“Accepting the absurdity of everything around us is one step, a necessary experience: it should not become a dead end. It arouses a revolt that can become fruitful.” –Albert Camus
In 2015 we are barrelling towards a third world war at breakneck speed and much like the First and Second World Wars, oblivion to this trend is commonplace. From the complete resurgence of fascism in Ukraine to the overt funding and training of terrorism, to the rapid erosion of the planet’s health, crises around the world are converging into situations that affect all of us. In the meantime what used to be real life has devolved into twenty-four-hour-a-day reality television. Most people do not care (or know) about Obama’s legacy as a warmonger and leader of the most war-hungry nation on earth; they do, however, praise his tweets to Caitlyn Jenner, and other shallow products of the western system of distraction. Whereas 2014 was one of the years in the 21st century in which the possibility of a third world war was reinforced as an inevitability, 2015 has become the year in which such a war is a matter of casual promotion by the mainstream press. The year 2016 looms on the horizon and with an American presidential election set to dominate it, the construction of fallout shelters is now an idea less absurd than that of any sort of peace under Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush (or perhaps Donald Trump?).
The United States is a nation whose supremacy relies solely on its projection of military aggression as a means of coercion and political manoeuvring. US national debt is difficult to comprehend when juxtaposed with its supposed status as a thriving, global superpower. While much of this military aggression has been disguised as humanitarian aid or democracy promotion, in reality it is the use of soft power as a means of colonisation and resource extraction. Programs such as Africom continue in their quiet recolonisation of Africa; meanwhile other US initiatives of ‘peace and democracy’ are loudly and violently bringing the world closer to war.
Pravyi Sektor tried to intervene, but despite the protests of the Pravyi Sektor Lviv chapter, about three hundred activists from various social organizations came out today with demands for real autonomy for the Lviv region. The rally of the supporters of Galician autonomy began at 16:30 in front of the Lviv Regional State Administration. The protesters blocked traffic on Vinnichenko street. Participants at the rally were holding placards that read: “Poroshenko has betrayed his people!”, “Special status for Galicia—real autonomy for the Lviv region!”, “Galicia is Europe!”, “Stop feeding the thieves in Kiev!” “Taxes should remain in the Lviv region!”
Activists of Pravyi Sektor tried to block the protest rally; however, as the main forces of the Pravyi Sektor are currently in Mukachevo, the “autonomists” were able to hold their event despite the interference.
Original: Vzglyad.ru (by Yevgeny Krutikov) / Взгляд: Деловая Газета
Translated by Pavel Grebenkov
The defection to the militia of the former member of the Ukrainian General Staff, Major-General Alexander Kolomiets is an extraordinary and advantageous event from the propagandistic point of view. However, a number of points expressed by him at a press conference in Donetsk are highly controversial, first of all, those relating to the possibility of a rebellion in the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) and the attempts to whitewash the Ukrainian military.
* * *
Major-General Alexander Kolomiets was dismissed from the post of chief of the Information Analysis Unit of the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2012. Presently such a structural division within the General Staff does not exist, and the duties of the analytical-informational support of the General Staff of Ukraine have been transferred to the Head Directorate for Defense and Mobilization Planning – a.k.a J-5. As a result of the reforms by the new government, the structures of the Ministry of Defence and the General Staff have for some reason been assigned latin-based alphanumeric designations, apparently so that the enemy would succumb to misunderstanding and confusion.
After his dismissal, Kolomiets peacefully lived with his family in Kiev on a general’s pension. At the same time, between the then Defence Minister Dmitry Solomatin and President Viktor Yanukovych, was developing a conflict which ended with Solomatin’s resignation, who was charged with low rates of arms trade deals, as well as the fact that he accepted the Ukrainian citizenship only in 2004. Solomatin, however, was the best defense minister in the entire history of independent Ukraine. For instance, it was during his time, that the average number of practice flights for pilots reached 51 hours (the Soviet standard – 100; in the Russian army the number of practice flights on attack aircraft now comes to 150-200 hours), training exercises were conducted, including airborne troops (45,000 jumps per year), and the military-industrial complex received its second wind. For example, it was Solomatin who made the most significant export contracts of armored vehicles, before being appointed, for a long time, to the post of the minister in charge of the Ukrainian Defense Industry. He attracted experts to the Ministry and the General Staff, regardless of their political orientation, and the availability of “compromising” citizenship in the past (though, under Yanukovych it was not such a trouble in the eyes of anyone, but the “orange” opposition).
Igor Ivanovich presented his vision about how to solve the problem of Transnistria, Novorossiya and Ukraine, his attitude towards the Kremlin camarilla and towards Putin personally, as well as Putin’s role in the history of Russia.
Kolokol Rossii (KR): Igor Ivanovich, first of all, we would like to know your position on Transnistria. It is currently the most urgent topic. Is it possible to draw Russia into a conflict with Moldova and Ukraine? Is the Ossetian scenario, for example, a possibility?
Igor Strelkov (Strelkov): I have already spoken about it. This is yet another attempt to provoke Russia into direct participation in military hostilities, but to provoke in such a way that our country plays the game according to a scenario imposed by the enemy. I have no doubt that sooner or later the enemy will succeed in dragging us into a war and the try to force us to capitulate on the foreign policy front. But there is no chance of our President capitulating—I simply do not believe it. The only question is: where could this conflict take place? Transnistria is, for this purpose, an ideal springboard. Let’s be frank—this area is surrounded on all sides by countries hostile to Russia: Ukraine and Moldova. The fact that these countries are hostile to us is, by the way, an ‘outstanding’ achievement of our diplomacy and foreign policy. These ‘achievements’ include the fact that an absolutely pro-Russian Transnistria where (according to various estimates), 150-200 thousand Russian citizens reside, is in a full blockade.
The shooting incident in Mukachevo, perpetrated by the Praviy Sektor, will, naturally, be used to try to bring the faction—sponsored by the CIA and operating outside of government control—under tighter supervision. All the top officials have spoken on the matter—from Avakov to Poroshenko. Of course, however, the fact that they want to do something does not mean that they will be able to accomplish it—that is a more complex question.
The American special services have their own uses in mind for the Praviy Sektor—it must become an instrument of control over the Ukrainian authorities. In the event something does not go according to plan, it would not be that hard to find a cause for popular outrage and to carry out a new Maidan with such an instrument. In this situation, the Praviy Sektor feels impunity and acts accordingly. By all accounts, the immediate reason for the conflict was an attempt to take control (bring under a protection racket) a profitable business. With the appearance of police, the militants acted without hesitation, shooting to kill.