‘All that glitters is not gold; all that shivers is not cold’
Mythology has it that Midas, the king of Phyrgia, was able
to turn everything he touched into gold -- ‘the Midas Touch’. According to Aristotle, the legendry figure
died of starvation as a result of his greed to transmute everything from its
natural substance to gold. This myth
is a tragic reality when it comes to America and its neocolonial adventures; America’s
reach into Ukraine may well be the ‘touch’ that will end America as we know it
today.
For decades, American neocons[1]
have engaged in coups, false flag operations, covert and overt wars in order to
institute their goal of global domination. The end
of the Cold War emboldened them and 9/11 enabled them. Nations and societies became battlefields
facilitated by the concept of ‘jihad’
versus‘crusade’[i]
thanks to neocon Bernard Lewis who initiated this idea. As country after country fell to America’s
ruthless touch -- Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, (attempts in Venezuela and Iran), little attention was paid to covert
activities against Russia (and China) considered to pose a challenge to
America’s global domination.
Failrure of the
2004 Western-backed Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the massive 2006 protests in
Crimea against NATO’s invasion with slogans such as "Occupiers go home!" which prompted the parliament of autonomous Ukraine to declare Crimea a “NATO-free territory” (Euronews
archive), sent Washington’s
neocons into a spin mode, especially since NATO and U.S. have been trying to
encircle Russia since 1991.
Azar Gat, Ezer
Weizman professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University writing for the
powerful and influential Council on Foreign Relations publication (Foreign Affairs, July-August 2007) emphasized ‘the significant challenge
emanating from China and Russia operating under “authoritarian capitalist”
poised for a comeback. ‘
Global domination
demanded curbing Russia (and China). Depriving Russia of its Black Sea Fleet in
Crimea and Russia’s access to Syria’s
Tartus Port are no doubt a crucial part of this strategy. As importantly, Russia’s gas exports to Europe had to be
curbed.
To
this end, overt and covert actions were put in place. CIA/State Department propaganda voice, Radio
Free Europe, announced in 2010 that “Ukraine has been the target of democracy-promoting Western foundations,
such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), for a quarter of a century”
(well prior to 1991 dateline admitted to by Victoria Nuland). NED’s counterpart
in England, the UK funded Westminster Foundation for Democracy was an active partner in the
endeavor.
It
was the Westminster Foundation that coopted the “Ukrainian Foundation for
Democracy” –
The People’s First Foundation that later that same year would become a member
of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC).
Of particular relevance is the cast of characters who would shape things
to come in Ukraine (to be discussed shortly).
“Democracy”
promotion aside, the possible and likely role of United
States Special Operations Command (USSOC) said to be present in 120 countries
as of 2011, and growing (potentially in over 140 countries todate) mut also be
considered. Working
with SOC is CIA’s Special Activities
Division (SAD)
and its departments Special Operations Group (SOG) and Political Action Group
(POG), which engage in covert activities related to political influence and psychological operations.
As images of
Cocktail Molotovs and sniper shootings and deaths found their way into living
rooms across the globe, Europe (Ashton) concealed doubts
cast over Yanukovch’s complicity in
the sniper shootings, facilitating his
overthrow in trumped up charges. There
is no good reason for the Western backers of the mob government not to
investigate the sniper killings unless a)they themselves were complicit, b)
they had full knowledge of the actions,
or c) concealing the actions was in their interest. No investigation has taken place to date.
Many
scholars have voiced concern that the U.S. is backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine; never mind the neo-Nazis –
the EU and the United States have embraced terrorism and have sided with terrorists
over a democratically elected president.
Although there is no universal
definition of terrorism, Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section
2656f(d)
defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated
against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents,
usually intended to influence an audience.”
This
must be an incomprehensible part of the US/EU “war on terror”! These actions marginalize those of the
marines in Afghanistan who urinated on dead corpses . With their backing of terrorists, the US and
EU partners, in effect, have urinated on the graves of all who died in the
despicable ‘war on terror’, including Allied soldiers.
This
much said, one must surely ask why it is that the Jewish community is supporting
the neo-Nazis rise. Why is it that the
presence of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who led rebel groups has not
been questioned and addressed? Furthermore,
why have Jewish leaders voiced support for the coup and its leaders, and they have chosen to
direct their anger and venom toward Russia and President Putin in a letter?
Perhaps,
familiarizing oneself with the executive members of the aforementioned USUBC
may cast some light on this bizarre behavior.
Especially noteworthy are names
and organizations among the senior advisors to the USUBC are from pro-Israel
think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings, and Board of Directors executives selected from
powerful players at weapons manufacturers such as Raytheon and Boeing (See http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/people-first-foundation-joins-u-s-ukraine-business-council-usubc).
Undoubtedly, the cast of characters and their involvement in
Ukraine would help ensure the safety of the Ukrainian Jews – especially in light
of the fact that Israel is poised to play a huge role in eliminating Europe’s
reliance on Russian gas and supplying Europe with gas it has stolen from the
Palestinians - and Syrians. Or as the New York Post put it last
month: “Israel’s
fortune is Putin’s horror”
The planning of this “horror” has
been in the making for some time. Perhaps the most revealing and interesting
article is one penned by David
Wurmser writing for the Jewish policy Center titled The Strategic Impact of Israel’s
Export of Natural Gas. Referring to the newly found stolen
gas in 2009, he writes “Israel
and its neighbor now sit atop roughly two years' worth of European
consumption”. He further suggests “even modest amounts of Israeli gas exports can
carry significant strategic leverage”.
Wurmser opines that “The short-term inflexibility of gas trade and the
difficulty of replacing disrupted supply also imply that energy prices for
consumers and revenues for suppliers can be easily manipulated by marginal
increases or decreases.”
Citing Europe’s
gas vulnerability, Wurmser posits “Europe's grim reality could represent a
unique window of opportunity for Israel to nail down long-term agreements and
align export policy with a broader effort to reset Israeli-European relations.”
In December
of last year, The Jerusalem Post reported that not only did Hungary seek Israeli gas as an alternative to Russian
gas, but it also offered to Israel access to its state-owned gas storage and
offered Hungary “as a central European distribution hub for Israeli gas”.
As recently
as March 11, Rigzone cited Gideon Tadmor, CEO of
Avner Oil, speaking at a conference in Tel-Aviv: “"With recent events in
Europe... and the aspiration of different countries to diversify their gas
supply, that puts another spotlight on our massive resources and transforms our
story into a global one," (a must read).
It
then should come as no surprise that the Ukrainian Jewish leaders denounce any
threat from the presence of ‘neo-Nazis’ claiming that they can take care of
themselves. No doubt this is the
case. But will Ukraine, a state that is not one
nation, survive the assault on its diversity and its sovereignty? The unforeseen circumstances, the
unpredicted reactions may well turn Ukraine into the last of America’s ‘Midas
touch’.
[1]
Former, self-confessed neocon Jacob Heilbrunn describes neoconservatism as "a decisive respect a Jewish
phenomenon," even if many adherents -- albeit a minority -- are not Jewish
and even though most U.S. Jews are not neoconservatives. Neoconservatives, he adds, both Jew and gentile,
are bound by a "shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish
cause: the survival of Israel.”
[i] Bernard Lewis, ‘Learning the Lingo. Jihad vs. Crusade.
A Historian’s Guide to the New War’, Wall
Street Journal (27 Sept. 2001).
