Friday, May 9, 2014

A deal between devils: The neo-Nazi element and the U.S.'s proxy war in Ukraine

© AFP/Ganya Savilov
'Al Qaeda' in Ukraine? For decades, the US has
relied on local or imported terrorist paramilitaries
to win their 'proxy wars'. Ukraine's
Right Sector is just the latest. | May 8, 2014 | Joe Quinn

The US military hasn't actually been involved in an overt "war", in the traditional sense of a conflict between two mostly equally matched adversaries, since the end of the Korean war in 1953. As Col. Fletcher Prouty points out in his book JFK:The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, US soldiers in Vietnam were mainly fighting against 1 million North Vietnamese villagers who were 'deported' to the South (by the US Navy) where, like any dispossessed people, they resorted to theft to survive. These were the bulk of the 'Viet Cong' that the US military raped, tortured, napalmed and shot en masse. Every other US military and/or CIA 'adventure' from the 1960s until today (and there have been many) has involved one of the following three approaches:

A) a short-lived 'turkey shoot' against an impotent 'enemy' (see Iraq "war" 1, Libya 2011).

B) a protracted direct "war" of colonial expansion waged against an indigenous, largely civilian, population who resist occupation and plunder of their land (see Iraq "war" 2).

C) a 'proxy war', where paramilitary groups (either local or imported) are funded, trained and armed by CIA and US military 'advisers' (too many to list, but see here for a list) and fight local resistance groups on behalf of the USA.

A complex combination of strategies B and C has also been used where invasion and occupation of a foreign country by US and British troops is justified as "fighting terrorists", where the terrorists themselves are to some extent co-opted and used by US and British intelligence and military intelligence agents. On many occasions, attacks by the "terrorists" against the local government and population are in fact the work of American or British intelligence/military agents. Earlier this year for example, Afghan President Karzai publicly expressed his suspicions that bombings attributed to "the Taliban" were in fact the work of the US government:
The Washington Post quoted a senior Afghan presidential palace official as saying that President Karzai has provided a list of several attacks, in which he says Washington may have been involved, including the recent bloody assault on a Lebanese restaurant in Kabul, where over 20 people, including 13 foreigners, were killed.

The January 17 bombing and shooting attack on the restaurant was attributed to the Taliban militant group, though Karzai said it is one of the many attacks that may have been orchestrated by the United States in order to undermine Afghan government's abilities in maintaining security and pave the way for keeping its soldiers in the country beyond 2014.
Since the 1950s option 'C' has been the favorite "war" strategy and the one employed most often by the US and British political and military 'elite'. There are clear advantages to this strategy: less troops on the ground means less body bags coming home, and plausible deniability that the "war", or any US military presence, is for "peace keeping" or "defending freedom and democracy".

No one should be surprised therefore at the suggestion that recent events in Ukraine, in particular the massacre in Odessa, bear the hallmarks of a 'proxy force' being used by the Ukrainian 'interim' government on the advice of Western powers in an effort to wrest control of the future of Ukraine from the Russian government. That allegation has been explicitly made by eyewitnesses to the events outside and inside the Trade Unions building in Odessa on May 2nd.  

Continue reading..

No comments:

Post a Comment