Fidesz publicist Zsolt Bayer says US to blame for crisis in Ukraine

February 27, 2015

20130110-bayer-zsolt-bekemenet-a-demokraciaert-
Translation of a op-ed piece by Fidesz publicist Zsolt Bayer “Orbán, Putin, Gyurcsány, part 3” (“Orbán, Putyin, Gyurcsány 3.“) published by Hungarian daily newspaper Magyar Hírlap on 24. February 2015.
The most important motive of the European war against Putin, as well as of the American narrative about it right now, is that Putin is waging war against Ukraine, he overran and attacked an independent country carving out territories.Well, let’s then examine what role the United States played in all these events.

In November 2013 protesters started to gather on Kyiv’s Maidan Square against Viktor Yanukovich, the incumbent president, and his government. The protests soon turned into riots, and eventually resulted in an open civil war. New actors standing up against the legitimate Ukrainian power included Right Sector, or the far-right populist Oleh Lyasko and his Radical Party. Appearance of the Right Sector is especially remarkable, as in their case we are talking about a real Nazi party that is not too shy to use terrorism, every day, as well as political assassinations. In Western and American media, these figures became the Ukrainian “freedom fighters”, the “pro-Europe and pro-Western” patriots who stood up against Yanukovich.

If someone paid at least a little attention to the events, it is soon to be realized that in the Maidan, not only Ukrainians were fighting against their compatriots, but another power was present as well: the United States of America.

Such initial suspicions were later confirmed by a published sound recording of a discussion between Victoria Nuland, US secretary of state and Geoffrey Pyatt, ambassador of the US to Kyiv. The discussion revealed that the US is capable of everything to separate Ukraine and Russia for good. The real objective, naturally, was to turn Ukraine into an American military whence it could launch American missiles to Russia, and to jeopardize the cozying-up and economic cooperation between the EU and Russia.

America is really afraid of the prospect of a real Eurasian economic co-operative that would present a new challenge to them besides China. A Berlin-Moscow axis is a nightmare for the US, this is why they do not consider the disruption and immolation of Ukraine a high price to prevent such a scenario.

In the published discussion Nuland said the US has so far spent five billion dollars (!) to destabilize Ukraine. Later, among other things, they discuss who was to be put in leading positions in Ukraine (!). Sergei Yatseniuk’s name surfaces (Here Bayer probably meant to Ukrainian prime minister Arseniy Yatseniuk,-ed.), who is only referred to as “Yats” by Nuland. They also mention Vitaliy Klitschko, their candidate for vice-president as “Klitch.” They also discussed that “Yanukovich needs to be beheaded.” Nuland was scolding the European Union with extremely harsh swear words, because they do not seem to be enthusiastic enough in “helping” Ukraine, or in condemning Russia.

“Fuck the EU” Nuland repeated several times, seemingly being completely off-guard. But it is not only Nuland who started to meddle in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, but practically the whole American establishment. The American Secretary of State is standing beside the Nazi murderer Right Sector on the symbolic stage of the Maidan as well as John McCain, the Republican senator infamous in Hungary because of his scandalous comments. They openly support and encourage these forces to fight the legitimate Ukrainian government, shake their hands, pet them in the back, and then call the Hungarian prime minister a fascist dictator. It is also known that experts of the CIA and FBI are in Kyiv as “advisors.” Not long ago, Oliver Stone, the Oscar-winning American director was talking about how it is obvious to him after an interview with Yanukovich that snipers appearing on the Maidan were sent there “by a third party” and that the whole operation is “covered with CIA fingerprints.” (Assassins on the Maidan killed fourteen police officers and forty five civilians during the riots.) The method is no other than exercising US “soft power” already applied in Venezuela, Chile and in Iran. The Maidan massacre, of course, appeared in the Western media as monstrosity inflicted by the Yanukovich-regime. As a matter of fact, Yanukovich reached an agreement with opposition parties and European foreign ministers as early as 21 February, but interestingly enough the following day Right Sector terrorists started to threaten him with an assassination, and as a result he fled the country. After this a “pro-Western” government was immediately formed. “Yats” got what he wanted, and the new government was immediately recognized by Washington.

The five billion dollars spent on setting Ukraine on fire finally achieved its purpose.

For Washington, values and principles never mattered. To justify this claim, it is enough to cite a study penned by László Andor, the leftist icon, and former Brussels Commissioner. In an essay entitled “Olaj és politika” (Oil and politics) appearing in the 2004/3 issue of the journal Politikatudományi Szemle (Review of Political Science), the author wrote the following:

“(…) Reagan and Thatcher were both interested in a successful war initiated by Saddam Hussein against an Iran that was under the influence of Islam fundamentalist rule. This support was both material and moral. Washington and London made sure to send sufficient weaponry to Iraq, and turned a blind eye on the fact that Saddam Hussein was consolidating his power in the time of war with a brutality bordering on genocide. Antagonism towards the Iranian regime and an effectively unconditional support towards Saddam Hussein remained a part of Washington’s foreign policy after the conclusion of the Iraq-Iran war (1980-88). In October 1989, a year after a gas attack by Hussein on Iraqi Kurds, President Bush issued a national security directive in which he called the sustainment of good relations with Iraq a long-term interest, and lifted the ban on financing Iraq with loans at the end of the year. In April 1990, the Republican majority leader of the Senate, Bob Dole (later to become a presidential candidate) visited Saddam Hussein. He sent President Bush’s regards, and ensured the Iraqi president that they will do everything possible to make their image better in the American press, including the replacement of a Voice of America correspondent, who proved to be too critical of him. (Chomsky 2003: 112.) The Iraq-Iran war – besides punishing Iran for confronting the US, and a significant arms export business – was in the interests of Washington, because it was resulted in the sharpening of inner conflicts within OPEC. It is true, however, that by that time, OPEC was already weak due to other reasons as well.

with regard to George W. Bush’s “foreign policy revolution” and specifically his war in Iraq, is not insignificant that the President, as well as most of his staff, for a longer or shorter period, were all holding an interest in the energy sector. President Bush himself is deeply influenced by the oil industry through is family, as well as in the military-industrial complex. Besides him, many members of his administration were in connection with the above mentioned industries as well. Vice president Cheney was the CEO of oil services company Halliburton. Donald Evans, secretary of economy, and Stanley Abraham, the energy secretary were previously employed by an oil industry giant, Tom Brown. Condoleeza Rice, chief adviser on national security was previously a board member of Chevron.  An oil tanker was even named after her.

These are clear words. In this regard the fact that the son of the American vice president immediately took up a seat on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company takes on a whole new meaning. And it is not a fact to be dismissed that as long as Saddam Hussein was important to the US, he could commit genocide and remain a friend. When his existence became a burden the US immediately lied about him having weapons of mass destruction. And do not pass over the part of the quote about Washington promising Hussein a more favorable press, and even the dismissal of a hostile correspondent. All this serves for the greater glory of press freedom, right?

It is also remarkable how László Andor presented the US policy in Venezuela:

The fact that oil commerce and the war on terror are heavily interconnected can be illustrated by the meaningful example of what happened in Venezuela in 2002.

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela who was reelected in 2000, was a thorn in the eye of the US mainly because of his social reforms, anti-globalization rhetoric and military agreements with Russia and China. In addition, Chávez took steps to revive OPEC. On February 6. 2002, State Secretary Colin Powell articulated his doubts in the Senate about whether “Chávez really believes in democracy or not” and criticized the Venezuelan president for visiting Saddam Hussein and Moamer al-Gaddafi, “leaders who are hostile to the United States, and most probably supporting terrorism.” Not long after this, on 11 April 2002 the army command – referring to protests on behalf of the “civil society” – kidnapped the president. Chávez was not resisting them, but did not resign. The new “president”, Pedro Carmona dismissed the parliament in Caracas, and over a hundred “Chavezists” ended up in prison over the course of a day. In the meantime, Ari Fleischer, speaker of the White House, congratulated the Venezuelan army, and American and Spanish ambassadors in Caracas were quick to congratulate the new leader. However, as the apparent coup triggered popular protests, and a mass strike, Chávez was put back in office within the next 48 hours, but this naturally did not conclude the “war on terror” in Venezuela. Following the unsuccessful coup d’état of 2002, his opponents organized a two-month strike to force Chávez into resigning. The action cost the nation’s economy 7.5 billion dollars, but Chávez stayed in office. What is more, he was then able to blame strikes for the halt in economic growth and for the unfolding recession. A total economic collapse was prevented by the rise of the price of oil. In 2004 the Venezuelan economy became strong again, producing a 30% GDP growth in the first quarter, and a further 15% in the second quarter. By then, however, political movements aiming to remove the president developed into a loose cannon, finding a new tool to reach their objective: recalling the president. “Civil” movements organizing the new strike and the recalling of the president were financed to a large extent by National Endowment for Democracy in the US.

It is interesting that in the above text, the leftist László Andor put the expressions of “civil society” and “civil organizations” referring to organizations that were used against Chavez and financed by America, in quotation marks. This is to indicate that these were not in fact civilians. They were foreign mercenary political actors. This is probably a useful information in Hungary nowadays, when the US government fights for the “civil organizations” residing in Hungary.

But getting back to the events in Ukraine, the bottom line is, in the unfolding situation in Ukraine, a referendum was held in the Crimea, that was supported by Moscow. In the peninsula, that has a 77% Russian majority of inhabitants, and is of strategic importance, the referendum produced an 83% turnout, and the result was that the population decided to join Russia. Te proportion of yes votes was 96%. Following this, Crimea became a part of Russia. The referendum was recognized neither by the United States nor by Western Europe. This is more than interesting in the light of the fact that the independence of Kosovo and its secession from Serbia was immediately recognized by these powers, excluding naturally the post-Trianon states.

In Eastern Ukraine mostly ethnic Russian inhabitants also aim to secede from Ukraine, or more precisely, it agreed upon settling on a full-scale autonomy at the recent Minsk II agreement. Russia naturally supports such separatists. How did Andor put this again?

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela who was reelected in 2000, was a thorn in the eye for the US (…) mainly because of his military agreements with Russia and China

I see. What I do not understand then is why should Russia sit back and do nothing while American rockets are being installed in Ukraine, that is slowly becoming a NATO base?