Original source for all of the stories is this German newspaper:
The German newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported on Sunday 400 U.S. mercenaries are working with the junta government in Ukraine to suppress opposition to the coup in the eastern part of the country.
About 400 elite mercenaries from the notorious US private security firm Academi (formerly Blackwater) are taking part in the Ukrainian military operation against anti-government protesters in southeastern regions of the country, German media reports.
The Bild am Sonntag newspaper, citing a source in intelligence circles, wrote Sunday that Academi employees are involved in the Kiev military crackdown on pro-autonomy activists in near the town of Slavyansk, in the Donetsk region.
On April 29, German Intelligence Service (BND) informed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government about the mercenaries’ participation in the operation, the paper said, RIA Novosti reported. It is not clear who commands the private military contractors and pays for their services, however.
In March, media reports appeared suggesting that the coup-imposed government in Kiev could have employed up to 300 mercenaries.That was before the new government launched a military operation against anti-Maidan activists, or “terrorists” as Kiev put it, in southeast Ukraine.
At the time, the Russian Foreign Ministry said then that reports claiming Kiev was planning to involve “involve staff from foreign military companies to ‘ensure the rule of law,’” could suggest that it wanted “to suppress civil protests and dissatisfaction.”
In particular, Greystone Limited, which is currently registered in Barbados and is a part of Academi Corporation, is a candidate for such a gendarme role. It is a similar and probably an affiliated structure of the Blackwater private army, whose staff have been accused of cruel and systematic violations of human rights in various trouble spots on many occasions. (...)
Allegations increased further after unverified videos appeared on YouTube of unidentified armed men in the streets of Donetsk, the capital of the country’s industrial and coalmining region. In those videos, onlookers can be heard shouting “Mercenaries!”“Blackwater!,” and “Who are you going to shoot at?”
Academi denied its involvement in Ukraine, claiming on its website that “rumors” were posted by “some irresponsible bloggers and online reporters.”
“Such unfounded statements combined with the lack of factual reporting to support them and the lack of context about the company, are nothing more than sensationalistic efforts to create hysteria and headlines in times of genuine crisis,” the US firm stated.
The American security company Blackwater gained worldwide notoriety for the substantial role it played in the Iraq war as a contractor for the US government. In recent years it has changed its name twice – in 2009 it was renamed Xe Services and in 2011 it got its current name, Academi.
The firm became infamous for the alleged September 16, 2007 killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. The attack, which saw 20 others wounded, was allegedly without justification and in violation of deadly-force rules that pertained to American security contractors in Iraq at the time. Between 2005 and September 2007, Blackwater security guards were involved in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq and fired first in 163 of those cases, a Congressional report said at the time.
(...) Understanding Brzezinski’s long-term view of Ukraine makes it easier to comprehend why the US has given $5 billion to Ukraine since 1991, and why today it is hyper-concerned about having Ukraine remain in its sphere of influence.
It may also help explain why in the past year the US and many of its media outlets have feverishly demonized Vladimir Putin.
By prominently highlighting the mistreatment of activist group Pussy Riot, incessantly condemning Russia’s regressive position on gay rights, and excessively focusing on substandard accommodations at the Sochi Olympic Games, the Obama administration has cleverly distracted the public from delving into US support of the ultra-nationalist, neo-Nazi factions of the Ukrainian opposition, and has made it palatable for Americans to accept the US narrative on Ukraine.
Interestingly enough, it was Brzezinski who first compared Putin to Hitler in a March 3 Washington Post Editorial. Hillary Clinton followed-up the next day with her comments comparing the two, followed by John McCain and Marco Rubio who on March 5 agreed with Clinton’s comments comparing Putin and Hitler. Apparently Brzezinski still continues to influence US political speak.
In his book, Brzezinski contends that “America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power: militarily… economically… technologically… and culturally.”
While this may have been accurate in 1997, it can be argued that today, other than militarily, the US no longer reigns supreme in these domains.
So late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.
In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.
(...) Real conservatives should therefore embrace Putin, not vilify him; and not just for his purported pre-Enlightenment sympathies.
Being pessimists about human nature, real conservatives tend to favor authoritarian political styles and hardheaded, realist diplomacy. They like strong leaders, and despise floundering, clueless moralizers – like the ones now making foreign policy in the United States.
They have a point: liberal internationalists – humanitarian interventionists especially – are more dangerous.
But, then, why demonize Putin for being the kind of leader real conservatives admire?
It was telling that one of the less fatuous attendees at the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington effectively, though grudgingly, agreed.
Rudolph Giuliani took his turn disparaging Obama by praising Putin’s leadership. Instead of muddling along like Obama from one situation to another, Putin, Giuliani pointed out, knows where he is going.
Like other great conservative leaders of the past – Charles de Gaulle comes immediately to mind – Putin approaches politics and diplomacy like a game of chess, envisioning the larger situation and anticipating the right move several steps ahead.
And so, when it suits his purpose, he will bail Obama out, as he did when he had backed himself into a corner from which, without Putin’s intervention, he would have gotten the United States bogged down in Syria’s civil war – to the detriment of everyone involved.
Or, when doing so is in his interest, he can prevail over the American president, notwithstanding the fact that the United States has a stronger hand to play.
Under the true conservative tent, there is evidently still room for a kind of greatness that is lacking in the liberal wing of the larger liberal fold.
Greatness, but not goodness. On this, as on almost everything else, George W. Bush was wrong. Hillary Clinton is wrong too.
Putin is the closest approximation the world now has to the great conservative leaders of the past. Conservatives should appreciate this about him. But the gap between real conservatives and the self-styled ones around us is extreme; they might as well be different species.
Still, though, the question remains: why is Putin demonized?
I would venture that the fact that Putin is the leader of Russia has more than a little to do with it.
Even in what Gore Vidal aptly called the United States of Amnesia, it registers at some level that, a century ago, Russians moved history forward; that they broke free from the capitalist system.
The Communists who led the Russian Revolution then went on to organize and oversee the construction of a historically unprecedented, ostensibly socialist, order. It was a valiant effort – undertaken in an economically backward country and in the face of the relentless opposition of far stronger enemies.
Tragically, what they concocted turned out to be a mixed blessing at best. Seven decades later, it all fell apart.
But Communism – in Russia, and then in Eastern Europe and China — was a living presence throughout much of the twentieth century; its effects on politics and reflections on politics were profound.
Even in a country and at a time when Republican-leaning states and regions are described as “red,” the memory of Communism lingers at some level.
Putin is no less pro-capitalist than anyone else in the liberal fold, and he is as fine a conservative leader as one can be in today’s world.
The east –the Russian part as much as the Chinese – is no longer even remotely red (except perhaps in the sense that Republicans are), but the memory persists in our collective consciousness.
And so, when a Russian leader becomes an obstacle in America’s way, the empire strikes back. Step one is to vilify the leader. And if there is anything our foreign policy establishment and our compliant corporate media are good at, vilification tops the list.
Demonizing Putin may be useful in the short run to the empire’s “bipartisan” stewards.
But, they are dealing with someone more formidable than themselves, and they are getting in over their heads. It is a cynical and dangerous ploy from which incalculable harm could follow.
I'll just have to disagree with her assessment. Timing is everything. Imo, Putin wishes to reconstruct as much of the USSR as possible. There will never be a better time to do it than now and there is nothing stopping him from doing so other than internal Russian factions. Like him or not, Putin is pretty smart, ruthless and unafraid.
So is the Cold War dead as Obama and Clinton have assured us in the past or is ramping up again as Clinton has just warned ?
If it isn't dead (at least some are very busy resurrecting it), then some people will be able to make lots of money again... (Are there already F-45, F-55s on the drawing boards?)
Official Washington is in deep umbrage over Russia’s intervention in Ukraine after a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the democratically elected president. Some top neocons want a new Cold War, but they don’t want anyone to note their staggering hypocrisy, writes Robert Parry.
BTW, La Clinton could also have talked to the "Boys and Girls Club" about Pres. Polk and Texas/Mexico, but that would be embarrassing I guess, and no way to electioneer early.
Kathryn Stoner, a Russia expert at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, told AP that Clinton’s comparison was a little over-the-top. She said Putin “doesn't look like he is intent on spreading across the Ukraine and permanently occupying this area.” (...)
As predicted, and not the first, nor the last time, we'll hear that one being used...
I'll just have to disagree with her assessment. Timing is everything. Imo, Putin wishes to reconstruct as much of the USSR as possible. There will never be a better time to do it than now and there is nothing stopping him from doing so other than internal Russian factions. Like him or not, Putin is pretty smart, ruthless and unafraid.
So is the Cold War dead as Obama and Clinton have assured us in the past or is ramping up again as Clinton has just warned ?
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has likened President Putin’s stance on Ukraine to tactics used by Hitler in the 1930s. Clinton claims Russia is trying to “re-Sovietize” it neighbors in a move that “threatens (the) peace of Europe.”
In her first public statement on the situation in Ukraine, Clinton criticized the Russian president over his policy of protection of minorities in Ukraine as a guise for intervention. Targeting alleged Russia’s decision to issue passports to citizens in Crimea, Clinton compared the move to tactics adopted by Adolf Hitler.
“That is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s, when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe," she said at a private event benefiting the Boys & Girls Clubs of Long Beach on Tuesday.
The Russian government has, in fact, offered passports to members of the Ukrainian riot police Berkut who have been threatened by lynch mobs, though later Russia’s Consul General in Simferopol, Vyacheslav Svetlichny, said he did not exclude the possibility of Russian passports being issued to Ukrainian citizens.
Following her speech, Clinton denied she made a direct comparison to Hitler, arguing that Putin’s actions were “reminiscent” of the rhetoric used by Nazi Germany when they moved on Poland, Czechoslovakia and other parts of Europe. The potential presidential candidate said she just wanted everyone to have a little “historic perspective.”
“I am not making a comparison, certainly. But I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before," she said. Clinton added that Putin’s policy of “re-Sovietizing” the countries surrounding Russia is having a negative effect on development in Russia and threatens peace across Europe.
Clinton is not the first politician to make the comparison. Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird and his Czech counterpart, Karel Schwarzenberg, have both drawn parallels with Nazi Germany.
Kathryn Stoner, a Russia expert at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, told AP that Clinton’s comparison was a little over-the-top. She said Putin “doesn't look like he is intent on spreading across the Ukraine and permanently occupying this area.” (...)
As predicted, and not the first, nor the last time, we'll hear that one being used...
A must read!
