occurred on their streets and have mourned since. Though some of their young men have gone to fight at the war front, that was the end of the protests in Odessa. However, the murder of ethnic Russians in Odessa has been the rallying cry for pro-Russians in the Donbass region where the serious warfare has occurred. After Odessa, the gloves came off and it was game-on.
War in Donbass
The Donbass region within Novo Russia was the primary industrial region of Ukraine, the main cities being Donetsk and Luhansk. The initial skirmishes there quickly escalated into total warfare. Being overwhelmingly ethnic Russians, pro-Russian militias quickly assembled and challenged any ethnic Ukrainian or Western insurgents. As the violence escalated, much of the civilian population left for safer areas in Novo Russia. That created a housing and employment crisis in other Ukrainian cities, especially the Russian-speaking cities of Kharkov and Odessa.
The rather-feeble Ukrainian military and Ukrainian militias engaged the war in Donbass to defeat or at least contain the spread of the pro-Russian militias. The violence has indeed been tragic as is any war with a large loss of life. Both sides have committed terrible atrocities. An acquaintance of mine managed a golf course in Luhansk and was awakened in the night by military that gave him 30 seconds to evacuate. Five minutes later, his housing area was attacked by artillery. Earlier, when the water in the golf course lake went down exposing the bottom, he found the body of a young lady tied to a cement block. Such is war.
Soon after the warfare began in Donbass, the pro-Russian militias declared that the region would separate from Ukraine and become the autonomous Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Hence, the pro-Russian militias and their sympathizers became known as the Separatists.
Who is actually fighting in Donbass is quite well known but not well acknowledged. At the time of the 2014 revolution, the Ukrainian military was very weak and not very functional as a fighting machine. Many or perhaps most of the Western fighters were actually militias employed by the several Ukrainian oligarchs who had the money and power, not unlike present day Mexico. As such, when the war was very active, mothers would not let their young-adult sons ride on trains for fear that they would be kidnapped by the militias, taken to the front and forced to fight.
On the Separatist side, fighters were largely the ethnic-Russian citizens of the area. Though not acknowledged, a lot of fighters were Russian citizens that crossed the border to fight. For example, an acquaintance of mine in Saint Petersburg has several civilian friends who went to Donbass to fight for the “lives and liberty of fellow Russians”. No doubt, the Russian military has had some covert involvement in the fighting and certainly has supplied military equipment and supplies. Though not directly involved on the battlefield, the US military is quite involved in training the Ukraine military and has supplied materials to the war effort, though little in the way of weaponry. Recently, President Trump sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainian military, a policy with which I disagree. If we give Ukraine a gun, Russia will send a bigger gun. The only result would be more dead people.
Putin’s Long Game
The reality is that the globalists of the West have initiated this conflict. Russia would like Ukraine as a trading partner just like the US enjoys Canada as a trading partner, a most logical concept given their relative geographies. Using the power of the US economy and military, the globalists have been trying to isolate Russia geographically, economically and militarily for a very long time. Just listen to any venomous anti-Russia speech by John McCain, Hillary Clinton, John Bolton, or any other Western neocon if you have doubt. I think that any reasonable person will conclude that the Western covert activities are what caused the Maidan revolution, the overthrow of the democratically-elected Ukrainian government (twice in ten years) and the war that has killed many thousands of Ukrainian citizens. In the later part of the Obama presidency, those same people (Democrat and Republican) were itching to start a war with Russia. Sound silly? Just watch a video of the first Republican debate in 2015. All of the candidates tried to out-do the other with Russia hatred. Remember, “we have to punch Putin in the mouth”, “we have to teach Putin who is the boss”, “we need to run Russia out of Syria”. Only Trump said that he would like to talk to Putin as maybe there some things that we could to together for mutual benefit. The media excoriated him mercilessly for weeks for that answer. What was our specific goal for creating this mess? If you haven’t figured it out yet, we will get to that later.
Putin has said that he is not interested in absorbing Ukraine. Rather, if he did want Ukraine, he said that, “Russia could take the whole country in two weeks”. That is a hard fact. There is absolutely no way that the West could win even a conventional war against Russia in their neighborhood. If you doubt that, you may want to consult with a couple other foolish guys named Napoleon and Hitler. If desired, they could have all of Ukraine before we could even mobilize equipment and manpower. Likewise, if Russia wanted to take the Baltics, it is estimated that it could be completed in 6 hours.
The reality is that Ukraine is a corrupt money pit. Brilliantly educated, highly cultured and industrious people but a corrupt money pit. Today, Russia is having enough economic problems just trying to absorb Crimea. There is no reason for Russia to want Ukraine other than as a convenient trading partner. In fact, Ukraine needs Russia but Russia does not need Ukraine.
The people of Ukraine were led to divorce from Russia by promises that the United States and the European Union would turn Ukraine into the Garden of Eden. What we gave them is corruption, a little cash and not much more. The European Union has contributed virtually zero to Ukraine. President Trump stated very clearly that the reasons that he temporarily reduced aid to Ukraine was to inspire (unsuccessfully) the Europeans to start contributing and also to ensure that they were on a path to cleaning up corruption, but that is another subject. We haven’t been giving Ukraine enough money to keep them floating, nor could we for very long although we have sent in tens of billions. Many West-leaning Ukrainians that I know and speak with have already figured out that they were deceived by the West into an anti-Russia revolution. The result is that Ukraine is now in a further-declining economic condition.
So, what is Russia’s long game under Putin? I consider it to be pretty obvious. I suspect that Putin is thinking, “After you recognize that the West had deceived you and you get hungry enough, you will be back asking for forgiveness. As long as you insisted on starting a little play war, no problem, we can play that game too and for a very long time. Meanwhile, Russia doesn’t need Ukraine. Also meanwhile, just like in Georgia, we aren’t going to sit by and watch you kill our ethnic Russian brothers.” I don’t know when but at some time, I think that that strategy will prove successful.
Why Did the West Instigate the Anti-Russian Events? Sevastopol!
The public may never see official proof in writing but knowledgeable commentary as well as all logic and circumstantial indications point the finger to Sevastopol. Sevastopol is the only deep-water port that Russia has in the Black Sea. (their other shoreline is too shallow to host a naval fleet). Being on the Crimean peninsula and in the middle of the Black Sea, it’s strategic importance is supreme. It has been the home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet since the days of Catherine the Great and is regarded by Russia as absolutely essential for it’s security. We should understand and respect that thinking as Russia would go to World War 3 before they would give up Sevastopol. But, in the world-view of our neocons, Russia must be continuously squeezed into a tight box. How to better do so than run the Russians out of town and convert Sevastopol into a NATO base! The week of this writing, Colonel Douglas MacGregor, US Army Retired, gave a brief interview where he explained this motive, the thinking of the US officials at the steering wheel and the rational of the Russian reaction.
Was Crimea Invaded? What Really Happened
The truth about Crimean events in 2014 is a far cry from what our news and government told us, and continue to tell us. As described above, except for a small population of indigenous people that were able to migrate back at the end of the Soviet era, the population of Crimea was and is overwhelmingly ethnic Russian. They identify as Russian and their allegiance has always been to Russia with no favorable sentiment to Ukraine. Even for the years between 1991 and 2014 when Crimea was administratively subordinate to Ukraine, almost everyone there vigorously considered it to be Russia. By long-term lease, the Russian fleet had possession of the naval port and bases for 10,000 Russian military personnel. A small Ukrainian navy did share occupancy of the port. In short, the population of Crimea considered themselves to be administratively “occupied” by a foreign government.
When the ultra-national Ukrainian militias headed south and began violence in Donbass, everyone knew where they were headed and what was at the end of their rainbow, Crimea. Almost immediately, pro-Russian citizen militias blockaded the isthmus of the peninsula and prevented any incursion of outside agitators. The Russian military then prevented the movement of Ukrainian naval vessels and confined the few Ukrainian military forces to their bases. The Ukrainian military personnel on the peninsula were then offered the opportunity to enlist in the Russian military or to leave for the Ukrainian mainland.
The citizens in Crimea were comforted that they had been spared the violence that their fellow “Russians” were experiencing in Donbass. To further ensure no violence or anti-Russian activity, a number of armed people appeared who were neither pre-existing military nor militia. They wore uniforms that had no identifiable patches. They were exceptionally courteous and pleasantly engaging with the population. Hence, they became known by locals as the “polite people” (we knew them as the little green men). However, according to my acquaintances there, they were armed to the teeth and prepared to handle anything. Obviously they were Russian special forces brought in from the mainland to solidify control.
In all of the so-called invasion, only one gunshot was fired. As a group of unarmed Ukrainian soldiers walked in the direction of a Russian roadblock, a guard fired a warning shot in the air. As it turned out, they were there to ask for jobs in the Russian military. A short time later, the Crimean Republic conducted a voter referendum to decide whether to be Ukraine or Russia. Ninety-three percent of the population voted to be Russian. Likely the other seven percent were the indigenous Krim peoples that were not fond of either Russia or Ukraine. After the election results were announced, the Crimean population was ecstatic to be rid of the Ukrainian oppression and return home to Russia. Several days of celebrations followed the referendum.
Today, life is dramatically improved for the citizens of Crimea. Pensions (their version of Social Security) were doubled, the streets are repaired, new infrastructure is being built and, unlike before, people smile. The only negative is that people have more money and hence, more cars, so traffic jams are a new reality. An oddity that I observed during a 2016 visit was that probably 25 percent of the vehicles had Ukrainian license plates. Friends told me that they were Ukrainian citizens visiting Crimea on holiday with no conflicts to be found. Regarding the 2014 “invasion”, that is not how the people there view it. They consider that their militias “prevented” an invasion by Western foreigners. As mentioned earlier, under no circumstances was Russia going to give up Sevastopol. The Western neocons that thought otherwise and envisioned American flags on warships in Sevastopol harbor should have known better than to play that game. A lot of lives were lost in their losing chess match.
Oligarchs and the Politics of Ukraine
Since the 2004 overthrow when the government of Ukraine was run out of office by the Western “interests” in cooperation with Soros organizations, the government has been weak and corrupt. That is typical of replacement governments following our regime changes. As mentioned above, Ukraine has some analogy with Mexico. In many ways, much of Ukraine has been under the control of oligarchs who are barely controlled by the government. They are able to plunder the resources and meager finances of the country leaving the population destitute. The oligarchs came into existence by gobbling up the assets of the country in the post-Soviet era. Today, the plundering is usually done through endless chains of shell corporations, both domestic and global, that are so complex that they are nearly impossible to decipher, if anyone had the interest in doing so. They are also known for violence and physical “persuasion”. The picture is not unlike the mafia or, again, Mexican drug lords who are somewhat immune to government control or legal constraints. For that matter, they had their own paramilitary militias or what may even be considered private armies that in many ways rivaled the power of the military. Some 30 such private armies existed at the time of the Maidan although many have become somewhat aligned with the military in the last couple years. The militias, at least in theory, protected the population but they also protect the business interests of their benefactors. Supported by contemporary events, one can easily follow how the Western “interests” have created a corrupt situation that can be easily manipulated for desired results. In those efforts, both corrupt government leaders and oligarchs are useful.
Ihor Kolomoisky – Oligarch
Ihor Kolomoisky is regarded as perhaps the most influential of the Ukrainian oligarchs. Much of his wealth came as a corporate raider of sorts whose tactics reputedly included vigorous physical persuasion when useful in completing the purchase of businesses. To say that his business practices followed strict accounting practices and were not shady would be a myth. In other words, if you are looking to invest your money, you may be unwise to deal with Kolomoisky if you hope to preserve your wealth. There have been plenty of attempts to decipher his myriad of global shell businesses, but following such a complex bouncing ball has foiled the best.
Kolomoisky’s seems to have been a major funder of a number of militias/private armies. According to Amnesty International, at least one of Kolomoisky’s militias committed a variety of terrible war crimes. They suggest that some west-Ukraine militias had a habit of starving citizens in Donbass by preventing relief by food convoys. Another of the Kolomoisky-funded militia battalions used Nazi symbols in it’s logo and was known as being neo-Nazi (remember, western Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazi’s during WW2). I will leave further description of the bad deeds perpetrated by Kolomoisky’s militias to your research.
Oligarchs and the Donbass War
The instigation and initiating of the fighting in Donbass is very neglected in the Western media. However, it is not neglected by the Russians or the citizens of Donbass. As eluded above, ultra-national western Ukrainians infiltrated the region and began violence against the population which was almost exclusively pro-Russian. In short order, pro-Russian militias developed to counter the threat and certainly received material support from Russia. That was followed by an influx of volunteer Russian citizen fighters. Undoubtedly, some Russian military personnel showed up to provide tactical assistance as well as fight. As mentioned above, this was very reminiscent of the Western-backed Georgian military’s attack on civilians in pro-Russian provinces in Georgia during the 2008 Olympics. Then the Russian military came in and crushed the Georgian military. The only difference here is that the situation was initiated during the 2014 Olympics and the Russian military regulars did not cross the border. In either case, Russia was not going to stand by and watch as their “Russian” brothers murdered. Also, the citizens of Donbass had their last straw of Ukrainian rule and persecution.
Once the fighting began and the pro-Russian citizens (now called “Separatists”) became an effective fighting force, the worry was that the Separatist movement would spread throughout Novo Russia, especially in the “blended-population” cities of Kharkov, Odessa and Dnepropetrovsk the latter being closest to Donbass. Whether the Separatist monster was actually threatening the region or not is in dispute but the claim thereof was useful propaganda. Several small bombs went off in the cities but were usually placed in locations where nobody would be hurt. The West claimed that the Separatists were trying to agitate the population into conflict between the two ethnic groups. I share the opinion of neutral voices that believe that most of the bombs were false flags planted by Western Ukrainians in attempt to frighten the citizens into violence against their pro-Russian neighbors.
Regardless of the origin or motive, once the fighting in Donbass began, the Kiev government sent fighting forces to do battle in Donbass. They also needed forces to ensure containment of the fighting in Donbass and prevent it from spreading. The Ukrainian military was too weak to get the job done so the oligarchs deployed their private militias/army’s to the battlefields. A lot of atrocities happened at the hands of militias on both sides. That said, because the population was pro-Russian, the atrocities against them would have been committed predominately by the Western militias. The militias controlled by Ihor Kolomoisky were among the offenders.
After the 2014 revolution, the new government that formed, or perhaps was constructed by the State Department, was led by President Petro Poroshenko. The government then appointed Kolomoisky to be governor of the Dnepropetrovsk region. This served a few purposes. First, Kolomoisky had the militia muscle to protect that “blended” portion of Novo Russia from westward movement of Separatists and thus kept the area free of fighting. Secondly, the weak government wanted to keep such a strong guy occupied for the time being. I will propose later that there may have been another reason.
Regarding the future of Donbass, an interesting perspective was offered in 2016 by an official from the Czech Republic who observed elections in Donetsk and Luhansk. He concluded that the only solution for peace was what the Czechs and Slovaks had done earlier, a divorce. A proposal to separate Donbass from Ukraine had already been declined by Poroshenko. The Czech official, Jaroslav Doubrava, inferred that it was hypocritical considering that the Kiev authorities came to power by way of a coup. He was quoted, ‘They need to repent for the crimes they committed in Donetsk and only then discuss a divorce”.
Perhaps ironically, it seems that oligarch Kolomoisky was viewed by the people in the Dnepropetrovsk region as sort of a guardian angel and was credited for protecting them from violence, infiltration by Russian agitators and a takeover by the pro-Russian separatists. He was credited with financing the militia battalions that contained the separatists within Donbass and kept the people safe while the government was not able to do so. He also appeared to lead a substantial anti-corruption effort, a point that may make more sense later. Actually, this may be true but a much sanitized Western version (illustrated below) that would not reflect the opinions of the victims of the atrocities in Donbass.
In 2015, Kolomoisky felt that the Kiev government was pinching the liberties of his business world so he sent his militia to Kiev to prevent the government from regulating his businesses. When a couple of his colleagues, probably named Vinny and Rocco, showed up at a senior official’s office to do some face-to-face career counseling, President Poroshenko fired Kolomoisky from his position as Governor.
The Pro-Russian Perspective – Perhaps We Should Listen
The citizens of Donbass consider themselves to have been “occupied by a foreign government” that has pilfered them since 1991. They feel that they are different from Ukrainian people in many ways. They also blame the United States as being the instigator and enabler of the violence they experienced after he revolution. What’s more, they identify Ihor Kolomoisky as the central figure that orchestrated and funded the Maidan revolution, the killings there as well as in Odessa and all of the violence that followed. This video pretty much says it all.
Burisma Holdings – Oligarch Nikolai Zlochevsky
Between 2003 and 2012, Zlockevsky held high Ukrainian government offices including as head of the Ukrainian State Committee for Resources and Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources where he was in charge of issuing licenses for energy resource industries. In 2006, Zlochevsky founded Burisma Holdings in Cyprus. In order to sanitize the appearance, he took on a partner. Zlochevsky amassed the wealth of Burisma by issuing energy licenses to himself. There was plenty of involvement of western companies along the way, including a Delaware corporation. In 2011, the partner suffered a self-induced accidental car crash leaving Zlochevsky as the Burisma owner.
Today, apparently nobody can prove who actually owns Burisma. Zlockevsky claims that he sold out right after the partner’s “accidental” death and the trail was lost in an endless chain of international shell corporations. However, officially, it is still owned by Zlockevsky. It is generally accepted that the shares of Burisma are now owned by the Privat Group, owner of PrivatBank, the largest banking institution in Ukraine.
But, who actually owns Privat Group, or did until the government nationalized the bank in late 2016? That would be none other than our old friend Ihor Kolomoisky, the shady oligarch that operated the militia battalions. In 2015, a gentleman with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars published a study of the Burisma ownership mysteries that makes for fascinating reading and should be required study material for students of forensic business analysis. Note the subtitle, “What Washington Doesn’t Want to See”. Why they didn’t, and don’t, want to see will become obvious.
Today’s Public Burisma Controversy – What We See
Today, the controversy surrounding Burisma, Joe and Hunter Biden and Trump are front and center in the media. Because of the depth of this convoluted scandal and that it is developing as we speak, I will just touch only the high points. I highly encourage the reader to view a video produced by Glenn Beck in April, 2019 that does a wonderful and entertaining job of educating the audience regarding highlights of the Burisma corruption and it’s relation to the Bidens.
Glenn has since produced two follow-on programs that summarize the dire depth of corruption of the Obama administration and Ukraine. Of course, the mainstream media doesn’t show us this information.
In 2014 (just as the revolution was happening and the war in Donbass had not yet begun in earnest, significant timing), the U.S. sent 3 billion dollars of aid to Ukraine, 1.8 billion paid to Burisma for the purposes of developing natural gas resources. The money was sent by USAid, the NGO that funds good causes around the world but is also a money conduit that the US uses to fund revolutions. The money was paid through PrivatBank which is the mechanism that the Ukrainian government uses to pay its employees. At approximately the same time, Hunter Biden and a John Kerry step-son joined the board of directors of Burisma to be in charge of transparency and corporate governance. Amazingly, the 1.8 billion dollars has vanished without a trace, although Biden has been paid upwards of 3 million dollars. Ironically, Hunter Biden had no experience in the energy field, no experience in Ukraine and doesn’t speak Ukrainian. But, that is peanuts compared to the 1.5 billion dollars that he got from China a week after accompanying his father on a State visit to China, but that is another story.
The corruption of Burisma (Zlochevsky) came under investigation in 2015 by a senior Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin. Immediately, by September, 2015, the West tried to stop the investigation insisting that the Shokin was undermining anti-corruption reform. Such declarations were from the US Ambassador to Ukraine and Victoria Nuland. In December, 2015, Joe Biden privately told President Poroshenko that a 1 billion loan guarantee was linked, among other things, the firing of Shokin. In Feburary, 2016, Shokin seized Zlochevsky’s homes and Joe Biden reputedly went crazy and reportedly made near-daily phone calls to get Shokin fired. Joe did get him fired but made the mistake of bragging about it in a taped interview. Whatever terrible deeds anyone thinks that Trump did, here Joe makes a full confession of much worse.
After the firing, a new prosecutor was appointed that Joe found great favor in. Swiftly, the cases against Burisma were dropped. Zlochevsky, who had earlier fled the country returned home. Later, Shokin claimed that he was about to investigate Hunter Biden when he was fired. As a sideline, Washington Post and New York Times published articles with proven disinformation seeking to delegitimize the above. An expanded summary of the above was recently published.
By the way, it is heavily reported that the new prosecutor has declared a number of topics to be off-limits for investigation (Hunter Biden, George Soros, Burisma). Who saw that coming?
The Government Saddled the Loosing Horse – Skeletons in the Closet
You can imagine the horror when the Ukrainian government that was created by a US-sponsored coup woke up one morning and found that their sugar daddies had lost the election and would soon be replaced by Trump, a guy opposed to covert regime change. Can you imagine the phone call from the Ukrainian President to the new US President? Something like, “Ah, we spent the last year doing really dirty things to prevent you from getting elected. But, now we want to be your buddy”. More frightening, when the US created the Ukrainian government, you can bet there were “obligations”. Sort of like when the mafia does a favor for you, you owe them your soul, which they intend to collect. The favors that we know about as established include;
- Ukrainian officials made “an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign” to help Hillary Clinton. Two Ukrainian officials were convicted of this and went to prison. They were later released on a technicality as the statute of limitations had expired.
- Ukrainian officials were cooperating with DNC officials who were trying to generate information linking Paul Manafort to Russia.
- The current Ukraine General Prosecutor accuses Obama’s US Embassy in Kiev of interfering with prosecutions in 2016. The Ambassador gave the Prosecutor a list of defendants that were off limits to pursue and refused to cooperate with investigations of the misuse of US-supplied funds. You don’t suppose that Burisma, Biden etc would have been on that list?
- What we don’t know will likely be more intriguing than what we currently do know about the role of Ukraine and the origins of the Russia investigation and the 2016 election.
The Money Trail That We Are Shown
It all seems quite simple. The US gave 1.8 billion dollars to Burisma to develop natural gas resources. The money passed through PrivetBank as did many government dispersals. Hunter Biden got 3+ million dollars on the side but, hey, what is a little grease among friends. But the big mystery is, “What happened to the money?”. A prosecutor that was investigating was fired at the request of the US Amdassador, Victoria Nuland and of course, Joe Biden who held a billion dollars of aid grants hostage until the guy was fired. The new Prosecutor ordered investigations of Burisma, Biden and Soros to be off limits.
Could all of these flagrant demands for “no investigation” be only about protecting the Bidens and the mystery of the missing money? That defies reason. Especially now that the Democrats want to get rid of Biden. Also, that much money falls through the cracks all the time, sadly. And now we want to impeach a president because he wants Burisma investigated? A reasonable person has to believe that something much, much larger is hidden behind Burisma.
The Frightening Monster Likely Being Hidden – The Burisma Decoy
There is an obvious picture (theory) first proposed here that that is hiding in plain sight. All of the facts surrounding Ukraine since 2014 support this picture and none of the evidence contradicts it. Suppose the neocons running the United States, particularly the “deep state”, wanted to continue geographically and militarily isolating Russia, one more step in the eastward expansion of NATO described above. The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations clearly said that they wanted to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. The big obstacle and strategic pivot point of the whole Black Sea neighborhood is Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol and other bases in Crimea. Those had to go, better yet, they could be converted into NATO bases and Russian influence (and self-defense) in the region would be ended.
To make this happen, the Ukraine government that was either East-West neutral or slightly East-leaning had to go. Attempts to do regime change politically or through subversion failed, hence the need for the Maidan protests. It takes a lot of money to run a revolution the scope of the Maidan and it had to be channeled in a way that left no Western fingerprints. Aid grants for energy development made a good disguise when put into the hands of an oligarch that disliked the then government. The Maidan protests produced only a fading stalemate in spite best baiting efforts from the West including John McCain’s personal address to the Maidan. So, how about if we cut a deal with and enlist the services of that same major oligarch who had all of the ultra-national Ukrainian militia muscle and knew no boundries in using it, even if it included war crimes. We then had his militia snipers assassinate both protesters and police in Maidan to break the stalemate with violence and result in the overthrow the democratically-elected government. In other words, a covert coup. As pre-orchestrated, the new puppet government was controlled by and in debt to it’s U.S. creators.
The US-sponsored militia violence didn’t end when regime change was finished. The militias went southeast on the attack into the almost-exclusively ethnic Russian Donbass provinces. In response, the locals formed militias and it was game-on, the result being death and destruction. Russian citizens with the discrete support of Russian military came to the aid of their Russian brothers. The oligarch then took up the governorship in the city adjacent to Donbass from which to coordinate the militia activities though under the pretext of preventing exfiltration by “Russian” militias. As the militias continued south toward Crimea, the locals in Crimea formed militias, blockaded the isthmus and prevented infiltration by the ultra-Ukrainian militias. The grand plan was permanently foiled when Russia drew the predictable line in the sand, beefed up it’s already-present military, held elections and absorbed Crimea into the Russian Federation. Game over in Crimea to the great celebration of the Crimean citizens.
The militias then went on the propaganda attack throughout Novo Russia in attempt to create hatred for everything and everyone Russian. All statues and symbolism of Russia were destroyed. They created relatively small acts of violence that was blamed on Russian agents to further the propaganda efforts. The murder of dozens of local pro-Russian sympathizers during one day in Odessa became a last straw and rallying issue for pro-Russian militias in Donbass.
With the violence faded, the indebted Kiev government was called on to assist the Obama administration in ensuring that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election. Representatives form the DNC pushed that agenda particularly relating to Paul Manafort and tried to develop a story line of Trump-Russia collusion. Two Ukrainian officials were convicted and jailed for making “an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign”. It is likely that Ukraine will be found to have played a major role in the creation of the Russia collusion hoax. These matters are currently under investigation by the Department of Justice.
Any attempts to investigate corruption regarding Burisma or other related matters were met with vigorous objection from US officials, Joe Biden in particular. The investigations were declared to be off limits and Joe Biden demanded that the main General Prosecutor be fired or he would not give Ukraine 1 billion dollars. In Joe’s words, “Son of a bitch, he got fired”.
There is one big problem that threatens to expose the deep criminal acts by the Obama administration in Ukraine, the election of Donald Trump. How ironic, the guilty administration paid 1 billion dollars to stop the investigations of itself and then tries to impeach the next administration for asking that the investigations be resumed.
Perhaps the true money trail looks more like this:
I believe that we can conclude that the 1.8 billion dollars of US aid was, by design, a direct payment to Ihor Kolomoisky’s PrivetBank and used to fund the overthrow of the democratically-elected government, turn public sentiment against ethnic-Russian citizens, eject Russia from Crimea and establish Sevastopol as a NATO base. It is unlikely that any money was intended, or did, go to Burisma. If any did, the big mystery today is that there is no trace of it. In late 2016, PrivetBank was nationalized and is no longer owned by Kolomoisky.
The pro-Russian separatists certainly believe this picture and they would be in a better position than anyone to understand who caused this. It’s odd that our media would never ask the important questions of them. This video tells the whole story from the eyes of the citizens of Donbass and the lays the entire responsibility for the revolution and violence on Kolomoisky. Importantly, this video was made before the warfare began in earnest and the pro-Russian militias were beginning to form. In the second half, the spokesman of the People’s Republic of Donetsk (the separatists’ proposed government) and his colleagues visit the office of the government office of the Executive Debt Committee in Donetsk. They explain that they want all debt payments to PrivatBank frozen because oligarch Kolomoisky sponsored Maidan, the Odessa massacre and all of the violent revolutionary acts. As if we couldn’t conclude that on our own (as well as who sponsored Kolomoisky). As you see, the government, police and citizens all support the separatists. The office employees even joked, “Can you give us raises?”.
The current preoccupation with Burisma is likely a decoy. Originally, Hunter Biden and the Christopher Heinz were probably designed to give the company a sanitized appearance so that nobody would look too closely or to intimidate the onset of any investigation. While we focus on is Burisma, nobody is asking the dangerous questions. Watch this hand, not the other. Is it any wonder why the Democrats and Deep State blow a head gasket and any hint of investigation? Now that Barr and Durham are on the Ukraine trail, the media is portraying them as Trump poodles in the American minds to delegitimize the criminal indictments that they know are on the way.
If this scenario is as true as it appears, there is a special place in Hell for the Obama administration and the Deep State. They are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people. The citizens of Ukraine, who were destitute poor before, are getting even poorer by the day. Crimea, which always was Russia except for the formal paperwork, is now forever part of the Russian Federation. What was the industrial portion of the country will likely become an independent republic divorced from Ukraine. Eventually, it will likely follow the wishes of the population and also become part of the Russian Federation. We have handed that long game to Putin who can sit by and let nature take it’s course. He will have won while barely lifting a finger.
Aftermath of the Revolution
Earlier this year, a presidential election was held in Ukraine. Ukrainian citizens had tired of the corruption of the US-installed Poroshenko government, just as they tired of the corrupt US puppets installed after the 2004 revolution (and the one in between). So, they elected a new President, Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky’s only credentials are that he was a professional comedian. Yes, that is true. And who sponsored Zelensky’s candidacy for President? None other than Ihor Kolomoisky. It seems that the Zelensky government is vigorously cooperating with William Barr’s investigation of the Obama administration. What an irony that the US deep state has a history of failing to comprehend, when you side with a bad guy, you can’t depend on him to cover your back.
As an interesting little side bar, remember Mikhiel Saafashvili, the US puppet and crony of John McCain? After he turned the Georgia military on the citizens of the two ethnic-Russian Georgian provinces, he lasted a couple more years. Guess where he turned up shortly after the Maidan? He became the Governor of the Odessa region of Ukraine! There, he hosted his old mentor, John McCain, in a very nice garden party where John lamented that the US is not providing weapons to the Ukrainian fighters, as though he hasn’t caused enough Ukrainian deaths. Unfortunately, we have to rely on Russian sources as American media will not show us such videos.
Saafashvili lost his Ukrainian citizenship and was deported when he butted heads with President Poroshenko. When the new president Zelensky was inaugurated, his citizenship was restored and he is now trying to create a political movement in Ukraine (no doubt to serve US interests). He also had his Georgian citizenship revoked and was convicted in absentia of corruption. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison if Georgia can manage an extradition.
As for Kolomoisky, his PrivatBank was nationalized in 2016 after it was reputedly pilfered by Kolomoisky and a partner. He then left the country. After Zelensky was elected President earlier this year, Kolomoisky returned to Ukraine and is seeking return of the bank. A court ruled in his favor. It seems that Kolomoisky is a business associate of Zelensky and sponsored his presidential campaign. The IMF, having lent 17.5 billion dollars to Ukraine in 2015 alone is throwing a fit.
To deepen the plot, in late 2015, IMF money appeared in a Cyprus bank account belonging to Kolomoisky. The figure mentioned, 1.8 billion dollars, what a coincidence.
But there is more, it appears that Kolomoisky has operated the largest money laundering operation in history, some 470 billion dollars. It passed through his bank in Cyprus (PrivatBank Cyprus) and into a multitude of anonymous business entities in the United States.
Summary Points to Ponder;
- The US wanted to erase Russia and it’s influence from the map and minds of Ukraine. That required a coup (for the second time in ten years) to change the Ukrainian regime to a puppet that it could control. The usual passive subversion and promises of cash (courting for EU membership) were not successful. More drastic measures were needed.
- The American Establishment and Progressives decry “nationalism” as the root of evil but were happy to amplify and exploit ethnic Ukrainian nationalism to precipitate a de facto civil war in that country.
- The US wanted to rid Crimea of the Russian military, particularly the Black Sea Fleet based at the port of Sevastopol. Better yet, convert Sevastopol into a NATO base. All to squeeze Russia into a tight box and neuter its ability to defend itself in the region.
- The US paid 1.8 billion dollars to a Burisma, a Ukrainian gas and petroleum company, to develop the gas industry. The payment was made by USAid, the NGO that is often used as a front to funnel money to inspire or support revolutions and other dubious activities in foreign countries.
- What if, the money never actually reached Burisma but dead-ended with PrivatBank, a large bank that the government used to disperse payroll, etc. The money was supposed to pass through PrivatBank to Burisma.
- What if, Burisma is not actually owned by Nikolai Zlochevsky as we are still led to believe. But, it is actually owned by Ihor Kolomoisky, a Ukrainian oligarch who had his own private army and funded ultra-Ukrainian militias alleged to have committed war crimes.
- PrivatBank is owned by Kolomoisky.
- We see smatterings in Western sources that Kolomoisky is the one who operationally created the Maidan revolution. The pro-Russians in Donbass, who were attacked by the ultra-Ukrainian militias declare that Kolomoisky not only created Maidan but is the active force behind the war in Donbass and the massacre of civilians in Odessa.
- Why does Western mainstream media not mention Kolomoisky’s involvement in the revolution and violence?
- Before the coup, the US State Department had planned and arranged the replacement government.
- What if, the Obama administration and the US deep state actually paid Kolomoisky 1.8 billion dollars to carry out it’s coup and overthrow the Ukrainian government. Further, the payment was for use of violent tactics to generate hatred for pro-Russian citizens in east Ukraine including conducting actual war and destruction in the pro-Russian regions. That includes what has been declared to be “war crimes” by Amnesty International.
- What if, as now appears to be true, the now-indebted replacement Ukrainian government cooperated with the Obama administration to interfere with the 2016 election to help Hillary (two Ukrainians were convicted and went to prison).
- What if, as it now appears, that the DNC in cooperation with the State Department, orchestrated activities in Ukraine that resulted in Paul Manafort going to prison.
- What if, as it now appears, that the Russia collusion fraud had its origins in Ukraine.
- Joe Biden confessed on tape that he demanded the Ukrainian General Prosecutor who was investigating the above Burisma affair be fired within six hours or “…you won’t get the money. And son of a bitch, he got fired”. The prosecutor declared in sworn statement that he was about to investigate Biden’s son when he was fired.
- When the 1.8 billion dollars was supposedly paid to Burisma, Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and then Secretary of State John Kerry’s son Christopher Heinz were hired to the Board of Directors of Burisma. Millions of dollars have been paid to Hunter Biden.
- What if, the hiring of Hunter Biden and Heinz were an “immunization” of Burisma to discourage any investigation of the deceptive money trail.
- The replacement Ukraine General Prosecutor, who met with Biden’s approval, declared several topics to be off-limits for investigation. Those topics include Burisma, Hunter Biden and George Soros.
- What if, the persistence by many that Nikolai Zlochevsky, not our bad-guy oligarch colleague, still owns Burisma is a “diversion”.
- What if, the Obama administration’s focus on “cleaning up” corruption was actually a deception to make itself look like the clean good guy when it was in fact a mechanism to cover up the corruption that it created and perpetuates.
- What if, the investigation of Trump and the Ukraine phone call are designed to prevent anyone from looking at the true facts (just like in the Russia hoax, that would be obstruction of justice). How ironic, the guilty administration paid 1 billion dollars to stop the investigations of itself and then tries to impeach the next administration for asking that the investigations be resumed!
- What if, our current non-stop focus on Burisma and Hunter Biden are nothing but a “Hollow Decoy” to prevent us from looking at what is in the other hand, the bad deeds that our government has done to the Ukrainian people and who we paid to do them.
The facts as we know them support all of the above points. No available information contradicts them.
When the US got into bed with a guy to do its dirty deeds in Ukraine, well, once released, the genie couldn’t be put back into the closet. I think that a lot of skeletons are about to fall out of the closet. In the end, we may be wondering why we wasted energy looking at Hunter Biden and Burisma. I hope that William Barr does not have suicidal tendencies and that John Durham is a safe driver.
Note: Glenn Beck has a wonderful summary of the dizzying political intrigue between the Obama administration and Ukrainian manipulations. Embedded in this summary are videos that give a humorous, if not sickening, painting of the picture.
2019 © IndependentArizona.com
This article may be redistributed as a link to the IndependentArizona website.
Other reproduction or distribution either whole or on part is prohibited.