NATO has activated its “chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence elements” amid fears Russia could launch a biological strike in Ukraine.
Following an emergency summit of the military alliance on Thursday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels the decision comes as the allies move to equip Ukraine with its own biological defences.
“Our top military commander … has activated NATO’s chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence elements,” he said.
“And allies are deploying additional chemical and biological and nuclear defences to reinforce our existing and new battlegroups, so we are taking measures both to support Ukraine and also to defend ourselves.”
Tag Archives: interventionism
“Non-interfering” Kerry Cheers Overthrow Of Ukrainian Gvt
Daniel McAdams at LRC blog comments on John Kerry’s interventionist position on Ukraine:
“I am on RT today discussing John Kerry’s Munich trip, where he met the Ukraine opposition parties and said that the US is “fully behind” those seeking to overthrow the democratically-elected government by force — right before he warned any outside powers against interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs.”
See also “US and Europe stand with people of Ukraine, says John Kerry,” The Guardian, Feb. 1 , 2014
NATO has joined Kerry to bully the Ukrainians government not to crack down on violence:
“Nato’s chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said he was “very concerned by attempts to involve the military in the crisis”.
The equivalent in terms of international provocation would be if the Russian President were to proclaim solidarity for the Occupy movement on US soil and warn American police against any militarized response.
While Kerry was double-dealing with the Ukrainians and thumbing the American nose at Russia, a little research turns up the interesting point that the largely peaceful Ukrainian protest suddenly turned violent at the same time as Kerry’s visit and stepped-up support for it.
“Russia slams West’s support for Ukraine opposition,” AP, The Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2014
“The protests had been mostly peaceful until mid-January, when demonstrators angered by the new anti-protest laws launched violent clashes with police. Three protesters died in the clashes, two of them from gunshot wounds. Police insist they didn’t fire the fatal shots.“
See also “Russia slams as circus Kerry Ukraine opposition meetings,” Daily Star, Feb 1, 2014
“Russia’s outspoken Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin called Kerry’s upcoming meetings a “circus” in a tweet on Friday.
“It’s also necessary to involve Verka Serdyuchka in the talks,” he said in apparent sarcasm, referring to Ukraine’s bombastic drag queen pop star.
“Her/his authoritative opinion should be heard by the White House and taken into account!”
Is this another covert destabilization effort in the tradition of the color revolutions?
Evidently so. At Storyleak.com, Michael Thomas breaks down the history:
“What is particularly surprising about the current color revolution unfolding in the Ukraine is that this nation was the site of the very same CIA implementation plan back in 2004/2005. The Orange Revolution, as it was known at the time, was a classic CIA-engineered plot to impose their political outcome on the Ukrainian people. And they succeeded with flying colors.
That CIA-sponsored coup d’etat was so successful that it has since been used as a model for every other CIA-manufactured scheme that has toppled governments and reversed fair election outcomes the world over. In fact, the Ukraine is where the various social network utilities were used so effectively that the new MO has become known as the digital blitzkrieg. Never in human history have so many citizens been stampeded in the direction of overthrowing their government while being completely ignorant of the real forces manipulating the cattle prods.”
The article suggests that the Ukrainian government seems to be master-minded, as well the protesters. The result is that the Ukraine is being shepherded into the Eurozone, a communistic/fascistic scheme that will allow the patrons of the Eurozone to replenish their depleted treasuries:
“…. the Ukraine is looked to as a temporary savior because of its many large and robust markets, well established industrial base and transportation links to Asia, as well as it vast natural resources and raw materials.”
Ukraine: In Russia’s Sphere Of Influence, Not America’s
At Forbes, Doug Bandow at Cato has written an excellent piece on the turmoil in Ukraine, over which the imperial bullies in DC (and their covert adjutants are salivating:
“Washington should endorse justice and human dignity, which justifies support for honest elections and warnings against police brutality. Of course, America’s message would have greater credibility if Washington better respected such values both at home and in its dealings with other nations which don’t always share America’s “interests and values.”
But Ukraine’s “economic health,” “European future,” “turn toward Moscow,” and reengagement “with the European Union” aren’t American values and are barely American interests. Indeed, they really aren’t proper U.S. concerns. How would Americans feel if Ukrainian politicians showed up at an “Occupy Wall Street” rally in Washington vowing to stand with protestors in demanding economic redistribution, a North American Union, and a turn away from Europe—all in the name of Ukrainian “interests and values”?
It’s obviously difficult for Washington to imagine any issue that doesn’t warrant U.S. meddling, but Ukraine’s status is one. Alexander J. Motyl of Rutgers University (Newark) spoke of Washington and Brussels having “vital interests at stake in Ukraine.” Only in Kiev’s dreams.
More extreme was former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who contended “that tectonic plates are being realigned in Europe” and that Ukraine is “the great prize.” Robert Zubrin of Pioneer Energy argued that “the events unfolding in Ukraine right now are of global historic importance.” Indeed, he added, Moscow’s reach for influence in Kiev is part of a “dark program” which “threatens not only the prospects for freedom in Ukraine and Russia, but the peace of the world.” To suggest that Ukraine is vital to global peace is beyond exaggeration.
A stable, democratic Ukraine would be good for all concerned—and America’s Ukrainian diaspora deserves credit for its long-standing support for its homeland—but Kiev’s orientation isn’t important to Washington. Ukraine spent centuries subject to Moscow and the U.S. never noticed. Vladimir Putin wants to reestablish Russian influence, but that doesn’t mean he can put the Soviet Humpty Dumpty back together. Today’s protests in Kiev demonstrate that Ukraine will never be a quiescent tool of Moscow.
On the security side, Russia’s activities in Ukraine do not threaten the U.S. The reverse, however, is not true. Bringing NATO up to Russia’s southern border cannot help but be seen as dangerous by Russia—imagine Americans would view the Warsaw Pact expanding to Mexico. Washington’s policy today looks like the fabled “Brezhnev Doctrine,” what is mine is mine, and what is yours is negotiable. America seeks to dominate not only the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Central Asia, but all along Russia’s borders. Washington wants to hold all of the geopolitical chips.
The better strategy would be for the West to treat Russia with respect, acknowledging that it has legitimate interests in Ukraine, while using the prospect of greater economic opportunity to convince Kiev to look westward. Yanukovich has been rented, not bought. Complained the Economist: “Mr. Yanukovich’s favored option seems to be to preserve the status quo and refrain from joining either camp while continuing to milk both.” Which sounds like a sound strategy from Ukraine’s standpoint. The EU, which obviously has the most at stake, could up its offer and reconsider its political demands. How badly does it want to “win”?
Moreover, Europe should look for compromise opportunities with Moscow. Kiev has proposed creation of “a tripartite commission to handle complex issues.” Such an approach has promise. Former congressional staffer Jim Jatras cited recent talks between the EU and Russia over “aspects of the AA with Ukraine that Moscow considers detrimental to its own economy, specifically a massive flow of EU products into Russia via Ukraine.” All would benefit with greater links between the EU and the Russian-lead CU, which might reduce Moscow’s pressure on Kiev.
Ukraine matters, to Ukraine. It also matters to Russia. But less to Europe and much less to the U.S. If Kiev wants to look east, so be it. The West is most likely to win influence if it makes itself more attractive, not if it treats the issue like a new Cold War. Despite Russia’s money Yanukovich’s reelection prospects are weak and Ukraine is likely to eventually join the West. If not, however, so be it. The country never was the EU’s or Washington’s to lose.”