Who is Petro Poroshenko
In cambio Poroshenko gli ha promesso armi, aiuti di Stato e una legge che liberalizzerà le armi, «come in America». A oggi i miliziani di Pravy Sektor sono 5.000.
In the West's hegemonic struggle against Russia, German government advisers are calling for close military ties between Ukraine and the Western war alliance…
Peter Koenig | globalresearch.ca, 01/06/2014
U.S. blesses fraudulent Ukraine election
May 27 — The U.S.-backed junta of neoliberal politicians, oligarchs and fascists, which came to power in a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, staged presidential elections May 25 in an attempt to legitimize its rule.
Billionaire oligarch Peter Poroshenko, known as the “Chocolate King,” claimed victory with 54 percent of the vote. (CNN, May 27) His closest competitor, Yulia Tymoshenko of the far-right Fatherland party, got 12.9 percent.
Two candidates closely associated with the demands of the resistance movement in southeastern Ukraine — Oleg Tsarev, formerly of the Party of Regions, and Communist Party leader Peter Simonenko – withdrew. Both were subject to assassination attempts and denounced the election as a fraud.
Two reporters from Russia’s LifeNews were abducted, tortured and deported. An Italian journalist and his Russian interpreter were killed.
According to RT, Right Sector fascists armed with knives surrounded the Central Election Commission in Kiev on election day. Journalists trying to enter were subject to their approval.
Earlier, Right Sector leader Dymtro Yarosh had threatened that his forces would “guard” polling stations in eastern Ukraine. (Kyiv Post, May 23)
Nevertheless, U.S. and European election observers – headed by U.S. war criminal Madeleine Albright – rushed to declare the elections “free and fair,” even before the official results were in.
President Obama offered his congratulations via Twitter. Russian President Vladimir Putin, facing provocative military and economic threats from the U.S. and NATO, signaled that he would recognize the election results and negotiate with Poroshenko.
The U.S. and European imperialists hope Poroshenko’s ascension will finally cement their plans to rule Ukraine through an International Monetary Fund austerity program. They want to destroy the resistance movement in the southeast, which has taken an increasingly anti-capitalist direction.
Boycott vs. ‘elections of blood’
While the junta says between 55 and 60 percent of eligible voters participated, three areas claimed by Kiev did not participate at all – the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which has chosen to join the Russian Federation. These three areas contain nearly 20 percent of the total Ukrainian population of 45.6 million.
In other southeastern regions like Kharkov, Odessa and Dnipropetrovsk, many heeded the call to boycott what were described as “the elections of blood.” This refers to the May 2 massacre of 48 people by neo-Nazis in Odessa and the ongoing Ukrainian military assault on Donetsk and Lugansk.
Election watchdog group Opora, cited by the pro-junta Kyiv Post, gave a figure of 45 percent voter participation overall, while exit poll data suggested an even lower turnout. (Global Research, May 25)
In Donetsk city on May 25, hundreds marched to the estate of oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest boss and owner of several mines. Protesters demanded that the new people’s government seize Akhmetov’s mansion and nationalize his properties. Akhmetov had staged a “strike” of his employees against the Donetsk People’s Republic in the run-up to the elections.
Hundreds also rallied in Kharkov, including supporters of the revolutionary socialist organization Union Borotba (Struggle), despite growing attacks on the anti-fascist movement.
Regime escalates violence
Although Poroshenko had promised negotiations, as soon as his victory was announced, the Ukrainian military assault escalated. He boasted, “The anti-terrorist operation … should and will last [only] hours.” (Guardian, May 26)
Kiev immediately launched punishing airstrikes on Donetsk in an attempt to regain control of its airport.
The National Guard – comprised mostly of fascist gang members in uniform – carried out attacks on civilian housing blocks in the cities of Donetsk and Slavyansk using heavy weaponry, and causing many casualties.
Aleksandr Boroday, prime minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic, reported that 50 civilians and 50 antifascist militia members had been killed May 26, as the region braces for more attacks. (RT, May 27)
Donetsk residents are being urged to stock up on supplies and stay indoors if possible. All people’s militia members, health care workers and activists are being mobilized for the defense of the city.
On May 27, workers at several mines in the southeast launched strikes against the junta’s military offensive.
“Miners from the Skochinskogo, Abakumova, Chelyuskintsev and Trudovskaya mines have not been working today,” a representative told RIA Novosti. “People have been standing by the entrances, not wanting to go underground. They are having rallies demanding the suspension of military actions.”
IL PRESIDENTE OLIGARCA: NATURALE RISULTATO DI EUROMAIDAN
http://www.workers.org/articles/2014/05/27/president-oligarch-natural-result-euromaidan/
President Oligarch — the natural result of Euromaidan
Statement of Union Borotba (Struggle) on Ukraine’s “elections of blood”
Following is a report and analysis of the May 25 elections by Union Borotba (Struggle), a revolutionary socialist and anti-fascist organization in Ukraine, translated by Workers World contributing editor Greg Butterfield and available on the Borotba.org website. Oligarch Petro Poroshenko declared himself the landslide winner of the presidential election, getting four times the vote of his nearest rival, Julia Timoshenko.
The so-called elections held by the Kiev junta on May 25, cannot be considered fair or legitimate. Elections held in the midst of civil war in the east of the country and neo-Nazi terror in the south and center were not free.
The very course of the election campaign was unprecedented in its every conceivable violation of democratic norms. Presidential candidates were beaten and not allowed to campaign. Several candidates withdrew in protest against the farce.
In Odessa and other regions, there were documented cases of polling stations being “guarded” by ultranationalist units brought from Kiev and western Ukraine. This cannot be called anything but explicit pressure on the voters.
In Crimea and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, the so-called elections were not held. In the Odessa and Kharkov regions, polling stations were almost empty. Many of those who came to vote spoiled their ballots, writing slogans against the Kiev junta. Nevertheless, the so-called Central Election Commission claimed a turnout of 60 percent!
Thousands of people in different cities of the country came out to protest against the “elections of blood.” Nevertheless, the results announced by the junta will be recognized by the obedient Central Electoral Commission and Western observers.
The hypocrisy of the so-called champions of fair elections should be noted. They criticize flawed elections in the Russian Federation and other countries, but now turn a blind eye to the blatant falsification and flagrant violations of the “elections” of May 25.This once again shows that the criterion of “honesty” for official liberal public opinion is not real compliance with election procedures, but the loyalty to Western imperialism of the regime that holds elections.
As expected, the winner of the presidential “election” was billionaire Poroshenko. Poroshenko, along with other billionaires like Igor Kolomoisky and Sergei Taruta, became the personification of the direct transfer of state power to the big capitalists. Poroshenko is a prime example of the ruling class of “independent” Ukraine — the parasitic bourgeois oligarchy that has looted the country for the last 20 years.
Poroshenko’s political path is revealing. In the late 1990s, he was a loyal member of then-President Leonid Kuchma’s Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (united) party. Then he was one of the founders of the Party of Regions. Then — a friend and ally of President Viktor Yushchenko. A leading lobbyist for so-called “European integration,” Poroshenko then became one of the leaders and sponsors of Euromaidan.
There is no doubt that Poroshenko will continue the course of Alexander Turchinov and Arseny Yatsenyuk in the interests of a narrow layer of the oligarchy. Poroshenko will continue the junta’s dirty war against its own people in the Donbass. Poroshenko will continue to implement the anti-people measures imposed by the International Monetary Fund and lead the country to economic disaster.
The direct transfer of power to the oligarchy and the strengthening of neofascist tendencies are direct consequences of Euromaidan, which Union Borotba warned of last autumn. Only very politically naive people could expect a different result from a movement led by neoliberals and ultranationalists, and sponsored by the biggest capitalists.
The results showed a devastating defeat for the radical nationalists — and Tyagnybok [leader of Svoboda] and Yarosh [leader of Right Sector], who together polled only 2 percent. Terror against the people, against the left and democratic forces, and deployment of nationalist combat units, have not promoted the growth of popularity of the fascist forces. Nevertheless, despite their low public support, the extreme right will remain an important element of the political system of the Kiev dictatorship. Their role is the violent suppression of opponents of the oligarchic regime. This role is typical of fascist-type movements.
We do not recognize the outcome of these pseudo-elections ignored by the majority. We will continue the campaign of civil disobedience against the junta of oligarchs and nationalists.
Violent attacks by neo-Nazi forces drove leaders from Kiev after the February coup. Borotba members then played a leading role in the resistance movement in southeastern Ukraine, especially in the regions of Odessa and Kharkov. Their members were among those killed and injured in the May 2 Odessa massacre. Because of increasing repression, since May 9, Borotba activists throughout the country have been forced to continue their work underground.
Poroshenko e la CIA
Redazione ANSA
MOSCA 30 maggio 2014 21:32
I media russi ufficiali cominciano a scavare nel passato del neo presidente ucraino Petro Poroshenko, al quale Putin non ha ancora fatto le sue congratulazioni, evidenziando i suoi stretti legami con gli USA.
I media russi ufficiali o filo Cremlino cominciano a scavare nel passato del neo presidente ucraino Petro Poroshenko, al quale Putin non ha ancora fatto le sue congratulazioni, evidenziando i suoi stretti legami con gli Usa e i giudizi non sempre lusinghieri o apparentemente opportunistici della diplomazia americana.
Rossiskaia Gazeta, organo ufficiale del governo, e la tv filo Cremlino Russia Today, hanno rovistato nell'archivio di Wikileaks, dove ci sono almeno 350 documenti con il nome dell'oligarca ucraino. Il quotidiano governativo sottolinea che Poroshenko era un «informatore» dell'ambasciata Usa a Kiev sulla situazione politica interna. In un cable del 2006, l'allora ambasciatore statunitense William Taylor lo definisce il «nostro candidato alla carica di speaker del parlamento». «Non c'è alcun dubbio che Poroshenko abbia già dato prova della propria fedeltà agli interessi di Usa e Ue», commenta il giornale.
Russia Today dà conto dell'evoluzione della posizione della diplomazia americana verso il magnate tra il 2006 e il 2011: nel 2006, quando Poroshenko era un deputato, l'allora ambasciatore Usa a Kiev John Herbst lo descrive come un «oligarca caduto in disgrazia». Pochi mesi dopo la numero 2 della missione diplomatica statunitense Sheila Gwalney lo dipinge come «macchiato da credibili accuse di corruzione», dietro le quali c'era, tra gli altri, l'allora premier Iulia Timoshenko.
Nel 2009, l'anno in cui l'oligarca diventa ministro degli Esteri, le descrizioni a stelle e strisce cominciano a cambiare, attribuendogli note personali più favorevoli. L'allora incaricato d'affari ad interim, James Pettit, scrive di lui che è «un imprenditore ricco con ampie connessioni politiche, che auspica una maggiore integrazione europea e relazioni più pragmatiche con la Russia». Il tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda, anch'esso filo Cremlino, rispolvera invece una vecchia condanna del padre di Poroshenko, Alexiei: 5 anni nel 1986 per malversazione, come direttore di una fabbrica per la riparazione di trattori e macchine agricole nella città moldava di Benderi.
(ATS) (30.05.2014 - 17:05)
A scrivere è l’allora ambasciatore americano a Kiev e nella relazione Poroshenko viene definito come «our insider in Ukraine». Nel 2006, quindi, Poroshenko era già considerato «l’uomo americano a Kiev». <
Nel cable in questione l’oligarca si pone come mediatore tra i protagonisti della rivoluzione arancione, Tymoshenko e Yushenko, spendendosi in particolari sulle vicende politiche dell’allora governo ucraino. Nel 2006, poteva sembrare piuttosto ovvio che un personaggio di rilievo come Poroshenko, non solo businessman ma anche politico (sarà ministro degli esteri tra il 2009 e il 2010 e ministro del commercio nel governo dell’ex presidente Yanukovich) diventasse un «insider» degli Usa per comprendere al meglio la situazione politica del paese.
Analizzare quel cable con il senno di poi, permette però di riscontrare una linearità negli eventi. Se ci fermiamo solo agli ultimi sei mesi delle vicende politiche ucraine, potremmo mettere in fila una serie di accadimenti che comportano una presenza degli Stati uniti nelle dinamiche politiche dell’Ucraina, che non appaiono certo improvvisate. Nel momento in cui infuria la protesta di Majdan, con Yanukovich presto mollato tanto dai suoi quanto da Putin, la neocon Victoria Nuland, assistente del segretario di Stato Kerry, si fa pizzicare nel corso di una telefonata infuocata contro l’Ue.
Durante la conversazione Nuland sponsorizza in modo energico Yatseniuk, l’uomo considerato più vicino — in quella fase — agli americani. Qualche settimana più tardi, dopo i cento morti di Majdan, la fuga di Yanukovich e la negoziazione tra leader della protesta e piazza, esce fuori dal cilindro Yatseniuk, nuovo premier ucraino. Primo passo: accordo con il Fmi. Nei cable presenti sul database di Wikileaks, Yatseniuk compare un paio di volte e viene descritto come persona «affidabile» dai funzionari americani. Un giovane su cui contare.
Poco dopo la sua nomina, Yatseniuk lancia l’offensiva contro le regioni orientali; un’azione militare che dovrebbe garantire, a cannonate, quella pace necessaria perché si possano svolgere le elezioni presidenziali. La pace non arriva, le urne invece si aprono nelle regioni occidentali e maturano un successo tanto ampio, quanto previsto, proprio dell’«insider» Poroshenko. Due uomini «americani» alla guida di un paese uscito da un conflitto di piazza e in preda a una guerra civile e al centro di un contenzioso non da poco con la vicina Russia, ovvero la minaccia di un allargamento a est della Nato.
Wikileaks ha un archivio vasto di materiale e naturalmente la notizia del cablerelativo al neo presidente ucraino non poteva non solleticare la curiosità. Su Poroshenko si esprimono anche altri americani, nel corso degli anni. Nel 2006 la numero 2 della missione diplomatica Usa a Kiev Sheila Gwalney, lo dipinge come un uomo «macchiato da credibili accuse di corruzione», dietro le quali ci sarebbe stata l’allora premier Tymoshenko. Ma dal 2009, quando l’oligarca diventa ministro degli Esteri, le descrizioni cominciano a cambiare; Poroshenko torna ad essere affidabile: è di nuovo l’uomo giusto, al posto giusto.
The Minister was defending his policy in Ukraine when he was interrupted by hecklers for his support for Ukrainian Nazis. He snapped back saying that they were the instigators of war, while the European Union and the social democrats stood for peace.
Former chief of the intelligence service, Steinmeier has played a central role in Germany’s support for the KLA terrorists during the NATO war in Kosovo. This time around, he is credited with being the main architect of German support for Ukrainian Nazis.
Exports from Germany to Russia fell by 16% in January-February 2014.
Germany: Leading journalists attempt to censor TV program
By Peter Schwarz
30 May 2014
Since February, Germany’s second public television channel, the ZDF, has been broadcasting the political satire show “Die Anstalt” (the German word is used for a TV station as well as for a mental asylum) at regular intervals. Featuring 46-year-old Max Uthoff and 36-year-old Claus von Wagner, a younger generation of comedians has taken over from Urban Priol and Frank-Markus Barwasser, who headed the predecessor “News from the Anstalt”.
The first three editions of “Die Anstalt” were a refreshing antidote to the political coverage provided by the ZDF and other German media outlets. Using satire, the programs took up current issues and brought the public’s attention to themes which normally can only be learned about by carefully researching the Internet or reading the World Socialist Web Site.
Central themes of the programs were the revival of German militarism and the events in Ukraine. German President Gauck, Foreign Minister Steinmeier and Defense Minister von der Leyen, who all called for “an end to military restraint,” were subjected to the same merciless treatment as the lying reports in the German media about the events in Kiev.
The second edition of the program, on March 11, began with a depiction of the “Revolution” in Kiev’s central Maidan square. It was not presented as a “freedom struggle”, but rather as a revolt by forces which were mainly right-wing and on the payroll of vested interests. The fascist Right Sector was ruthlessly exposed, as was the corrupt oligarch Julia Timoshenko, played by comedian Jochen Busse.
The third edition on April 29 then addressed at length the propaganda pumped out by the German media aimed at provoking war with Russia.
One scene featured a chart with the names of five leading German journalists: Stefan Kornelius of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Josef Joffe and Jochen Bittner from Die Zeit, and Günther Nonnenmacher and Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
In addition, the chart showed the names of 12 transatlantic think tanks—including the Aspen Institute, the Trilateral Commission, the German Council on Foreign Relations and the German Academy for Security Policy—where “military heads, business leaders and politicians discuss foreign policy strategies in a discreet atmosphere,” as Wagner explained.
Lines on the chart traced the connections between the five journalists and the government-related think tanks. The result was a dense network. “Then all of these newspapers function as something like the local editions of the NATO press office,” Uthoff concluded.
The scene was based on material contained in the dissertation “The power over opinion. The influence of elites on key media and alpha journalists” by the media expert Uwe Krüger, and on a strategy paper by the Institute for Science and Policy (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP) on German foreign policy, which has also been commented on by the WSWS. Both papers had appeared in 2013 but were only known to a small circle. “Die Anstalt” has now made them available to a much broader audience.
The wide publicity sparked fierce protests against the media outlets that had been exposed. Uwe Krüger told the online magazine Telepolis: “I suppose that the pressure following a television show with millions of viewers is considerable. There has certainly been a shit storm of online articles, and apparently there were cancellations of subscriptions.”
The affected journalists reacted. They pressured the ZDF to ban similar revelations in the future. They responded to the exposure of their one-sided reporting and their incestuous relationship with the ruling elite by calling for censorship.
Josef Joffe wrote a letter of complaint to the editor of the ZDF, Peter Frey. Joffe evidently anticipated a favorable reaction because Frey is one of the “alpha journalists” exposed by Uwe Krüger. Together with Stefan Kornelius and Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger, Frey sits “on the Advisory Board of the Federal Academy for Security Policy, a think tank affiliated to the Federal Ministry of Defense,” Krüger writes.
Joffe justified his letter of complaint by arguing that the TV program had led “to many protest letters and cancellations of subscriptions”. He wrote that the treatment of the media in “Die Anstalt”—which is, of course, a satirical show!—was “not good journalism” and Krüger’s book was “not good science.” Joffe does not deny his close links to the institutions mentioned, but he does deny that they constitute “lobbies”. It is quite right and natural that many transatlantic organizations demanded “more armament”, he said.
In an interview with the online magazine Telepolis Krüger rejected Joffe’s complaint. He refuted Joffe’s assertion that the media and think tanks represented different points of view. His detailed analysis of the content revealed a broad degree of agreement by different newspapers regarding the following “major questions”: “that security should be defined in a broad sense, that German interests are to defended all over the world, that Germany should become more involved militarily and should maintain its partnership with the US, and that the German government should intensify its efforts to convince the German population on all of these issues.”
Stefan Kornelius defended his close ties to government-related think tanks in the NDR magazine Zapp. “This is my daily bread. I find it strange that I have to justify myself for this”, he said. The message of “Die Anstalt” affected all the newspapers, from Die Zeit to the FAZ and the taz. It posed the question: “Do we retain any legitimacy at all?” He did not want to destroy the forums where he worked as a journalist, Kornelius said.
Joffe’s letter of complaint to the editor of ZDF was evidently intended to put the authors of “Die Anstalt” under pressure—in other words to censor the program. To make this absolutely clear, Joffe also sent a “cease and desist” demand to the ZDF, as did Jochen Bittner.
If the ZDF agrees to such terms it commits itself not to repeat certain claims and to pay a heavy penalty in the event of a violation. Should it not agree to the terms the TV station could face legal action with resultant high legal costs and penalties.
A spokeswoman for the station told Telepolis that the ZDF rejected the cease and desist letter. No information was given to the public about other reactions inside the ZDF. The fourth episode of “Die Anstalt”, however, which was aired on May 27, does not bode well. It was disappointing, with little remaining of its former political freshness and aggressiveness. Uthoff and von Wagner concentrated their fire on the impending football World Cup, the FIFA and its corrupt boss Sepp Blatter—an easy target that does not tread on the toes of the German ruling establishment.
Fascist propaganda on the front page of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
By Peter Schwarz
4 June 2014
“If one tells a big lie, and repeats it often enough, then people will believe it in the end.” This principle of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, today serves many in the German media as a guideline for writing columns opposing the widespread resistance to a revival of German militarism.
Since Berlin and Washington helped a right-wing regime come to power in Ukraine, and thereby provoked a dangerous conflict with Russia, leading German media outlets have not shrunk from any lie in order to justify this policy. They play down the significance of the fascists of Svoboda and the Right Sector, depict the resistance in eastern Ukraine as a Russian conspiracy, and denounce their critics for daring to “understand Putin.”
But that is not enough. In order to undermine the opposition to the “end of military reticence” announced by the German government, they are even prepared to deny the historical crimes of German imperialism.
On Monday, the front page of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) carried a comment piece uniting both positions, headlined “One-sided friendship.” It combined hateful attacks on Putin and Russia with a presentation of the Second World War which one usually reads only in Nazi publications.