Who makes money from Victoria Nuland?
I recommend friends and readers to study the following article written 24.01.22 by Anton Chaitkin who takes a long view of America’s history of warmongering.
Here are a couple of quotes from historian Chaitkin’s article:
“The gravest danger now comes from America abandoning its own historic mission, which is to elevate the common man. [….] Over the past half century since Kennedy’s death, the United States, guided by a transatlantic war-making faction, has launched war after war, winning nothing and bringing chaos and suffering to countless millions.”
“President Kennedy fired top officials (Allen Dulles, CIA, and Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, Pentagon) who treacherously sabotaged U.S. peace policy. As he was working to prevent full-scale war in Vietnam, and seeking diplomatic ties with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Kennedy was murdered.”
“America changed course after Kennedy’s murder. We gave up our industries and lost our skills. We gave power to unaccountable Globalist financiers. Their speculation and deindustrialization have bankrupted the Western world.”
One of the people who represents this American rush to perpetual war is Victoria Nuland, a person whose policy failures under Bush and Cheney and Obama make her uniquely unqualified for her current job as Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the State Department. Why are America’s political elites never held accountable for their failures? Is it because they work for unaccountable Globalist finance?
Who does Nuland work for, really? Daughter of a man who was born in Ukraine, Nuland is not working for peace. So follow the money: is she working for war? Who profits from Victoria Nuland’s war-mongering in president Biden’s State Department? The answer appears to be the weapons industry and the Pentagon. BlazeTrends calls her “a lobbyist for the main arms-producing companies in her country, including General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and other corporations whose profits grow in proportion to the warmongering of United States foreign policy”
https://blazetrends.com/victoria-nuland-a-shadowy-character-in-the-ukraine-crisis/
If you like Cold War Warriors with anti-Russian attitudes held over from the 1980s (SLATE says she is stuck in the 1950s), Nuland is your scowling idea of the perfect diplomat. The following January 2021 article in SLATE described Nuland as a “Cold War true believer who sabotaged Obama's foreign policy, Nuland is a huge risk at the State Department. …. from 2003 to 2005, during the hostile U.S. military occupation of Iraq, Nuland was a foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of the Bush administration.”
“ Anyone who can convince you to believe absurdities, can convince you to commit atrocities.”
What’s not to like? Judging from Nuland’s past career, there is not much to like. https://www.salon.com/2021/01/19/who-is-victoria-nuland-a-really-bad-idea-as-a-key-player-in-bidens-foreign-policy-team/
Nuland is married to neo-con journalist Robert Kagan. She was the anti-heroine of a leaked four-minute audio where she said "Fuck the EU" during a February 2014 call with Geoffrey Pyatt, US ambassador to Ukraine - a call seemingly about a US plot to replace elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych. In due course, the corrupt Yanukovich departed in a “coup” apparently involving Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and Right Sector militia…. people who applauded the massacre of Jews during World War II. With Nuland’s unsavoury friends, she is escalating tensions with Russia.
U.S. allies in Ukraine, with NATO, Azov Battalion and neo-Nazi flags. [Photo by russia-insider.com]
From TRANSCEND peace journalism comes an article that reminds us how dangerous is this Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs: https://www.transcend.org/tms/2022/02/the-usa-is-reaping-what-it-sowed-in-ukraine/
The following article from TRANSCEND TMS was written by Medea Benjamin, cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace author of several books, with Nicolas J. S. Davies.
The USA Is Reaping what It Sowed in Ukraine
31 Jan 2022 – So what are North Americans to believe about the rising tensions over Ukraine? The United States and Russia both claim their escalations are defensive, responding to threats and escalations by the other side, but the resulting spiral of escalation can only make war more likely. Ukrainian President Zelensky is warning that “panic” by U.S. and Western leaders is already causing economic destabilization in Ukraine.
U.S. allies do not all support the current U.S. policy. Germany is wisely refusing to funnel more weapons into Ukraine, in keeping with its long-standing policy of not sending weapons into conflict zones. Ralf Stegner, a senior Member of Parliament for Germany’s ruling Social Democrats, told the BBC on January 25th that the Minsk-Normandy process agreed to by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in 2015 is still the right framework for ending the civil war.
“The Minsk Agreement hasn’t been applied by both sides,” Stegner explained, “and it just doesn’t make any sense to think that forcing up the military possibilities would make it better. Rather, I think it’s the hour of diplomacy.”
By contrast, most U.S. politicians and corporate media have fallen in line with a one-sided narrative that paints Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine, and they support sending more and more weapons to Ukrainian government forces. After decades of U.S. military disasters based on such one-sided narratives, North Americans should know better by now. But what is it that our leaders and the corporate media are not telling us this time?
The most critical events that have been airbrushed out of the West’s political narrative are the violation of agreements Western leaders made at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014.
Western mainstream media accounts date the crisis in Ukraine back to Russia’s 2014 reintegration of Crimea, and the decision by ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine to secede from Ukraine as the audio recording of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt working on their plans, which included sidelining the European Union (“Fuck the EU,” as Nuland put it) and shoehorning in U.S. protege Arseniy Yatsenyuk (“Yats”) as Prime Minister.
At the end of the call, Ambassador Pyatt told Nuland, “…we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing.”
Victoria Nuland, the Coup Plotter. So keen was Nuland to support the Ukranian “democracy” she was busy “arranging” to her own designs, that she was happy to be photographed campaigning in the streets of Kiev, Ukraine’s capital. Who says the USA does not interfere in other nations’ politics?
Nuland replied (verbatim), “So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note, [Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake] Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [very quickly?], saying you need [Vice President] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details?] to stick. So Biden’s willing.”
It has never been explained why two senior State Department officials who were plotting a regime change in Ukraine looked to Vice President Biden to “midwife this thing,” instead of to their own boss, Secretary of State John Kerry.
Now that the crisis over Ukraine has blown up with a vengeance during Biden’s first year as president, such unanswered questions about his role in the 2014 coup have become more urgent and troubling. And why did President Biden appoint Nuland to the # 4 position at the State Department, despite (or was it because of?) her critical role in triggering the disintegration of Ukraine and an eight-year-long civil war that has so far killed at least 14,000 people?
Both of Nuland’s hand-picked puppets in Ukraine, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and President Poroshenko, were soon mired in corruption scandals. Yatsenyuk was forced to resign after two years and Poroshenko was outed in a tax evasion scandal revealed in the Panama Papers. Post-coup, war-torn Ukraine remains the poorest country in Europe, and one of the most corrupt.
The Ukrainian military had little enthusiasm for a civil war against its own people in Eastern Ukraine, so the post-coup government formed new “National Guard” units to assault the separatist People’s Republics. The infamous Azov Battalion drew its first recruits from the Right Sector militia and openly displays neo-Nazi symbols, yet it has kept receiving U.S. arms and training, even after Congress explicitly cut off its U.S. funding in the FY2018 Defense Appropriation bill.
In 2015, the Minsk and Normandy negotiations led to a ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy weapons from a buffer zone around the separatist-held areas. Ukraine agreed to grant greater autonomy to Donetsk, Luhansk and other ethnically Russian areas of Ukraine, but it has failed to follow through on that.
A federal system, with some powers devolved to individual provinces or regions, could help to resolve the all-or-nothing power struggle between Ukrainian nationalists and Ukraine’s traditional ties to Russia that has dogged its politics since independence in 1991.
But the U.S. and NATO’s interest in Ukraine is not really about resolving its regional differences, but about something else altogether. The U.S. coup was calculated to put Russia in an impossible position. If Russia did nothing, post-coup Ukraine would sooner or later join NATO, as NATO members already agreed to in principle in 2008. NATO forces would advance right up to Russia’s border and Russia’s important naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea would fall under NATO control.
On the other hand, if Russia had responded to the coup by invading Ukraine, there would have been no turning back from a disastrous new Cold War with the West. To Washington’s frustration, Russia found a middle path out of this dilemma, by accepting the result of Crimea’s referendum to rejoin Russia, but only giving covert support to the separatists in the East.
In 2021, with Nuland once again installed in a corner office at the State Department, the Biden administration quickly cooked up a plan to put Russia in a new pickle. The United States had already given Ukraine $2 billion in military aid since 2014, and Biden has added another $650 million to that, along with deployments of U.S. and NATO military trainers.
Ukraine has still not implemented the constitutional changes called for in the Minsk agreements, and the unconditional military support the United States and NATO have provided has encouraged Ukraine’s leaders to effectively abandon the Minsk-Normandy process and simply reassert sovereignty over all of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea.
In practice, Ukraine could only recover those territories by a major escalation of the civil war, and that was exactly what Ukraine and its NATO backers appeared to be preparing for in March 2021. But that prompted Russia to begin moving troops and conducting military exercises, within its own territory (including Crimea), but close enough to Ukraine to deter a new offensive by Ukrainian government forces.
In October, Ukraine launched new attacks in Donbass. Russia, which still had about 100,000 troops stationed near Ukraine, responded with new troop movements and military exercises. U.S. officials launched an information warfare campaign to frame Russia’s troop movements as an unprovoked threat to invade Ukraine, concealing their own role in fueling the threatened Ukrainian escalation that Russia is responding to. U.S. propaganda has gone so far as to preemptively dismiss any actual new Ukrainian assault in the East as a Russian false-flag operation.
Underlying all these tensions is NATO’s expansion through Eastern Europe to the borders of Russia, in violation of commitments Western officials made at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. and NATO’s refusal to acknowledge that they have violated those commitments or to negotiate a diplomatic resolution with the Russians is a central factor in the breakdown of U.S.-Russian relations.
While U.S. officials and corporate media are scaring the pants off North Americans and Europeans with tales of an impending Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials are warning that U.S.-Russian relations are close to the breaking point. If the United States and NATO are not prepared to negotiate new disarmament treaties, remove U.S. missiles from countries bordering Russia and dial back NATO expansion, Russian officials say they will have no option but to respond with “appropriate military-technical reciprocal measures.”
This expression may not refer to an invasion of Ukraine, as most Western commentators have assumed, but to a broader strategy that could include actions that hit much closer to home for Western leaders.
For example, Russia could place short-range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad (between Lithuania and Poland), within range of European capitals; it could establish military bases in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other friendly countries; and it could deploy submarines armed with hypersonic nuclear missiles to the Western Atlantic, from where they could destroy Washington, D.C. in a matter of minutes.
It has long been a common refrain among U.S. activists to point to the 800 or so U.S. military bases all over the world and ask, “How would North Americans like it if Russia or China built military bases in Mexico or Cuba?” Well, we may be about to find out.
Hypersonic nuclear missiles off the U.S. East Coast would put the United States in a similar position to that in which NATO has placed the Russians. China could adopt a similar strategy in the Pacific to respond to U.S. military bases and deployments around its coast.
So the revived Cold War that U.S. officials and corporate media hacks have been mindlessly cheering on could very quickly turn into one in which the United States would find itself just as encircled and endangered as its enemies.
Will the prospect of such a 21st Century Cuban Missile Crisis be enough to bring U.S.A’s irresponsible leaders to their senses and back to the negotiating table, to start unwinding the suicidal mess they have blundered into? We certainly hope so.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BBC’s Jonathan Marcus commented 7 February 2014 on Nuland’s leaked phone-call and her vulgarity, which EU leaders diplomatically termed “unacceptable” (and which I consider not only unprofessional, but very typical of Americans who worked for George Bush and Dick Cheney): “The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this (phone) transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.”