Prof. Stephen Cohen On Ukraine: “America Has Blood On Its Hands.”

 

Posted on September 7, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

Book4United States Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies Stephen Cohen appeared recently on “Democracy Now” and spoke about the situation in Ukraine. Among some of his statements in this very informative interview, he said:

“In my own judgment, we (United States) have contributed mightily to this tragedy. I would say that historians one day will look back and say that America has blood on its hands. Three thousand people have died, most of them civilians who couldn’t move quickly – that’s women with small children, older women. A million refugees. Nobody else should die for absolutely no reason”.

U.S. President Barack Obama spoke in Britain during the recent NATO meeting and said:

“It was not the government of Kiev that destabilized the Eastern Ukraine. It’s been the pro-Russian separatists who are encouraged by Russia, financed by Russia, trained by Russia, supplied by Russia, and armed by Russia. And the Russian forces that have now moved into Ukraine are not on a humanitarian mission or peacekeeping mission. They are Russian combat forces, with Russian weapons, in Russian tanks. (emphasis added)”

Professor Cohen said America has blood on its hands; Barack Obama hasn’t admitted that. So, what is the real deal; what is the truth? After Democracy Now ran the clip of President Obama and his speech, Stephen Cohen responded:

“What Obama just said implies, if not asserts, is that if it wasn’t for Russia, Ukraine would be stable. That Russia’s destabilized Ukraine. No serious person would believe that to be the case. Ukraine is in the throes of a civil war which was precipitated by the political crisis which occurred last November and this February, when the elected President of Ukraine was overthrown by a street mob, and that set off a civil war – primarily between the West (including Kiev) and the East”.

Professor Cohen goes on to explain that the civil war became a proxy war between the United States and Russia, and that if both left the scene, the civil war would still remain. Both the United States and Russia have contributed to Ukraine’s destabilization, and, according to Cohen, “when Obama says Russia has destabilized Ukraine, it’s a half-truth”.

Democracy Now co-host Amy Goodman asks Cohen about the criticism he’s faced for speaking out in contradiction to Obama administration narratives on Ukraine, and he replied that he’d probably been slandered and libeled in published articles and on radio and television, but that nobody has corrected any of his facts. He went on: “These assertions by the United States that we’re a “democracy builder”, we’re virtuous, and it’s all Putin’s fault – this is worse than a half-truth, it’s actually a falsehood”.

Ms. Goodman started asking him about Ukraine possibly joining NATO, and, before she finished her question, Cohen said, “It’s war”.

Moving on to the NATO proposal for a rapid response force – a “spearhead” – Cohen stated:

“Fifteen thousand or less rebels in Ukraine are crushing a 50,000-member Ukrainian army. Four thousand against a million-man Russian army is nonsense. The real reason for creating this so-called rapid deployment force is they save the infrastructure, and the infrastructure – that is, in plain language, military bases – need to be on Russia’s borders, and they’ve said where they’re going to put them. The Baltic Republics, Poland, and Romania. The last Cold War the military confrontation was in Berlin – far from Russia. Now it will be – if they go ahead with this NATO decision – right plunk on Russia’s borders”.

If this occurs, according to Professor Cohen, Russia will leave the first agreement ever abolishing a category of nuclear missiles – short-range nuclear missiles – after a historic agreement signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. At this point in the interview, Mr. Cohen asks where the anti-nuclear groups of the world are, and why they aren’t becoming very outspoken and extremely active now.

The interview then focuses on the unthinkable scenario of a nuclear exchange, the possible events which could start one, and MH17… “about which everyone has forgotten. Still, nobody knows who did it. There seems to have been an agreement among the major powers not to tell us who did it, which suggests it wasn’t the rebels – it wasn’t Russia after all. But it would take something like that (shoot-down of MH17), which can happen in these circumstances, to launch something”.

Amy Goodman asks about the nations conducting the investigation into MH17:

“The major countries that are doing it are Britain that has the black boxes and others. There was a report the other day that those parties, those states, agreed that they would not divulge individually what they have discovered. Now, they’ve had plenty of time to interpret the black boxes. There are reports from Germany that the White House version of what happened is not true, therefore you have to look elsewhere for the culprit who did the shooting down. They’re sitting on satellite intercepts. They have the images. They won’t release the air controllers conversations in Kiev with the doomed aircraft. Why not? Did the pilot say, let me speculate, “Oh, my God! We’re being fired on by a jet fighter next to us! What’s going on?” Because we know there were two Ukrainian jet fighters. We don’t know. But somebody knows”.

“That’s a digression. I apologize”. End of interview.

If one looks up “digress” in their dictionary, it says “v. wander from main purpose, theme, etc”. It may have been the case that Ms. Goodman and Professor Cohen had agreed before the interview on the topics of discussion, and that MH17 was not one of them. Given the profound world-changing nature of discovering that Ukraine was behind the shooting down of MH17 and the deaths of 298 passengers and crew – and not the rebels or Russia – Professor Cohen’s talking about MH17 is about a major issue of the Ukraine civil war.

In other words, he had no reason for making an apology whatsoever.

Take some moments and ponder on exactly how stupendous an announcement to the world would be disclosure that Ukraine shot down MH17, after the virtual non-stop government and media accusations that Eastern Ukraine rebels and/or Russia were responsible. The August 2013 chemical attacks which the United States falsely blamed on Syria were since revealed carried out by mercenaries as a pretext for a bombing campaign by the US/UK and others. That bombing campaign became prevented in part because a lot of men and women around the Earth learned of that “false flag” event. Russia’s Vladimir Putin played a part in preventing escalation of war on Syria when helping to negotiate for eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons stocks. Another important event was the British Parliament’s “no” vote on war against Syria; an unprecedented action for that nation.

The “false flag” aspect of the Syria chemical attacks, because the world breathed a lot easier when war became averted, became largely forgotten and never reported in the western press/media.

There would be a colossal difference between the affect on international public opinion after the Syria “false flag” chemical attacks of August 2013 and – if it turns out to indeed have been the case – a “false flag” carried out by the Ukrainian government in the shooting down of Malaysian airliner MH17 in July 2014. The percentage of human beings in the world who today are aware that the August 2013 Syria chemical attacks were a “false flag” operation could be in the range of 10-20%.

So, Professor Cohen, you had no reason to apologize. You were absolutely justified to ask “why not?” after pointing out the silence and stonewalling surrounding the investigation into MH17, and saying that “somebody knows”.

If the Ukrainian government attempted a “false flag” operation in shooting down MH17 – and if the evidence proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt – then 100% of the human race will know.

****

(Thank you to democracynow at YouTube)

U.N. Truth Commission / MH17 Coverup / UNSC Calls For Ceasefire.

Posted on August 29, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

blogger7-1The United Nations must form a permanent Truth Commission. The purpose of such a group would be just as its name implies: truth. In the year 2014, when one UN ambassador representing a permanent member state on the Security Council accuses another UN Security Council permanent member state of lying, the wisdom of establishing a Truth Commission becomes absolutely clear.

This refers to the United States and the Russian Federation. US Ambassador Samantha Power two days ago accused Russia of perpetually lying on Ukraine, and as a result the world’s people have disappointingly and unwillingly been placed in a state of confusion and lack of certainty about what has actually occurred in Ukraine. At the same emergency meeting of the Security Council, Russia’s ambassador Vitaly Churkin asked the Ukraine Ambassador why his government had not released the information contained on “black boxes” from downed Malaysian airliner MH17.

It seems strange that in the year 2014 meetings of the UN Security Council could display near name-calling. A permanent UN Truth Commission would be switched on when any member state requests an investigation into what that member state believes was a falsehood publicly made during UN meetings. Member states would make the same request if they believed falsehood was publicly disseminated outside the UN to the international media. In 2014 a civilized world can no longer tolerate any instance of false information being presented to citizens in any nation – for the simple reason it is dangerous, extremely risky, and in essence morally wrong.

Because this site is “The Oneness of Humanity” and does not agree with the philosophical concepts behind “sides”, some examples from both the United States and Russian Federation perspective are instructive as they relate to a UN Truth Commission. Before examples, as one who has in humility read a number of articles on Ukraine and listened to talk shows on internet sites, radio and television, it is obvious the benefit of a UN Truth Commission would be tremendously increased public understanding of facts on issues of great importance typical of UN undertakings and goals.

For those who share the practice of reading comments sections following articles and the range of news productions, it is not difficult to imagine the “before and after” status of quality in those comments when a UN Truth Commission becomes established and operational. If such a commission had become established decades ago, the UN’s website section “Truth Commission: Current Actions and Archives” would now be the most reliable, go-to place for truth-seeking men and women around the Earth.

Directly to the point, a UN Truth Commission would quickly become recognized the world over as perhaps the institution’s greatest achievement and most beneficial asset. No longer would falsehood and deception emanating from UN members negatively affect the thinking of people living around the world. Eliminated would be actions taken by people who have been given false information, made plans based on false information, then carried out those plans – harming small to large numbers of innocent men, women, and children in the process.

Many are familiar with certain radio talk-show hosts who attract listeners capable of becoming motivated to act from information presented to them during controversial broadcasts. The same scenario pertains at the UN when disputed statements remain unresolved, and lingering active in the public’s awareness. The great potential of the UN remains out of reach while the problem of unresolved disputes of truth and falsehood – among other reforms – is not wisely addressed. A Truth Commission would go a long way in solving this major institutional, erroneous public awareness problem.

For example, on Ms. Power’s assertion of Russian lying about events in Ukraine: the United States could have sought the UN Truth Commission’s help in determining the facts upon the first instance of Ukraine debate where the US thought Russia publicly stated a falsehood. For example, on Mr. Churkin’s assertion of US’ lying after MH17 crashed – that pro-federalists in Eastern Ukraine or Russia was responsible – Russia could have sought the UN Truth Commission’s help in determining the facts upon the first UN or media instance where Russia felt the US stated such a falsehood.

Public demands for the truth about MH17 have been stonewalled, suggesting a profound criminal coverup

Suggesting a “profound criminal coverup” on MH17 is certainly a bold action, yet those who are conducting the investigation can straighten out any disputes concerning a possible coverup by speaking to the international media. A very large number of men and women around the world are demanding answers, and authorities in charge of the investigation – by speaking to the press even before concluding their work – have a moral responsibility to discuss the concerns of those who feel there is something not right in the search for who did it.

Samantha Power mentioned MH17 during her address to the UN Security Council two days ago, implying Russia’s guilt in shooting down the airliner. When Mr. Churkin asked Ukraine’s ambassador to explain the delay in public announcement of Ukraine’s findings during its investigation of MH17, Ukraine’s ambassador replied by saying a report is under preparation and will become public in the near future. Those who’ve been following developments in the investigation of MH17 have become aware that western media outlets and political leaders for weeks now have been suspiciously silent, and of many explosive reports pointing to the Ukrainian government in Kiev as the guilty party in the shoot down where 298 passengers perished.

Samantha Power was implying Russia’s guilt in shooting down the airliner, and Vitaly Churkin implied stalling or coverup in the investigation of MH17 by Ukrainian officials – at the same Security Council meeting.

In the months of war in Eastern Ukraine, where Kiev’s army has used a bombing campaign almost identical to Israel’s “collective punishment” of Gazans, the UN reports some 2,600 Ukrainians have perished. The “Maidan Massacre” of February 2014 – where over 100 police and civilians became shot dead by sniper fire – remains an unsolved mass murder with no guilty persons behind bars. MH17 remains an unsolved mass murder with no guilty persons behind bars.

The combined death toll in Ukraine since November 2013, when protests began in Kiev, is more than 3,000.  Some estimate a higher number, perhaps 10,000 to 15,000. Estimates of 100,000 to 1 million in Eastern Ukraine have become refugees after leaving their homes due to bombing, violent battles, cutoffs of water and electricity from infrastructure destruction, and food shortages.

In the following interview on Democracy Now, Jonathan Steele suggests a simple step Barack Obama can take to de-escalate the violence in Ukraine: guarantee the Russians that Ukraine will not join NATO for ten to twenty years. He reminds viewers – in response to a question about satellite images claimed as evidence of a Russian invasion – of Colin Powell’s presenting false satellite images of Iraq WMD operations, so Mr. Steele can’t say whether images of Russian military movements inside Ukraine are fake or not. He leaves that to the experts.

There are a number of theories about what has really occurred in Ukraine, with geopolitical analysts and journalists around the world offering well-researched investigative reports. Ukraine is a large country with vast agricultural, energy, and mineral wealth. Given legal movements which have opened up Ukraine for extractive operations in the country to powerful multinational corporations – exemplified in US Vice-President Joseph Biden’s son Hunter being named legal head and member of the Board of Directors at Ukraine’s largest private energy company Burisma Holdings – people are certain money from natural resources is the basis of the Ukraine crisis.

Some analysts see Ukraine simply being looted. Is it possible billionaire oligarchs who want to both profit from Eastern Ukraine’s natural resource wealth – mainly large natural gas fields – and carry out other geopolitical aims are desperately creating pretexts for accelerated, escalated bombing and killing to gain total control – before the world learns the truth about Malaysian airliner MH17?

Until the United Nations establishes such an invaluable arm, that and other paramount questions are  left to humanity’s truth commission.

****

(Thank you to democracynow at YouTube)