Libya suffered from an order out of chaos plan. A similar design on Russia’s frontier is now underway
Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com February 22, 2014
Back in 2011 the Party of Regions warned that if left unchecked the globalist financier George Soros would unleash a “Libyan scenario” on Ukraine.
“I even have information that Soros has allocated certain funds in order to prepare a certain group of young boys here in Ukraine who could launch any existing projects based on the North Africa examples,” said Aleksandr Yefremov, head of the Party of Regions parliamentary faction.
A “certain group of young boys,” namely violent gun-toting hooligans from the Right Sector and associated neofascist groups, are reportedly in control of Kyiv as of Saturday. Members of 31st Hundred, an opposition group from Lviv, were said to be in control of Ukraine’s Parliament building, The New York Times reports, and the president, Viktor Yanukovych, has fled the capitol. Protesters have taken control of his home.
The United States and NATO supported mercenaries in Libya who overthrew the government and murdered its leader, Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi. Libya is now paralyzed by factional, regional, tribal and ideological divisions, a fate Ukraine now confronts as stores are looted, cash machines emptied, and a mass exodus departs the capitol for Odessa, Simferopol and Kharkov, Ukrainian cities largely loyal to the government and less affected by the turmoil, according to Russia Today.
In 2008 the now imprisoned former prime minister, Yulia Timoshenko, talked about the role George Soros played in Ukrainian politics and the advice he gave following the financial crisis.
“This raised suspicions that through such advice George Soros could influence the rate of the Ukrainian national currency in his own speculative interests. Several officials from president Yushchenko’s administration said they wanted to launch a probe into Soros’ Ukrainian activities, but it did not happen,” RT.com reported in 2011.
In 2010 the Ukrainian State Security Service began monitoring the activities of the Soros sponsored and funded Vozrozdeniye (“Renaissance”) foundation and its connection to other NGOs operating in the country. The investigation did not produce actionable results.
In response to the accusations leveled by Aleksandr Yefremov, the Soros Foundation “said in a special statement that all funds allocated for Ukrainian programs are being spent on the development of the open and democratic society and also for helping Ukrainian citizens, who suffered from the effects of the international financial crisis.”
In January we reported on the cynical attempt by Soros to undermine Ukraine and other nations in the Russian Federation. Soros’ Open Society Institute, now known as Open Society Foundations (OSF), doles out grants to activist NGOs in central Europe and builds upon and continues the work of the Ford Foundation. Since the early 1950s, the CIA has used the Ford Foundation as a funding cover. Soros and a handful of U.S. organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy destabilize and overthrow governments, tasks formerly accomplished by the CIA.
The destabilization of the Ukrainian government is part of an ongoing geostrategic move by the globalists to undermine any challenge to their hegemonic designs. Libya suffered the result of what is essentially an order out of chaos plan. A similar plan on Russia’s frontier is now underway.
- Soros Supported Protests Turn Violent in Ukraine
- The Truth About The Ukraine Crisis
- Ukraine set to outlaw Nato bases after Russian threats
- Soros Activists Take Over Ukrainian Government Buildings
- Soros-funded leftist group pushes internet control
“In the case of Ukraine, we observe the same combination of work by Western-backed non-governmental organisations, the media and the secret services. The non-governmental organisations played a huge role in de-legitimising the elections before they occurred. Allegations of widespread fraud were constantly repeated. In other words, the street protests which broke out after the second round, which Yanukovich won, were based on allegations which had been flying around before the beginning of the first round. The main NGO behind these allegations, the Committee of Ukrainian Voters, receives not one penny from Ukrainian voters, being instead fully funded by Western governments. Its office was decorated with pictures of Madeleine Albright and indeed the National Democratic Institute was one of its main affiliates. It pumped out constant propaganda against Yanukovich.
During the events themselves, I was able to document some of the propaganda abuses. They involved mainly the endless repetition of electoral fraud practised by the government; the constant cover-up of fraud practised by the opposition; the frenetic selling of Viktor Yushchenko, one of the most boring men in the world, as a charismatic politician; and the ridiculously unlikely story that he had been deliberately poisoned by his enemies. (No prosecutions have been brought to date on this.) The fullest account of the propaganda and fraud is given by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group’s report, “Ukraine’ Clockwork Orange Revolution.”
An interesting explanation of the role played by the secret services was also given in The New York Times by C. J. Chivers who explained that the Ukrainian KGB had been working for Yushchenko all along – in collaboration with the Americans of course. Other important articles on the same subject include Jonathan Mowat’s “The New Gladio in Action: Washington’s New World Order ‘Democratization’ Template,” which details how military doctrine has been adapted to effect political change, and how various instruments, from psychology to bogus opinion polls, are used in it. Mowat is particularly interesting on the theories of Dr. Peter Ackerman, the author of Strategic Non-Violent Conflict (Praeger, 1994) and of a speech entitled “Between Hard and Soft Power: the Rise of Civilian-Based Struggle and Democratic Change,” delivered at the State Department in June 2004. Mowat is also excellent on the psychology of crowds and its use in these putsches: he draws attention to the role of “swarming adolescents” and “rebellious hysteria” and traces the origins of the use of this for political purposes to the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s: that institute was created by the British Army as its psychological warfare arm after World War I and its illustrious alumni include Dr. David Owen, the former British Foreign Secretary and Dr. Radovan Karadžic, the former President of the Bosnian Serb Republic. Mowat recounts how the ideas formulated there by Fred Emery were taken up by one Dr. Howard Perlmutter, a professor of “Social Architecture’’ at the Wharton School, and a follower of Dr. Emery, (who) stressed that “rock video in Katmandu,” was an appropriate image of how states with traditional cultures could be destabilized, thereby creating the possibility of a “global civilization.” There are two requirements for such a transformation, he added, “building internationally committed networks of international and locally committed organizations,’’ and “creating global events” through “the transformation of a local event into one having virtually instantaneous international implications through mass-media.
A good dialogue: –
Russia battles with Europe over Ukraine
Ukraine this week continued its weeklong negotiations with the European Union over associate membership in, and the formation of a free trade agreement with, the bloc.
The week of April 10, Kyiv will begin intergovernmental negotiations with Moscow over economic and energy issues, which will be capped off by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s April 12 visit to Kyiv.
Both rounds of talks show that the economic competition over Ukraine is heating up between Russia and the European Union.
Ukraine is important to the Europeans, but it is crucial to Russia, for reasons transcending economic and trade ties. In the battle for influence over Ukraine, the Russians have an advantage, but Kyiv will continue entertaining both sides to extract as many concessions as it can.
Ukraine is an important country in terms of economy and size. It has the second largest population (45 million people) and economy ($136 billion) of all former Soviet states, trailing only Russia in both categories. These factors, along with its relatively high per-capita gross domestic product, make Ukraine an attractive market — and asset — to outside powers.
> Ukraine Map For Europe, Ukraine is most important for its location, particularly as a transit state for energy — roughly 25 percent of the European Union’s natural gas comes from Russia, and 80 percent of that gas transits Ukraine.
Ukraine’s transit role is likewise important to Russia, but Russia also values Ukraine because of other economic industries, like steel and agriculture, that have served as vital inputs for Russia’s economy from the Soviet era to the present.
But Russia’s interests in Ukraine go beyond the economic sphere. Ukraine is also important for military reasons; the Ukrainian city of Sevastopol is the headquarters for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine’s strategic location as a borderland between Russia and Europe and its proximity to Russia’s own breadbasket and economic heartland in the Volga region make the country key to Russia’s geopolitical strength and, ultimately, its survival.
A strong Russia allied with Ukraine gives Moscow confidence and strength, particularly in dealing with Europe, while a Russia without Ukraine is weak to its core.