Ukrainia's "Prime Minister" Says -- for the Umpteenth Time -- "Putin Wants To Restore The Soviet Union!!!!™"

                               
           
            

So?

Would that be such a bad thing?

No, really.

Of course the idea is absurd on its face. Putin-Hitler/Stalin is not trying to restore the Soviet Union, not even in his dreams. He has no interest in reviving the failed experiments of his Soviet predecessors -- for the simple reason that those experiments faltered and finally failed badly enough that the whole Soviet enterprise collapsed from the deadweight.

Is it not obvious that he has no personal interest in reviving that?  He and the Russian people, as well as the many peoples that once constituted the Soviet Union, have too recently lived through that, know it was less than it was supposed to be, and have blazed a new-old path into the Future that is not like the Soviet Union at all.

It is more like the Future Peter the Great tried to guide the Russian Empire toward. More like Europe, less like Asia. And less, ever less, like the past.

"Yats," as he's known, has been parading around dutifully parroting the Neo-Con propaganda line that "Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union" every time the cameras are turned on him, as if this were some sort of magic talisman, the saying of which will protect him and his "government" in Kiev from their inevitable fate. The man has a look of utter terror on his face when he says it, too, as if someone just out of camera range were training a sniper-rifle on his head.

This ersatz "prime minister" in the Kiev rump "government" -- a government which controls nothing, not even its own parliament in Kiev where armed thugs from the various Right Sektor paramilitaries assert control over whether elected representatives will be allowed in the hall depending on their political loyalties -- has been saying the same thing about Putin-Hitler/Stalin from almost the day he arose as designated "kamikaze" PM back in February.

The propaganda machine back in the United States hailed and anointed him as their chosen one, as did the malefactors of great wealth in the EU.

Ukraine is and has been a basket case for its entire post-Soviet existence (something that could be said of practically any of the former Soviet Republics, but that's another issue altogether.) Its economy is a wreck thanks in part to an overload of Oligarchs plundering whatever they can loot, and its politics has been very stinky throughout the independence period. As odious as Yats and his gang are, there has never been a regime in Kiev that could be considered anything but as corrupt an outrage as his advent has been.

Europe is no paradise, either, as anyone with a lick of sense can easily see.

The Soviet Union had its own issues to be sure, but at least lip service -- and often certain practical service -- was provided on behalf of the working class. The whole point of the Yats Kamikaze regime is to get rid of whatever tatters are left of the Soviet social security provisions and hand whatever wealth remains in Ukraine -- after decades of Oligarchic looting -- over to the US, EU and IMF corporate and banking cartels.

That's it. That's the only point of all this hoo-hah in Kiev.

If Putin really wanted to "restore the Soviet Union" in this case, it would make sense to wish him well.

But he doesn't.

The charge that he does is insane. And this insanity is typical of Neo-Con propaganda.


The question would be -- if there were any reality to the fantasy that "Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union" -- "how exactly would that be a bad thing under the circumstances?"

Additional Ukrainian Matters

As Putin-Hitler Stalin-rules the revivified Soviet Union, bulling his way into Europe and re-erecting an Iron Curtain around Crimea and his Russian cronies, enslaving the multitudes and subverting the nations, the cries for even greater ridicule of Romney and Palin and the dreaded Turtle increase.

They love Putin! Therefore, their time in the spotlight is nearly at an end. Well, it would be if they weren't so fun to ridicule. And what about those Duck Dynasty guys? And the Missing Plane? Hmmm? What about them?

Speak not of Young Snowden, however, for his case under HitlerStalin-Putin's fulsome wing is different. He says nothing, he knows nothing, he merely tries to open a debate about the nature of our society and what we and only we want it to be, not about the Soviet Union, which is different. Like he is. So stop saying that. And besides, there isn't any Soviet Union any more, so stop saying that, you look like a fool.

In fact all this hoo-hah does make one wonder. All this hoo-hah, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing but masking plenty. What could it be, what could it be? Huh. It's just so puzzling.

Truth is, more and more people are recognizing the real Game here, the Game being obscured by all the hoo-hah and propaganda. By keeping the Rabble uninformed and propagandized to death about the situation faced by Ukraine, its dismemberment -- shall we say, even if it stops with the return of Crimea to Russia -- is simpler. Domestic unrest over economic and social issues is channeled into patriotism and nationalism (it always works, until it doesn't) and anti-enemy-of-the-day OUTRAGE!!!!™.  This shall not stand!!!!

Etc.

From the signs, it's looking more and more like Ukraine will be carved up into enclaves, the easier to exploit its resources and further impoverish its people. The national government of Ukraine has never really worked out well for anyone except the kleptocrats and oligarchs, some of whom are behind the Maidan thing. As much as the Yatsenyuk government is dancing to the tunes of his EU and US "partners," I'm not sure it's playing all that well on the street. The problem which can't really be handled is that of the Nazi shock troops who were used to incite violence and control the crowds in the Maidan and who have been given the "Law Enforcement" and "Justice" portfolios in the self-proclaimed "Interim Government." These people tend not to take well to the diktats of their Betters in Kiev, Berlin and Brussels. They have their own agendas, after all. Ahem.

And there are plenty of separatist interests throughout the rest of Ukraine. The rather elaborate coup that brought down the Yanukovych regime appears to be backfiring. How it was engineered is not entirely clear.

There are more than a few signs that neither the EU nor the US was prepared for what happened when Yanukovych refused to sign away Ukraine to the loving embrace of Europe and NATO in Vilnius last November. They encouraged the demonstrations that arose in response, they may have even planned and helped some of them. But demonstrations along the lines of "Color Revolutions" -- which this one might have been too, as the tactic has been used in Ukraine before (see: "Revolution, Orange") -- but it quickly got out of hand.

The Ukrainian Nationalists, Fascists and Nazis, though relatively few in number, were able to take charge of the course of events. They weren't afraid to use their limited numbers in a forceful and at times violent way, something that was being documented by the Kremlin, but which was largely ignored in the West, although the engineers within the EU and US couldn't have been unaware. They had to have known. They had to have given at least tacit approval.

This was no "nonviolent" Color Revolution. This was an engineered take down of a non-compliant regime, something that was attempted in Syria but has so far failed. How to do it seems clear enough: present the appearance of a mass-revolt through well-attended protests in a significant public space. Inflate the numbers of protesters well beyond the actual numbers present. Tightly control that crowd so as to keep them intently focused on a limited range of "reasonable" issues (in Kiev it was to be European integration, government corruption, and popular dissatisfaction with economic prospects) while the behind-the-scenes operators focus on subverting the government and making it impossible for officials to govern.

The Nazis were the wild card-enforcers, and it doesn't look like it is working out well.

The government ("") that replaced Yanukovych is on a knife-edge. It is unlikely to survive in its present form for much longer. It appears to have little or no control beyond the Palace in Kiev, and the efforts of the US and EU to prop it up are looking more and more dishonest and pathetic. The frantic efforts to solidify agreements with western corporate and EU interests for the prompt exploitation and "economic reform" of Ukraine are unseemly at best, further cause for revolt if the plans are carried out.

The assignment of pro-Yatsenyuk oligarchs to rule the restive Eastern Sektor is simply gob-smacking in its simplicity and obviousness.

The total disinterest of the Powers in the well-being of the People is striking.  This of course follows the same pattern as has been employed already in the EU's near-Periphery, particularly in Greece but not solely there. If the People suffer, according to this Iron Law of Economics, it is their own fault. If they protest their impoverishment and ruin, they are to be suppressed with whatever force is necessary. If they starve and die, too bad, so sad. If this Iron Law is not followed or is resisted in any way by native governments, they are to be replaced, forthwith. That is all.

We've seen it happen over and over again, even in an EU Core country like Italy, where the prime minister was replaced with an unelected technocrat when he attempted to mitigate some of the harsher provisions of the Austerity diktats out of Brussels and Berlin.

As more and more are recognizing, however, it will be worse -- far worse -- for Ukraine, for the simple reason that Ukraine is the Far Periphery, not an EU member, and at best it will serve as a EuroAmerican Colonial-Corporate enterprise zone. At best.

Few among us want to imagine the worst-case scenario, but the embrace of the Ukrainian Nazis and Fascists and Nationalists by the West is a sure clue to where this whole thing may be headed.

"Stalin-Hitler" Putin ought to be concerned.

On the other hand, as always, the people caught in the middle are conscientiously forgotten by all sides in the Pageant of Power.

Hideous.

The Measure of Propaganda -- Ukraine Edition

The corporate news -- such as it is -- has been dominated with an intense barrage of Anti-Soviet propaganda since well before the opening of the Sochi Olympics. The inundation of Anti-Soviet propaganda has been complimented with as strenuous an Anti-Putin demonization campaign as we've seen since the days of Stalin.

Most people alive today never directly experienced Anti-Soviet/Anti-Stalin propaganda and may have difficulty making the connection, but I'm old, and I have witnessed it in the past. I lived through the Post War/Cold War Red Scares and hysterics, and even though I was a child, it made a big impression on me. I knew even then that it was propaganda, and it was mostly based on lies and fantasies. It was story-telling on a grand and destructive scale, intended to keep us from knowing what was true and from thinking critically about any of it.

Similar tactics were used to demonize Saddam Hussain and Iraq in the lead-up to the catastrophe of the Second Gulf War, perhaps the most egregious example of war of aggression since the Unfortunate Era of the 19th and 20th Centuries, when the war of aggression was refined to an art form and implemented widely, not solely by Hitler!!!!™  either. Far from it. The war of aggression was a basic tactic in the Imperialist kit bag, frequently employed by colonialist and imperialist powers -- with or without pretext -- to seize and control what they wanted. The colonialist and imperialist powers were not supposed to do it to one another, but sometimes they did anyway.

That's all water under the bridge, however. We're in a New Century now, the supposed American Century if the neo-cons get their way, and progress requires continued conquest or the game is up. Can't have that.

You'd think they'd learn, but they don't.

Reading the beads and parsing the text, what I'm getting out of the current propaganda barrage regarding Ukraine is that the nation-state called Ukraine is falling apart, disintegrating. The reasons why are somewhat masked under the propaganda barrage, but it might be due to the fact that Ukraine only ever existed before as a satrapy and province of the Russian Empire and relatively briefly as a dependent republic of the Soviet Union. It was never organized into an independent nation-state, in other words, but was always the appendage to some other Empire, state or interest. Even during its brief hey-day under Nazi occupation, the point was never for Ukraine to be an independent nation-state, but for it to be a colonial resource for the benefit of Germany and the Aryan Race, no matter how this status was being sold to the Ukrainian people.

The disintegration of Ukraine is not due to Russian pressure, nor is it due to the return of Crimea to Russian control, though the propagandists like to pretend Russia is the cause of all troubles in Europe's Eastern Partnership. It's just not true.

What seems to be true is that internal tensions are the driving forces underlying the disintegration of Ukraine. The population, for example, is not homogeneous but is in fact quite disparate. It's not simply a matter of Russians here and Ukrainians there. The ethnic issues are far more complex than that. It may be analogous to the situation in Yugoslavia prior to its breakup and civil war. Under Russian Imperial control or Soviet control, the pseudo-state of "Ukrainia" (actually, they do use that term over there) could function relatively well, because loyalty was not to "Ukrainia" but to Russia or the Soviet Union. Ukrainian nationalists were the outliers.

Now it seems "Europe" wants to become the master and overlord of the Ukrainian nation and people as a whole, and it doesn't look like it is going to work. The Ukrainian people(s) have different interests. Their national identity is weak. The various ethnic enclaves each have separatist notions of their own. Russia's modern history in Ukraine (that is since the disintegration of the Soviet Union) is slight at best, something the propagandists can't seem to grasp. Independent Ukraine has been a full-on basket-case from the get-go. Despite the billions of dollars pumped in by the United States and Europe to prop up some form of nationalism and national government, it hasn't worked.

The desperation of the Interim Government (so-called) to "integrate" with Europe is palpable. But to what object? Certainly not on behalf of the Ukrainian people(s). It's self-evidently a personal quest of those in charge for the moment, something they've wanted for themselves, bugger the "people." They're trying to sell a pig in a poke, not even bothering to put lipstick on it, and it's not very pretty.

Russia's claim on Crimea can be disputed on technical grounds, but not on historical, social or practical ones. Europe's counter-claim on the whole of Ukraine under a EU puppet government -- which is what has been installed using local Nazi shock troops to make it so -- is truly outrageous. Russia's claim on Crimea seems modest by comparison. Despite the hysterics in the West, Russia appears to have no particular interest in the rest of Ukraine.

Let them go their own way, poor devils. They'll learn their lesson soon enough. 

And if Ukraine is disintegrating anyway, perhaps the EU/NATO will wash its hands of the mess it has made, leaving the constituent parts of what will come to be called The Former Ukraine to sort out their own fates and futures.

Of course, they'll be unlikely to do that so long as global corporations have their hooks in and assert their prerogatives and power. It's all highly unseemly.

And as always, the people being squeezed from both sides are the losers. On its present trajectory, no matter what the propagandists tell us, there is no good way for this to end for the Ukrainian people(s). They've been had.

Again.

Stalin-Hitler!!!!®©@™

I'm just a bit too young to recall either Hitler or Stalin in the flesh -- Hilter, of course, didn't survive WWII ("they say"/s) and Stalin was dead before we got us a teevee at our house, so the only time I saw images of them was in the newsreels and the propaganda movies -- which were ubiquitous in those days.

I've written many times about American propaganda in the 1950s-- primarily anti-Communist/anti-Soviet -- but it's hard to imagine what it was like if you weren't there or don't recall living through it. People who have no memories of those days like to think we're living in the most oppressive and propagandized era of American history, and it's just not so. It's laughable, really. Practically every previous era in American history has been worse when it comes to matters of oppression, conformity and propaganda.

That's as may be, and it doesn't mean we are not living in a heavily propagandized, surveilled and controlled society. Of course we are. The point is that, as bad as it is, this isn't the worst of all possible worlds, and it isn't in part because we have so many informational tools -- and the freedom to use them -- which we didn't have in the 1950s and early 60s, and if we have any critical thinking skills at all (sometimes I wonder), we are far more likely to recognize propaganda as such now than we were able to then.

The question is whether we can think critically any more and whether we can ask the right questions when we question authority.

Since the advent of the horror show called The Great and Glorious War on Terror(ism), Americans have once again been immersed in propaganda which has involved some of the most egregious lies and deceptions we've been subjected to in generations, lies and deceptions leading directly to international catastrophe after catastrophe.

One of the recurring features of this propaganda campaign is the declaration that this or that dictator who must be removed is the modern equivalent of Hitler or Stalin, sometimes elided into a hybrid creature: "Hitler-Stalin" or "Stalin-Hitler" depending on whether the Evil One is more Nazi or more Communist.

Right now, the prime candidate to be the modern "Stalin-Hitler" is Vladimir Putin, "dictator" of Russia, aka the "Soviet Union." It's hilarious in some ways. I saw Ray McGovern defending Putin and Russia on DN! last night, but referring to the "Soviet Union" quite unconsciously as if it still existed. People of a certain age do this all the time. They cannot let go of what they were socialized and propagandized to believe in earlier times, and the notion that there is no Soviet Union any more doesn't compute. McGovern ran the Soviet Desk at the CIA under Bush the Old, and even though he didn't see the Soviets as enemies then and he doesn't see Putin as an enemy now, he's unable to let go of the "Soviet" images he was immersed in when time was.

Many anti-Putinists and anti-Russian commentators, especially on the so-called "left," seem more than eager to pretend that Putin is a reincarnation of Stalin who wants to re-constitute the Soviet Union entire or in stages, and his "invasion" of Ukraine is "only the first step." Well except for the others. Before this one. That is.

In fact, there was a fellow droning on and on about this very thing while McGovern was trying to figure out what's wrong with saying "Soviet Union." It was funny and sad at the same time.

As far as I'm concerned, Putin is not Stalin and he's certainly not Hitler. The comparisons and conflations are stupid. The Soviet Union no longer exists, it's gone, and there is no way I know of to reconstitute it, especially given the fact that a) Russia today is far more in sync with its Tsarist predecessor, and b) it is suffused with religious nonsense.

They hide Lenin's Tomb during parades in Red Square, as if the Communist era never happened. That seventy years has been largely erased from Russian history -- except when it is convenient to recall it, typically as something too horrible to believe. There is no going back to Stalin, let alone Lenin. The idea is absurd.

Instead, if anything is a revival in Russia, it is a semblance of the last phase of Tsarist rule, say from Alexander III through Nicolas II as if, somehow, WWI had never happened and the Revolutions that followed had not succeeded.

That's what I see in Russian culture and psychology today. It's imperial, yes, but not at all what our propaganda interests want us to believe it is. It's not Soviet, it's not Fascist. It's royal and imperial, something we haven't seen on the world stage since the collapse of the British Empire.

The Spy vs Spy Saga Continues -- As Snowden (Apparently) Awaits His Fate In Moscow

Word has it that Jet-Setting Whistle-blower-cum-Spook Edward Snowden did not get on the plane to Cuba for which he'd booked a seat. Instead, the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister made remarks in Hanoi indicating that Snowden's request for asylum was being analyzed and considered by his government.

Typical delaying tactic. While the wheels turn mercilessly in the background -- Brennan on his way to Moscow, Kerry making remarks and not so veiled threats, who knows what spooks deployed for Emergency Extraction of the Fugitive, or whatever they want to do with him when and if they get the chance -- Snowden has once again disappeared. No one in Moscow is saying where he is -- or even if he is still there. [UPDATE 06/25/13: Or if he was ever there. Apparently no one on the plane from Hong Kong that was supposedly transporting him to Moscow could vouch for his being seen on the plane. He was not seen publicly at the Moscow airport -- though there were several reports of people seeing him, there was no way to verify them. This being a Spy Story and all, it's possible he was never there. Well, isn't this something. I just went over to the Guardian, and the top story was entitled: "Edward Snowden Never Crossed Border Into Russia, says Foreign Minister." Who'd a thunk, right?]

The aura of Cold War Intrigue hangs over this tale like a shroud, and it's disorienting to say the least. Many, many commenters seem to be of the opinion that the Implacable Enemies of the United States include Peking and Moscow and Havana --  ruled as they are by Iron Fisted Communist Totalitarian Police States, Stalin in the Kremlin, the inscrutable Mao in the Forbidden City, Castro the Devil in his rotting colonial palace in Havana. Communist spies and Freedom-loving counterspies are everywhere.

Making Snowden a Defector. Or Double Agent. Or Something.

Just the language surrounding this globe trotting reality show is anachronistic and bizarre. We are not living in the Cold War World of the 1950's and '60's but it surely seems like it when the blowhards on the teevee and on the internets and in print get wound up and commence to opine. To them, nothing has changed. The United States defends the Free World from the Perfidious Commies in Moscow and Peking (it isn't even "Beijing" to them yet) and Havana (oh, and Caracas, too, these days)  and Snowden is running straight into the arms of his Communist protectors.

Right.

Of course, it's all bullshit, but I've tried to fathom some of the nearly hysterical response to skeptics and critics of the Approved Narrative -- regardless of which side is putting it out, and there are distinct sides to the propaganda in this matter -- as practically a revival of Stalinist Era. It's not meant to inform (even if the information is lies.)

It is meant to compel: Obedience. Loyalty. Conformity.

One can only choose sides. One cannot question, speculate, or investigate on one's own. One is told what one is to believe -- by the experts, of course, never mind the fact that they have reverted to Cold Warrior rhetoric. One is required to focus only on one (or less than one) aspect of the story to the exclusion of all others. One is not allowed to speculate or question in public.

The dissonance of being endlessly told "It's not about Greenwald/Snowden!!!" while Greenwald is on every teevee show (yelling "It's not about me!") making it about himself, and Snowden is highly dramatically on the lam and treating with various diplomats and WikiLeaks, is quite deliberate in this form of propaganda. The point is to make it nearly impossible for casual observers to form an objective opinion about what's going on. The point is to obscure and confuse the real issues with dissonant orders so as to enable and require submission and compliance. Cops do this all the time, issuing conflicting commands or making statements that contradict reality, so as to disorient their targets and subjects and obtain their submission and compliance. It's messy, but it usually works.

One of the often-repeated orders is: "Focus on the NSA! That's the Only Story That Matters!" Well, apart from the fact that it isn't true,  that makes perfect sense. The truth is, the NSA is a part of a much vaster surveillance apparatus, it's not the only part, and it may not even be the most important part, and it is surely not the only part to be considered -- unless, that is, you don't want the rest of the story to be seen or told...

Oh. Of course. Propaganda.

"Corporations are bit players!" No they aren't. They are at the root and the core of the Surveillance State. They are fundamentally its creators and operators. "Don't look behind the curtain!" Of course not. Wouldn't dream of it.

"Focus on Government spying only!" No. The Government gets most of its information about you and me (all that domestic surveillance and spying) from the private sector. The private sector sells it; the Government purchases it. It's an example of the Free Market in action. What would you do to prevent this free exchange between a willing buyer and seller from taking place? "Don't confuse me with facts! Focus on the only thing that matters! NSA! NSA! NSA!"

 And so it goes.

This will continue until the Next Big Thing, and the Propaganda Ratchet will be tightened ever further. It's so obvious to me in this case that certain Stalinist Era propaganda tactics are being used to confine and control The Debate over the Surveillance State, and the use of these propaganda tactics is not confined to one side or the other of the issue. After all, the ever reasonable (though Uppity) President has been making appearances and remarks in which he says clearly disorienting (and false) things like, "It is transparent!" in reference to the FISA court, which operates in secret. OK then.

The point is to obscure and confuse the real issues, and both sides are engaging in it. This can lead a skeptic to believe that the "sides" are not really "sides" at all; they represent a factional struggle within the Inner Party and has nothing to do with the interests of the Proles.

Mmmm. Yes.

Brazil!

The Regime's efforts to scare the country and its representatives in Congress assembled into caving to demands for telecom immunity are falling flat. This is not to say that the propaganda effort is diminishing in any way. In fact, universally throughout the mainstream news media, the issue is formulated precisely as Bob Orr did on the CBS Evening News last night (via C & L):

BOB ORR: At issue is whether or not telecommunications companies like Verizon and AT&T should be protected from lawsuits when they help the government tap conversations of suspected foreign terrorists - when those calls and emails are routed through the U.S.

When, as C & L, and most of the Lefty Blogosphere points out, that's not the issue at all.

Via C & L again:

Actually, the issue is whether retroactive immunity will be granted to telecoms so they can’t be sued by Americans, for illegally participating in wiretapping American citizens in America.

That's about as simple and straightforward a statement of the Issue as it is possible to get, and yet, to date, not one mainstream news outlet has been able to say it that way.

It's so bad that the other day, as reported by Glenn Greenwald, John King, experienced political reporter at CNN, had Adm. Mike McConnell, Director of Intelligence, on to discuss the issue and stated:

KING: To most Americans out there, and to a guy like me who's spent most of his time, in the past several months, out covering a presidential campaign, this is highly detailed stuff that's pretty hard to follow.

No. It's not. It never has been "hard to follow." This question at issue is whether or not the Congress will provide immunity to large corporations that broke the law and spied on Americans without warrants or court supervision of any kind for several years.

The Senate has voted to provide that immunity. The House has voted not to.

The resolution is to be found in conference committee. Nearly every observer assumes that the conference committee will provide partial or full retroactive immunity to the telecoms, and that by doing so, the governmental interests who conspired or colluded to induce the telecoms to perform these illegal acts of domestic surveillance will be shielded from investigation or culpability.

The issue has NEVER, EVER been about whether telecoms should be immunized from suits over spying on calls from or to suspected terrorists. Immunity for following lawful government orders is already provided. The problem is that the orders (or "requests") were not lawful and following them was not lawful; further, so far as anyone can suss out, the surveillance was never limited (and so far as we know, is not now limited) to "terrorists." Essentially all domestic and foreign communication is potential fodder for warrantless surveillance, making moot the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

But nowhere in the mainstream media -- with the odd exception, such as when a "critic" is allowed to speak, briefly, on the topic, or when Keith Olbermann focuses on it -- is the issue accurately described, even though the fearmongering of the White House, the intelligence agency heads, and Republicans in Congress has been almost entirely repudiated.

Propaganda is universal.

Stalin is smiling.