Ukraine ‘leak’ reveals power play between US, EU and Russia

The leak appears to be a smear campaign aimed to split the EU and U.S., who have been critical of the Ukrainian government’s handling of the more than two months of anti-government protests. The tape is also likely to fuel Russia’s claims the U.S. and EU are manipulating and even funding the protest movement in Ukraine… [The unknown YouTube user who uploaded the clip] posted a second audio clip that appeared on YouTube of a conversation in German presumably between Helga Schmid, deputy secretary general of the EU’s External Action Service (EAS), and EU Ambassador to Ukraine Jan Tombinski. The two voices discuss how the EU is seen by the U.S. as being “soft” on Ukraine. The security breach is the bombshell. … 

Carney pointed the finger squarely at Russia, which is the logical conclusion. It would, I hope, require government resources to unscramble a call like this, and Putin’s the one who benefits most if the U.S. and EU are at each other’s throats. … “Coincidentally,” news of the call broke big on a day when Nuland herself is visiting Ukraine, just to maximize the embarrassment. Whether this is a veiled threat, to signal that Russia has other, more damning recordings that might be mysteriously leaked, or something else is unclear, but it’s perfectly clear that the NSA has (or had) the capacity to respond in kind at even higher levels of government. This article explains a lot but it also leaves out a lot. 

Other reports go into far more detail about what Nuland was actually saying. The longer conversation shows clearly that Nuland and her superiors were involved in the details of the new Ukrainian government and were basically dictating the personnel that would fill various positions. Nuland’s curse regarding the EU is noteworthy but only when one puts it into the larger context. And that context is that in the Ukraine as elsewhere the US and Britain are the primary culprits behind regime change. The tape is important because it makes deniability difficult. Review the larger narrative of US involvement and the phrase “directed history” comes to mind. The US along with Britain, France and probably Israel are destabilizing countries throughout the Middle East and Africa. Even Al Qaeda is being used in this process. 

Al Qaeda has fought on the side of destabilizing forces in Libya and Syria. But there were numerous countries destabilized before these two. Perhaps the first one in this recent series of aggressions was The Ivory Coast. French and UN troops negated a lawful election and substituted a Muslim president for a Christian one. This set a precedent. In short order, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were involved in regime changes and in each case an Islamic regime replaced a secular one. 

And while shooting wars were taking place in these countries, Sudan was being divided into a North and South and Mali, near Libya, was being destabilized. Look at a map and observe these countries in Northern Africa along with various Middle Eastern countries. Add in Somalia, which is experiencing considerable violence, and Kenya, which has been recruited as a proxy army for the West in the Somalia conflict. Survey a map and it will become evident that the entire area of Northern Africa is involved in some sort of organized violence or other. This strip of land is surely as large as the continental United States. Under the guise of training “youth” to campaign for democracy, the US State Department and CIA infiltrated agents into a number of African and Middle Eastern countries. This has been admitted and reported on. It is fact. 

But nonetheless, the mainstream Western media refuses to provide a full picture of what is taking place in Africa and the Middle East. What is evident to any observer who understands the facts is that Western powers are for some reason creating an Islamic crescent that will stretch throughout the reason. As we have reported previously, Western powers apparently want to increase religious tension and are using regime change to do it. What we have described above is directed history, the preferred methodology of the power elite for the past century or more. Perhaps it has always been this way throughout human history … But what is new is the way what we call the Internet Reformation can destabilize the dominant social themes that the top globalists rely upon to move the world in the requisite direction. Leaks of global warming emails effectively destabilized the climate change meme. 

And this State Department leak begins to show us the control that the US is exercising in the Ukraine and the arrogance with which government personnel wield US power. – See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35002/Ukraine-Leak-Reveals-Anglosphere-Directed-History/#sthash.RUMqKo4J.dpuf

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Responses to “Ukraine ‘leak’ reveals power play between US, EU and Russia”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Just as the USA kept trying to seduce Syria away from iran, so they are doing the same thing with the Ukraine and russia, and syria was not as silly as to belive USA promises so had to have foregn mercenaries brough in to wreck the country so its also happening to the Ukraine, which is better off with russia

  2. sovereigntea says:

    A curious thing happened in Georgia last year. After widespread media speculation in April 2013 that Georgia was housing a bio-weapons lab, namely the Richard G. Lugar Center for Public and Animal Health Research in Tbilisi, which the US had long denied existed, the newly recognised facility was visited by the Prime Minister of Georgia, the Georgian Health Minister and the US Ambassador.

    Hours later the Georgian government formally announced the liquidation of this Center, with no reason being given.

    http://journal-neo.org/2014/02/15/georgia-vanishinng-bio-weapons-lab-in-tbilisi/

  3. UkrToday says:

    Ukraine will never be a free independent state as long as it is beholden to Presidential rule.

    Ukraine has struggled to try to adopt a European style Parliamentary government. In 2002/3 it lost by 5 votes.

    In 2004/5 The organ revolution ended with an agreement towards a transition from Presidential rule to a Parliamentary democracy

    In 2006 Yushchenko and “Our Ukraine” refused to support the formation of an “Orange” governing coalition and the sharing of power. This triggered the collapse of the Orange Revolution and the decline of Yushchenko’s support with the Socialist party abandoning Yushenko and supporting a unity government headed by Viktor Yanukovych

    In 2007 faced with the possibility of the removal of presidential power Viktor Yushchenko illegally and unconstitutionally dismissed Ukraine’s democratically elected Parliament and going so far as to illegally interfere with the independence of Ukraine’s judiciary in order to prevent it was ruling against his decree. Yushenko’s actions caused 7 months of political and civil unrest.

    The EU at first condemned the action of the President but at the insistence of the US soon fell silent. The US was of the brief that it could control and influence the Ukrainian President and was mistaken in the belief that “Our Ukraine would improve its position and hold the balance of the new parliament. An assumption that proved to be false.

    The result of the force Parliamentary elections further divided and destabilized Ukraine with the new government holding a slender majority of one vote. Had the Socialist Party of Ukraine received 0.3% more votes the result would have been more or less the same as in 2006.

    Ukraine continued to suffer instability with an ongoing power struggle between the President and the peoples democratically elected Parliament

    The EU tried to support the transition to a Parliamentary system and the US tried to maintain the Presidential system

    The US was not concerned about democratic values of good governance. Its agenda was to destabilize the region.

    The US should have stayed out of the internal affairs of the region. After all it was Europe not the US that Ukraine was seeking to build closer relations and membership.

    In 2010 Yushchenko, whose support slumped to below 5% lost the election and he then swung his support behind Viktor Yanukovych who was subsequently elected President

    Yanukovych with Yushchenko’s and the US’s support, soon after taking office, wound back the democratic reforms implemented by the Orange revolution and consolidated power in the Office of the President.

    Ukraine continues in its struggle to embrace a European Parliamentary system of government as did all other former Soviet States. The US continues to destabilize the region and work against Europe’s interest and Ukraine’s democratic development

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.