USG falsely claims it defends the UN charter despite the War on Terror and the 2014 Ukraine coup
In this series I’ve been identifying and refuting the claims made in the National Security Strategy 2022. I refer to the NSS as the Sullivan & Biden NSS, even though it’s not known whether or not Biden’s National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, took part in writing the document.
Cultural Script. In the last essay I re-introduced the concept of the Cultural Script, a psychological phenomenon in which US policy and media makers believe the fictional drama that the USG is forever a noble hero rescuing innocent victims by inflicting violence upon an evil persecutor.
Belief in this Cultural Script is an indicator of a type of psychological immaturity that has not evolved past the fearful hatred of prejudice and the narrow ambitions of self-centeredness and that has not yet acquired 360 degrees of empathy and an impartial drive to investigate and learn 360 degrees of truth.
Belief in this Cultural Script has severe consequences: it stunts the ability to grasp significant portions of truth about conflict—to see any validity in the so-called enemy and any fault in oneself, and therefore severely weakens the ability of the USG to create policies that effectively uphold peace, justice, democracy, and humanity. Unfortunately, Sullivan & Biden have once again juxtaposed this drama onto the pages of the NSS, with the USG, as usual, cast as the good guy, and Russia, China, and others cast as the evil persecutors. The result? An ineffective, exorbitantly costly, and unnecessarily antagonistic and deadly approach to foreign policy.
Double Standards. One of the ways in which the Cultural Script is upheld is by means of double standards: any action, no matter how violent or undemocratic, when taken by the USG is deemed sensible and noble, yet the same action, when taken by Russia, even when taken to a milder or less frequent degree, is considered an abominable outrage and cause for sanctions, proxy war, and a coup against Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. In some cases, the USG goes beyond double standards into pure psychological projection and flings blame onto Russia for behaviors and goals that actually belong solely to the USG.
Several NSS quotes exhibit these characteristics of double standards and projection. Below we’ll consider examples that pertain to the defense of the UN Charter and international law and I’ll refute the following claim:
Claim 9: The USG is helping Ukraine fight Russia because of the USG’s steadfast commitment to defending the UN Charter.
NSS Quotes. According to Sullivan & Biden’s NSS:
“Russia poses an immediate threat to the free and open international system, recklessly flouting the basic laws of international order today.”
“This is not about a struggle between the West and Russia. It is about fundamental principles of the UN Charter, which Russia is a party to, particularly respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition against acquiring territory through war.”
“The basic laws governing relations among nations, including the United Nations Charter and the protection it affords all states from being invaded by their neighbors or having their borders redrawn by force, are under attack.”
USG Violations of the UN Charter. NSS quotes fly in the face of reality. It was Putin himself who, in his 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference, condemned the West for its “disdain for the basic principles of international law” and “an almost uncontained hyper use of force” causing the killing of “hundreds of thousands of civilians.”
Did the West appreciate Putin’s defense of international law? Not at all! His speech gained for him the condemnation of the USG and its allies who indignantly declared that Putin was a rebel, his speech was notorious, and he seemed to be seeking a new Cold War.
In his February 24, 2022 speech, Putin again referred to the principles of international law and the UN charter violated by the USG and its coalition. Because the Western media falsely distorts his words and intentions, I like to include Putin’s quotes at length so you can hear and judge him for yourselves, not through the distorted filter of the Western media.
If Putin were saying one thing and doing another, then we would say that his words cannot be trusted. But the problem is, the Western media is not even accurately reporting on his words. They are alleging he is saying awful things that he, in fact, is not saying. If they need to lie about his words in order to have a case against him, perhaps there isn’t much of a case against him at all. Putin stated on February 24:
“First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasizing the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.
“Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of military power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security Council decisions on Libya ruined the state, created a huge seat of international terrorism, and pushed the country towards a humanitarian catastrophe, into the vortex of a civil war, which has continued there for years. The tragedy, which was created for hundreds of thousands and even millions of people not only in Libya but in the whole region, has led to a large-scale exodus from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe.
“A similar fate was also prepared for Syria. The combat operations conducted by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian government’s approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be defined as aggression and intervention.
“But the example that stands apart from the above events is, of course, the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds. They used the pretext of allegedly reliable information available in the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To prove that allegation, the US Secretary of State held up a vial with white powder, publicly, for the whole world to see, assuring the international community that it was a chemical warfare agent created in Iraq. It later turned out that all of that was a fake and a sham, and that Iraq did not have any chemical weapons. Incredible and shocking but true. We witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the high UN rostrum. As a result we see a tremendous loss in human life, damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.
“Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from only examples of disregard for international law.”
Many Americans would agree with Putin. Sullivan & Biden clamor about the sanctity of the UN Charter and their noble role to protect it, but, as Putin points out, just what was the USG’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, the direct killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the indirect killing of millions through war-related conditions such as disease, and the displacement of millions more Iraqis, if not a violation of the UN Charter? So why not condemn Bush Jr. for “recklessly flouting the basic laws of international order”?
Imagine the horror of learning that a person you love has been killed by a bomb, a semiautomatic weapon, or war-induced disease. And his beloved pet was killed too. His artwork was destroyed, his hobbies were crushed, his neighborhood obliterated, and his dreams vanished into thin air. His smile, laughter, kind words—gone forever. Just imagine that. Now multiply that by one million. That’s what the USG did to the Iraqi people. In violation of the UN Charter. With impunity.
The UN Security Council did not support the US invasion or occupation. A UN purpose, as stated in its preamble, is “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Why did the UN not make significant, persistent attempts to contain USG actions? Or did it, but we just didn’t hear about it?
A week before the US invasion of March 2003, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned the USG and its allies that the military action would violate the UN charter. A full year and a half later, he “declared explicitly for the first time. . . that the US-led war in Iraq was illegal.” He stated, “‘I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view is was illegal.’” As the Guardian reports, “Mr. Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war is legitimised by Security Council resolutions.”
And how can such silence be considered tactful when it betrays the UN Charter, all those who opposed the war, and all those who were targeted by it? Why no UN economic sanctions against the USG? Why no daily, vocal UN condemnation of US behavior? Why no international political isolation of US leaders? Why was Europe’s, Africa’s, and Asia’s airspace not closed off to American flights? Why no UN attempt to prosecute US President Bush Jr. and his cohorts? Why no limits placed on the influence of those lobbyists who pushed for war?
Compare the UN’s “tactful silence” to the walkout at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on March 2, 2022 when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was about to make a speech by video. He’d had to cancel his in-person appearance at the meeting when Europe closed its airspace to Russian aircraft. So here he was about to make his speech on human rights—no doubt he had much information about the human rights atrocities committed by the Ukraine government, ultranationalists, and neo-Nazis against the Ukrainians of Donetsk and Lugansk, and along comes the Ukraine Ambassador Yevheniia Filipenko who, in the spirit of not listening to enemies and not listening to other perspectives, led what was likely a previously planned walkout on his speech in protest of Russia’s military actions in Donetsk and Lugansk.
It was a clever way to get everyone to miss Lavrov’s accusations of human rights violations against Filipenko’s government. Filipenko, in thanking the more than 100 diplomats from about 40 nations who followed her out, touted the line that Ukrainians were “fighting for their independence.” Surprisingly, she seemed oblivious to the fact that Ukrainians of Donetsk and Lugansk have been fighting for their independence from Ukraine for the past eight years—since 2014. One would think a nation’s representative to the UN would be more informed, but unfortunately, the more I read about statements made at the UN, the more I find this level of intelligence to be rather typical of many nations’ delegates.
So why no walkout at the UN in 2003 in protest of the USG’s invasion of Iraq? Where was the UN when Iraqis most needed its help? It takes nine members of the Security Council to vote affirmatively in order to pass a resolution. Were there not nine members willing to condemn the invasion? Why not? Or did they figure the USG would veto it anyway?
If Bush Jr.’s going to get away with his Iraq War, then no American school student should ever be sent to the principal’s office again. Why should American children be punished for violating school rules when their president gets away with murdering millions?
And why no walkout in protest of the USG invasion of Afghanistan? Unbelievably, the UN actually supported the invasion of Afghanistan, even though such an invasion only inflicted damage and despair upon millions of people who didn’t deserve it, even though such an invasion completely ignored the roots of violence motivating the 9/11 al-Qaeda members, even though no al-Qaeda member was an Afghan, and even though such an invasion totally violated the UN Charter of peace by peaceful means. Why the double standards? Perhaps because the USG owns the UN?
Even if we toss aside and forget the millions of people who’ve died and the millions who’ve been displaced because of the USG’s War on Terror, just what were USG’s behaviors, including coups, attempted regime changes, and invasions, in Guatemala, Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Panama, and Nicaragua—to name only a few—if not violations of the UN Charter? What was the creation of a secret army in Burma used to attack China in the 1950s? What was the USG bombing of Cambodia and Laos in the 1970s? What was the NATO bombing in Serbia in the 1990s? These were all violations of the UN Charter!
What good is international law if it’s not enforced? Compare the UN’s “tactful silence” and years of non-action with the immediate UN General Assembly condemnation on March 2, 2022 of Russia’s military operation in Donetsk and Lugansk which began on February 24, 2022. You can tell who bends the UN and submerges the UN mission to serve the goals of one particular nation’s rulers. But why encourage the USG to feel all-powerful, above the law, unstoppable? Being “tactful” towards the USG should not come at the price of betraying millions of people and the UN Charter! Such tact is not tact but cowardice.
What Was the Role of the USG in Ukraine’s 2014 Coup?
Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
It was highly convenient that the USG agreed to this principle after it had seized all its current land through war with Native Americans, British, Mexicans, fellow Americans, and Hawaiians as well as additional territories from wars with Spaniards and Japanese. Even so, US invasions and bombing campaigns continue to brazenly violate this provision, as do US-facilitated coups, of which there have been dozens and dozens since at least 1953. Most US-facilitated coups have involved force; all have had the purpose of depriving other nations of their political independence and cancelling the effects of their democratic elections.
It’s easy to point fingers at Russia’s military actions as being threatening to “territorial integrity” because Russian troop actions are physical, tangible, visible to the eye. US propaganda can easily dismiss and omit Putin’s words and instead falsely interpret Russian military actions as “proof” that Russia wants to seize territory against the people’s will. But while Russia’s being framed as seeking empire, it’s well worth investigating whether the USG has been hard at work covertly sinking its talons into Ukraine.
There’s more than one way to deprive a nation of territorial integrity and political independence, and the USG is a master of behind-the-scenes covert ways, including bribes, threats, privatization, foreign election interference, and coups, all of which are followed by increasing US political, economic, and military control over another nation’s leadership.
The 800 USG military bases around the world aren’t there because the populations of foreign nations begged to have them there. Unless there were national votes in each of the host nations of which I’m unaware, these bases were imposed upon those populations whether they liked it or not through deals between the governments, deals that fail to take into consideration the will of the people. And that is a deprivation of territorial integrity and political independence.
To my awareness, every single US president who’s facilitated a foreign coup—made possible by the CIA and National Endowment for “Democracy,” has escaped condemnation by the UN. Why?
And why has the UN not investigated the role of the USG in the 2014 coup in Ukraine? Keep in mind, Russia would not be in Ukraine now if the USG had not supported—and perhaps facilitated—the 2014 undemocratic coup in Ukraine and its resulting installment of a pro-NATO leader.
Peaceful protests against Ukraine’s government and President Viktor Yanukovich began in November 2013 at Independence Square (Maidan), after Yanukovich decided not to sign onto the association agreement with the European Union (EU) and decided instead to create stronger ties with Russia. Thanks to the history of the CIA and NED’s past involvement in instigating protests and riots, it’s impossible to know whether these protests were genuine or triggered, in small or large part, by USG interference.
Certainly, there were valid reasons to be opposed to the Ukraine government’s corruption, but whether the majority of Ukrainians were angered about corruption or primarily about the decision to not join the EU is hard to determine without an honest survey. It’s also important to point out the conclusions of former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who read the entire association agreement: it was not merely an agreement to join the EU, it was an agreement to cooperate with NATO, even though the word NATO wasn’t literally spelled out. It was a military agreement cloaked as an economic agreement that would enable NATO to extend itself to the Russian border. Is this why the USG was angered when Yanukovich wouldn’t sign? Did the USG want Ukraine in NATO so it could get its base on the Black Sea?
Putin himself sympathized with what may have been the primary motivations of the protestors:
“I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder, and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.”
However, as Putin stated in his February 21, 2022 speech: “Maidan did not bring Ukraine any closer to democracy and progress.” He notes that the 2014 coup was essentially hijacked by violent ultranationalists, an observation made also by many alternative news US websites, sites that also suggested links between Ukrainian ultranationalists, the USG, and US private military contractors. Putin himself remarked:
“Radical nationalists took advantage of the justified public discontent and saddled the Maidan protest, escalating it to a coup d’état in 2014. They also had direct assistance from foreign states. According to reports, the US Embassy provided $1 million a day to support the so-called protest camp on Independence Square in Kiev. In addition, large amounts were impudently transferred directly to the opposition leaders’ bank accounts, tens of millions of dollars. But the people who actually suffered, the families of those who died in the clashes provoked in the streets and squares of Kiev and other cities, how much did they get in the end? Better not ask.”
With regard to standing up for democracy and sovereignty, Putin’s words clearly show his opposition to a US puppet government in Ukraine:
“It all came down to a Ukrainian economy in tatters and an outright pillage of the country’s citizens, while Ukraine itself was placed under external control, directed not only from the Western capitals, but also on the ground, as the saying goes, through an entire network of foreign advisors, NGOs and other institutions present in Ukraine. They have a direct bearing on all the key appointments and dismissals and on all branches of power at all levels, from the central government to municipalities, as well as on state-owned companies and corporations. . . .
“Are the Ukrainian people aware that this is how their country is managed? Do they realize that their country has turned not even into a political or economic protectorate but has been reduced to a colony with a puppet regime? The state was privatized. As a result, the government, which designates itself as the ‘power of patriots’ no longer acts in a national capacity and consistently pushed Ukraine towards losing its sovereignty.
“. . . There are more and more acts enabling the Ukrainian military and law enforcement agencies to suppress freedom of speech and dissent, and persecute the opposition. . . .”
In his July 2021 essay, Putin clearly states his fear that Ukraine’s government is representing, not Ukrainians, but Western profiteers and those who wish to use Ukraine as a tool for their own national interests, as a “springboard against Russia.” In his February 24, 2022 speech, Putin states to deaf American ears the reasons for Russia’s military action: “The current events have nothing to do with a desire to infringe on the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. They are connected with defending Russia from those who have taken Ukraine hostage and are trying to use it against our country and our people.”
According to Putin’s description, the coup was hijacked by violent far-right-wing protestors and then taken advantage of by the USG to sink its talons into Ukraine, likely, in my view, for the benefit of those US social and business circles who run our foreign policy.
Meanwhile, what was US President Barack Obama saying about the coup?
On February 20, 2014, in the midst of the Sniper’s Massacre in Ukraine, in which more than 50 people were killed, Democracy Now! included this quote of Obama’s from the day before while he was in Mexico:
“Our approach as the United States is not to see these as some Cold War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia. Our goal is to make sure that the people of Ukraine are able to make decisions for themselves about their future, that the people of Syria are able to make decisions without having bombs going off and killing women and children, or chemical weapons, or towns being starved, because a despot wants to cling to power.”
I’ll point out here that I’ll never understand why killing women is worse than killing men, as if men were disposable dishrags intended to be warriors to be conscripted, to kill, and to be killed. To me this attitude is blatantly sexist against males and is harmful to society and to the male identity and to foreign policy.
With regard to Obama, if he saw the coup as a hijacking of the peaceful protests, it’s not apparent in this article. It’s not quite clear what he’s indicating here, but his words seem to be implying that he’s siding with “the people” against “a despot”—as if he sees the coup as the voice of “the people.”
Of course, the US-Western media’s perspective on the Ukraine coup of 2014 and the war in Syria beginning in 2011, which I discuss briefly in NSS Essay Part 8, is extremely slanted to the point of falsehood. Neither can be viewed as an opportunity to give a voice to “the people” and to enable “the people” to make “their own decisions.” Such a portrayal of Ukraine and Syria is impractical for gaining an effective understanding of truth and again, it’s psychologically immature in its clinging to this good vs. evil fairytale in which the USG is somehow perennially on the side of freedom, blue skies, and sunshine.
Obama’s quote also raises the question: why is the USG even involved in making sure the people of Ukraine and Syria are able to make decisions for themselves about their future? Americans don’t even have the power to make decisions about our future! Shouldn’t the USG fix that problem first?
The USG doesn’t have the skills and credentials to help foreign populations have a voice if it can’t help Americans have a voice—if it even wants to, which I generally doubt. We only get to pick from a typically dismal slate of candidates, none of whom truly represent us or give us the opportunity to have a voice on the topics that matter most. How many Americans are pleased with US energy policies? Foreign policy? Environmental policies? Health policies? Educational systems? The pay gap? The prison system?
We could also ask: why is Obama more concerned about Ukrainians and Syrians having a voice then, say, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, or Philippinos, to whom the USG sends aid and weapons? Why he is more concerned about the people’s voice in those nations allied—or once allied—with Russia rather than in those nations allied with the USG—even when those allies are oppressive dictatorships? Is it because the USG really doesn’t care about the people’s voice but uses that as a pretext to facilitate a coup if its own puppets aren’t yet in power in a nation that has something the USG wants?
Next question: if Obama is supposedly in favor of allowing people to have a voice, why did he support a far-right-wing coup? That’s hardly representative of the Ukrainian people! Or, again is it because the USG really doesn’t care about the people’s voice but all along has been harnessing the rage of the far-right-wing, including neo-Nazis, to serve its own purposes? Is this a repeat of using the mujahideen in 1979 to provoke the USSR to invade Afghanistan and fight a proxy war with the USG, when all the while the USG couldn’t care less about helping the mujahideen achieve their goals?
According to Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, Obama stated the USG was “brokering a deal to transition power” which supposedly included Yanukovich and his opposition in a “national unity government,” but then Yanukovich decided to flee. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Yanukovich was first impeached by Ukraine’s parliament, and then he fled. He was charged with mass murder, with the responsibility for the violence of Maidan being placed upon him.
But why was the USG even involved in brokering a deal? Are we expected to believe that the USG was over there selflessly trying to help Ukraine without any goals of its own? And what kind of a deal was it that encouraged Ukraine’s parliament to impeach Yanukovich and hold him accountable for mass murder?
Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty states that Obama’s diplomatic effort included not only the USG but three EU diplomats and Russia, as well. “On the day the agreement was signed, the White House said Obama and Putin had spoken by telephone and ‘exchanged views on the need to implement quickly the political agreement reached’ with Kiev.” When Russia stated that Obama’s so-called “brokered power transition” was actually a coup involving the USG, Obama’s response suggested that Russia had known about this deal and was part of it and that Russia was now changing the facts by calling it a coup.
What has Russia said about its alleged involvement in Obama’s power transition deal? Obama makes it sound like the agreement had everyone’s support—even Russia was allegedly involved and supportive. But is this true? Did Putin actually state it was important to implement the agreement? If so, was the agreement that passed the same one that Putin had supported?
Obama said he believes Putin was “‘caught off balance’” by Yanukovich “‘fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.’” But what’s Obama’s point? If Putin was “caught off balance” as Obama says he was, it’s understandable. As Putin stated in the quote above, he sympathized with the protests against corruption, but the protests were hijacked by the far-right-wing groups and their infliction of a violent coup. Perhaps he’d placed too much faith in the USG that it was honestly trying to broker a broadly supported government.
Shouldn’t Obama, if he were truly trying to help create a government representative of all Ukrainians, also have been “caught off balance”? Or was he not caught off balance because the coup was the USG’s scheme all along? Was the USG really pulling a “bait and switch” sort of deal on Russia, pretending to be supporting one cooperative, democratic deal but actually facilitating a far-right-wing, pro-NATO, anti-Russia coup? Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Obama’s remarks were “‘proof that from the very beginning, the United States was involved in the antigovernment coup that Obama neutrally described as a “power transition.”’”
On Feb. 20, 2014, Democracy Now! reported, “While President Obama has vowed to ‘continue to engage all sides,’ a recently leaked audio recording between two top U.S. officials reveal that Obama administration has been secretly plotting with the opposition.” This is the infamous recording between Biden’s current Undersecretary of State, Victoria Nuland, and Geoffrey Pyatt, who was the US ambassador to Ukraine at the time. Why didn’t the US Congress and the UN launch an investigation into the recorded phone conversations in which Nuland and Pyatt, even prior to the coup, seem to be planning Ukraine’s new leadership? Was the conversation a piece of proof that the USG was involved in a coup? Or was it an innocent part of this deal supposedly “brokered” with the help of the USG, Europe, and Russia?
But even if there was any single thing innocent about this planning of Ukraine’s leadership, why did the USG assume Ukrainians were so incompetent that they couldn’t figure out their government leaders for themselves? Do they think Ukrainians are feeble-minded? Or is it that US policymakers want to make sure they get into power the Ukrainian leaders the USG rulers want—leaders who don’t give Ukrainians a voice but who give the USG a voice?
How can such busybody interference possibly be considered respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and in accord with Obama’s statement: “Our goal is to make sure that the people of Ukraine are able to make decisions for themselves about their future”? And how would Americans like it if the Norwegians saw how totally unrepresentative our government is and so tried to help out by selecting US leaders that they personally liked to work with?
The leaders that Nuland and Pyatt were discussing were only from certain segments of the political spectrum, particularly the Svoboda Party and the Fatherland Party. These parties are hardly representative of the Ukrainian people. Pyatt does mention: “Then the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych, but we can probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.” Is this an honest attempt to keep Yanukovych in the government? Or is it something else?
If Obama were truly trying to create a national unity government including different perspectives, why didn’t he condemn the rise to power during and after the coup of the forces of ultranationalism and their promotion of anti-Russian, anti-Semitic, pro-NATO policies and behaviors? Even if Yanukovich fled, the USG could have insisted upon inclusion within the government of representatives of his and various other perspectives rather than simply the anti-Russian, pro-NATO, ultranationalists who were unrepresentative of the vast majority of Ukrainians.
Instead of using Yanukovich’s flight as an excuse to prop up a far-right-wing government that hated Russia and loved NATO, the USG could have pushed for a government that much more broadly represented the Ukrainian people as a whole, including the millions that feel friendly towards Russia. Because the USG instead embraced and armed the pro-NATO government that was installed, Obama’s “brokered power transition” of a “national unity government” that allegedly included Russia’s input and support doesn’t sound one bit believable. Furthermore, Yanukovich’s flight sounds like a coup.
Obama stated from Mexico, “With regard to Ukraine. . . we will continue to engage all sides.” Is there any proof that the USG was sincerely engaging with all sides? If Obama were supposedly “engaged with all sides” then why did he step up “pressure on the Ukrainian [pre-coup] government Wednesday by announcing a visa ban on 20 members of the Ukrainian government”? And why is the USG “also threatening to place sanctions on the Ukrainian government”? This doesn’t sound even-handed!
Another Obama quote that doesn’t make sense reads:
“The Russian people need to know, and Mr. Putin needs to understand that the Ukrainians shouldn’t have to choose between the Ukraine and Russia. We want the Ukrainian people to determine their own destiny, and to have good relations with the United States, with Russia, with Europe, and with anyone that they choose.”
Yet according to Putin, the West has been forcing Ukraine to sever ties with Russia and to be allies only with the West!
“I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the US and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia’s repeated calls for dialogue.
“Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ‘Ukraine is not Russia’ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ‘anti-Russia’ concept which we will never accept.”
So who’s telling the truth? Would it be that hard to review the history of US-Russia relations since about 2010, and Ukrainian policies towards Russia before and after the US-supported coup of 2014, to determine whether the USG has been encouraging Ukraine “to have good relations” with Russia, as Obama claims, or to cut off relations with Russia and hate Russia, as Putin claims?
Why can’t the UN, the US Congress, and the Western media engage in some investigation? Perhaps if the US military weren’t so over-funded, the US Congress could have a bigger budget to hire more staff members instead of just a few college interns. By starving the US Congress of staff, US legislators are forced to rely upon the propaganda they receive from the arms-industry-funded think tanks and the right-wing Ukrainian lobbyists.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, who died in 2020, stated on Democracy Now! in 2014, “Ukraine is splitting apart down the middle, because Ukraine is not one country, contrary to what the American media [say], which speaks about the Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Historically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, politically, economically, it’s two countries. One half wants to stay close to Russia; the other wants to go West. We now have reliable reports that the anti-government forces in the streets—and there are some very nasty people among them—are seizing weapons in western Ukrainian military bases. So we have clearly the possibility of civil war.”
Obama, however, was pushing the narrative that it was the Yanukovich government that was inflicting the February 2014 violence—a narrative that likely bolstered the decision of Ukraine’s parliament to impeach Yanukovich, whom Obama was supposedly working with in this “brokered power transition.” Democracy Now! quoted Obama:
“With regard to Ukraine. . . we will continue to engage all sides. And we continue to stress to President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian government that they have the primary responsibility to prevent the kind of terrible violence that we’ve seen, to withdraw riot police, to work with the opposition to restore security and human dignity, and move the country forward. And this includes progress towards a multi-party, technical government that can work with the international community on a support package and adopt reforms necessary for free and fair elections next year.”
While Obama implies that the violence is caused by the riot police under Yanukovich’s orders, Cohen emphasizes that it’s people in the street who are inflicting the violence. He poses the question: if people were throwing Molotov cocktails in Washington, DC and were headed for the US Congress, would Obama withdraw his security forces? Obama’s request that Yanukovich withdraw riot police “rationalizes what the killers in the streets are doing. It gives them Western license, because he’s not saying to the people in the street, ‘Stop this, stop shooting policemen, stop attacking government buildings, sit down and talk.’”
The USG was clearly taking sides. Even the coup was labeled in the West as the “Revolution of Dignity,” despite its promotion into power of ultranationalists who hatefully viewed certain groups of people as lacking in dignity and value and worthy of death. As Cohen states:
“The Western authorities, who bear some responsibility for what happened, and who therefore also have blood on their hands, are taking no responsibility. They’re uttering utterly banal statements, which, because of their vacuous nature, are encouraging and rationalizing the people in Ukraine who are throwing Molotov cocktails, now have weapons, are shooting at police. We wouldn’t permit that in any Western capital, no matter how righteous the cause, but it’s being condoned by the European Union and Washington. . . .”
The USG’s CIA and National Endowment for “Democracy” have a history of instigating protests, riots, and coups abroad. To assume the USG was not involved in fomenting the 2014 Maidan protests-turned-violent would be difficult to believe.
In fact, the USG may have worked hand-in-hand with Ukrainian ultranationalists, including neo-Nazis, in engineering the 2014 coup in Ukraine. In his article, “The ‘Snipers’ Massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine,” Ivan Katchanovski writes a highly-detailed account based on a massive amount of videos, recordings, photos, radio intercepts, and journalists’ news reports and social media posts regarding the events of February 20, 2014, known as the Sniper’s Massacre.
Katchanovski writes that the “conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovich governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovich order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars.” However, the conclusions drawn from the study of which Katchanovski writes is that far-right wing groups, including Right Sector and the Svoboda Party, and oligarchic groups, including the Fatherland—groups that do not represent the majority of Ukrainians—violently hijacked the Maidan protests, which up until then were being carried out peacefully and legitimately.
According to this comprehensive study, these far-right wing groups deliberately attacked the protestors while simultaneously framing Yanukovich’s government to make it appear responsible for the attacks on protestors. The Western media could then readily believe and portray the massacre as the fault of Ukrainian leader Yanukovich.
The peaceful protestors were primarily protesting against corruption. According to US media, they were protesting because Yanukovich decided not to sign on to join the EU. To what extent was the USG involved in pushing for the coup in order to get a leader in power who would join the EU and NATO? Katchanovski states in his conclusion that, given the USG’s historical behavior of fomenting discord abroad, and given the USG’s known ties with far-right groups in Ukraine, the USG’s role in facilitating this massacre must be investigated.
So why not investigate USG involvement in the 2014 coup? Why is it merely referred to online as a “scandal”? Why do these government scandals simply make a splash in the media and then result in no investigation and prosecution? And if USG leaders can get away with violating the law, why can’t the rest of us?
If Sullivan & Biden are to condemn Russia for allegedly violating the UN Charter by allegedly violating Ukraine’s sovereignty, isn’t it only logical and just to investigate and condemn the USG for its own potential violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and its many other violations of the UN Charter which are much greater in quantity, severity, and scope?
Article 2 (1) of the UN Charter states: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” This would include the concept of being equally accountable to the law. Seeking to prosecute Russia for alleged violations of the UN Charter while giving a green light to obvious USG violations is itself a violation of Article 2 (1), for the USG is placing itself at the top of an inegalitarian hierarchy.
Sullivan & Biden are nothing but sanctimonious hypocrites in condemning Russia and Putin so indignantly in their NSS while ignoring severe violations of international law perpetrated by numerous US presidents including Sullivan & Biden’s own likely involvement in the 2014 Ukrainian coup during the Obama administration and their reportedly direct involvement in exploding the Nord Stream pipelines.
All of these inconsistencies point to the fact that the USG doesn’t support the UN Charter or international law except when it serves its own interests. The USG neglects and tramples the UN Charter and international law when they obstruct USG goals. This cannot be called support for international law. It is the abuse of international law to serve oneself.
Kristin Christman has been independently researching US foreign policy and peace since 9/11. Her channel focuses on US-Russian relations at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuNEw9-10lk-CwU-5vAElcg. Kristin graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth College with a BA in Russian, and she holds Master’s degrees in Slavic languages from Brown University and public administration from SUNY Albany. She has been a guest with former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter and UNAC coordinator Joe Lombardo on Cynthia Pooler’s program, Issues that Matter, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDlaLNJih7U. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice recently published her article on suicide, culture, and peace in their special edition on suicide, Vol. 33 No. 4. email@example.com
 Muriel James and Dorothy Jongeward, Born to Win (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1971), 76-97.
 NSS 2022, 25-26.
 NSS 2022, 7.
Costs of War, “Afghan Refugees,” updated May 2023, https://watson.brown.edu.
 United Nations, “United Nations Charter.”
 Vladimir Putin, “Article by Vladimir Putin: ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” July 12, 2021, Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, https://russiaun.ru;
Kristin Christman, “Paradigm for Peace Applied to Russia, Ukraine, and the US: Part 4F. US experts’ lack of empathy and lack of truthfulness cause them to twist Putin’s motives for military action in Ukraine,” Apr. 7, 2022, https://www.countercurrents.org.
 Putin, “Transcript: Vladimir Putin,” Feb. 24, 2022.
Nick Turse, The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (New York: Verso, 2010), Chalmers Johnson. “Abolish the CIA!” 31-32.
David N. Gibbs, “The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998),” Translated by William Blum and David N. Gibbs, https://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu.
 Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, “Lavrov Claims,” Feb. 2, 2015.
 Democracy Now! “A New Cold War?” Feb. 20, 2014.
 Putin, “On the Historical Unity,” July 2021.
 Democracy Now! “A New Cold War?” Feb. 20, 2014
 United Nations, “United Nations Charter.”