Ukraine: America’s Midas Touch – Again!

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich  

All that glitters is not gold; all that shivers is not cold

Mythology has it that Midas, the king of Phyrgia, was able to turn everything he touched into gold—“the Midas Touch”.  According to Aristotle, the legendry figure died of starvation as a result of his greed to transmute everything from its natural substance to gold.    This myth is a tragic reality when it comes to America and its neocolonial adventures; America’s reach into Ukraine may well be the ‘touch’ that will end America as we know it today.

For decades, American neocons[1] have engaged in coups, false flag operations, and covert and overt wars in order to institute their goal of global domination.   The end of the Cold War emboldened them, and 9/11 enabled them.   Nations and societies became battlefields facilitated by the concept of “jihad” versus “crusade”[2] thanks to neocon Bernard Lewis, who initiated this idea.   As country after country fell to America’s ruthless touch—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, (attempts in Venezuela and Iran)—little attention was paid to covert activities against Russia (and China), considered to pose a challenge to America’s global domination.

Failure of the 2004 Western-backed Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the massive 2006 protests in Crimea against NATO’s invasion with slogans such as “Occupiers go home!”, which prompted the parliament of autonomous Ukraine to declare Crimea a “NATO-free  territory”, sent Washington’s neocons into a spin mode, especially since NATO and U.S. have been trying to encircle Russia since 1991.

Azar Gat, Ezer Weizman professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University, writing for the powerful and influential Council on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs(July-August 2007) emphasized “the significant challenge emanating from China and Russia operating under ‘authoritarian capitalist’ poised for a comeback.”

Global domination demanded curbing Russia (and China).   Depriving Russia of its Black Sea Fleet in Crimea and  Russia’s access to Syria’s Tartus Port are no doubt a crucial part of this strategy.   As importantly,  Russia’s gas exports to Europe had to be curbed.

To this end, overt and covert actions were put in place.  CIA/State Department propaganda voice, Radio Free Europe, announced in 2010 that “Ukraine has been the target of democracy-promoting Western foundations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), for a quarter of a century” (well prior to 1991 dateline admitted to by Victoria Nuland).   NED’s counterpart in England, the UK funded Westminster Foundation for Democracy was an active partner in the endeavor.

It was the Westminster Foundation that coopted the “Ukrainian Foundation for Democracy”—The People’s First Foundation that later that same year would become a member of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC).  Of particular relevance is the cast of characters who would shape things to come in Ukraine (to be discussed shortly).

“Democracy” promotion aside, the possible and likely role of United States Special Operations Command (USSOC) said to be present in 120 countries as of 2011, and growing (potentially in over 140 countries todate) mut also be considered.  Working with SOC is CIA’s Special Activities Division (SAD) and its departments Special Operations Group (SOG) and Political Action Group (POG), which engage in covert activities related to political influence and psychological operations.

As images of Cocktail Molotovs and sniper shootings and deaths found their way into living rooms across the globe,  Europe (Ashton) concealed doubts cast over Yanukovch’s complicity  in the  sniper shootings, facilitating his overthrow in trumped up charges.    There is no good reason for the Western backers of the mob government not to investigate the sniper killings unless a) they themselves were complicit, b) they  had full knowledge of the actions, or c) concealing the actions was in their interest.  No investigation has taken place to date.

Many scholars have voiced concern that the U.S. is backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine; never mind the neo-Nazis—the EU and the United States have embraced terrorism and have sided with terrorists over a democratically elected president.   Although there is no universal definition of terrorism, Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

This must be an incomprehensible part of the US/EU “war on terror”!   These actions marginalize those of the marines in Afghanistan who urinated on dead corpses .  With their backing of terrorists, the US and EU partners, in effect, have urinated on the graves of all who died in the despicable “‘war on terror”, including Allied soldiers.

This much said, one must surely ask why it is that the Jewish community is supporting the neo-Nazis rise.  Why is it that the presence of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who led rebel groups has not been questioned and addressed?   Furthermore, why have Jewish leaders voiced support for the coup and its leaders, and they have chosen to direct their anger and venom toward Russia and President Putin in a letter?

Perhaps, familiarizing oneself with the executive members of the aforementioned USUBC may cast some light on this bizarre behavior.  Especially noteworthy are  names and organizations among the senior advisors to the USUBC are from pro-Israel think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings, and  Board of Directors executives selected from powerful players at weapons manufacturers such as Raytheon and Boeing.

Undoubtedly, the cast of characters and their involvement in Ukraine would help ensure the safety of the Ukrainian Jews—especially in light of the fact that Israel is poised to play a huge role in eliminating Europe’s reliance on Russian gas and supplying Europe with gas it has stolen from the Palestinians—and Syrians.  Or as the New York Post put it last month:  “Israel’s fortune is Putin’s horror”

The planning of this “horror” has been in the making for some time. Perhaps the most revealing and interesting article is one penned by David Wurmser writing for the Jewish policy Center titled The Strategic Impact of Israel’s Export of Natural Gas.  Referring to the newly discovered gas in 2009, he writes “Israel and its neighbor now sit atop roughly two years’ worth of European consumption”.  He further suggests “even modest amounts of Israeli gas exports can carry significant strategic leverage”.  Wurmser opines that “The short-term inflexibility of gas trade and the difficulty of replacing disrupted supply also imply that energy prices for consumers and revenues for suppliers can be easily manipulated by marginal increases or decreases.”

Citing Europe’s gas vulnerability, Wurmser posits “Europe’s grim reality could represent a unique window of opportunity for Israel to nail down long-term agreements and align export policy with a broader effort to reset Israeli-European relations.”

In December of last year, the Jerusalem Post reported that not only did Hungary seek Israeli gas as an alternative to Russian gas, but it also offered to Israel access to its state-owned gas storage and offered Hungary “as a central European distribution hub for Israeli gas”.

As recently as March 11, Reuters, in a must-read article, cited Gideon Tadmor, CEO of Avner Oil, speaking at a conference in Tel-Aviv: “With recent events in Europe… and the aspiration of different countries to diversify their gas supply, that puts another spotlight on our massive resources and transforms our story into a global one”.

It then should come as no surprise that the Ukrainian Jewish leaders denounce any threat from the presence of ‘neo-Nazis’ claiming that they can take care of themselves.  No doubt this is the case.   But will Ukraine, a state that is not one nation, survive the assault on its diversity and its sovereignty?   The unforeseen circumstances, the unpredicted reactions may well turn Ukraine into the last of America’s ‘Midas touch’.

Notes

[1] Former, self-confessed neocon Jacob Heilbrunn describes neoconservatism  as “a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon,” even if many adherents — albeit a minority — are not Jewish and even though most U.S. Jews are not neoconservatives.  Neoconservatives, he adds, both Jew and gentile, are bound by a “shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish cause: the survival of Israel.”

[2] Bernard Lewis, ‘Learning the Lingo. Jihad vs. Crusade. A Historian’s Guide to the New War’, Wall Street Journal (27 Sept. 2001).

16-13