Blog Archives

Washington-financed regime change: the narrative absent from Western mainstream reports about events in Ukraine

This perceptive remark was made by Jan Oberg in an article first published on the site of the Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research  and reproduced by Nato Watch.

Many people who know little about the country will be feeling totally confused about events in Ukraine and uneasy about the media ‘feed’.

Jan Oberg asks:

  • When did the West begin to see Ukraine as an interesting country?
  • Why did George Bush Sr. and James Baker promise Mikhail Gorbachev that the West would never expand up to Russia’s border?

jan oberg3Oberg’s remarks that NATO began being an issue in Ukraine in 1995 prompted a search. Wikipedia gives a detailed overview and even those who criticise it could hardly discount many of the sources given.

However, though another search found several references to a promise made in 1990 by George Bush Senior and James Baker to President Gorbachev that if he agreed to the reunification of Germany, NATO would move no farther east towards Russia’s boundaries, as yet no ‘hard’ evidence has been found to support them.

The absent narrative

Oberg continues: “One narrative is absent in all Western mainstream reports: that of Washington-financed regime change. Throughout the Internet you can find reports on covert action, informal diplomacy and massive funding from U.S. institution aiming to achieve what has just happened . . . and we know how Assistant Sec of State Victoria Nuland – a neo-conservative – interacted over the phone with Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador in Kiev – the famous “Fuck EU” tape (transcript)”.

Oberg surveys opinion polls which do not uphold the media implication that the Ukrainian opposition and most others strongly dislike Russia; he asks: “So if these polls are worth anything and if we respect democracy why has the West – US/NATO/EU – been pushing for Ukraine to come over to “us” instead?”

More useful questions:

  • Is the already crisis-ridden EU really able to take on one more hugely problematic country?
  • Does anyone think Russia can be convinced that all NATO does is in Russia’s best interest – even this? Even the Ballistic Missile Defence?

Many readers will share his ‘nagging feeling’: “It’s all so much more complicated than we are told . . . There are not two parties to the Ukraine conflict – not only a government and its oppositional people, there is a mosaic of complexities that can only be untied and stabilised through dialogues and attempts to understand and – well, stop power games including undermining democratically elected governments”.

 .

Meanwhile Britain does its bit for the ‘special relationship’ . . .

The UK Missile Defence Centre (MDC) was established by the Ministry of Defence in 2003 following signature of a Memorandum of Understanding with the US for the conduct of collaborative ballistic defence studies.

Largely funded by the Chief Scientific Adviser’s S&T research programme (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory), the MDC – in collaboration with its industry partners – announced a programme to explore the potential of the Royal Navy’s destroyers to conduct Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence missions.

missile defence sea viperSix months later, building on the Ministry of Defence’s relationship with the US Missile Defense Agency, the MDC also agreed to take part in a trial which will test the Sampson radar, part of the Sea Viper missile system, in detecting and tracking ballistic targets.

In September Sea Ceptor missiles were ordered to complement the longer range Sea Viper system (left) on the Type 45 destroyers, providing the Royal Navy with a full range of missile systems to defeat current and future threats.

As no other states appear to be interested in attacking Britain and the current UK threat level for international terrorism is ‘SUBSTANTIAL’, according to MI5 is taxpayers’ money being completely wasted on expensive missile systems?

.