Russian President Gives de Facto Support to Kiev Regime Military Forces
By Karl Pomeroy
September 5, 2017
[Robin K Purcell Twitter readers: see Author’s Note end of post.]
Will UN Peacekeepers keep the peace?
Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed, at the recent BRICS conference in China, that United Nations peacekeepers be deployed in Ukraine, and has submitted a draft resolution on this measure to the UN Security Council. It is now crystal clear that the Russian leader, by his own admission, disdains not only independence for the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, as he always has, but also peace and even survival for the ethnic Russians who live there.
First of all, UN peacekeepers do not enjoy an untarnished reputation for keeping peace. One example is Haiti. According to T.J. Petrowski at Dissident Voice (October 13, 2016): “In some countries UN peacekeepers have behaved more like heavily armed, rampaging militias than ‘peacekeepers’. Since the start of the UN mission, peacekeepers have committed numerous human rights violations and massacres in Haiti. Peacekeepers were deployed in Haiti to support the brutal regime after the country’s first democratically elected government was overthrown by the U.S., France, and Canada in February, 2004. On July 6th, 2005, 350 heavily armed UN peacekeepers massacred 20 to 50 unarmed civilians in one of the vast ghettos of Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti. An eyewitness told a U.S. labour delegation that “[t]here was systematic firing on civilians.”
In another article exposing the crimes of UN peacekeepers, Alex Newman at New American (reposted at LewRockwell.com) says: “While the worldwide attention is new, the horrifying abuse of civilians and children by the UN and its disgraced ‘peace’ military goes back to the earliest UN ‘peace’ missions. Indeed, in one of the earliest UN ‘peace’ missions, UN troops brutalized and slaughtered aid workers and the civilian population of Katanga when the province refused to submit to a mass-murdering communist dictator backed by the Soviet Union and the UN. Even young children were bayoneted to death by UN troops as UN planes bombed hospitals. ” This is one case among many cited in the article.
Is Zakharchenko a traitor too?
According to Fort Russ (translated from TsarGradTV): “The Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, has already expressed his willingness to discuss the idea of deploying peacekeepers. We note that the German Foreign Ministry has called this initiative of Putin ‘a chance for peace.’ In particular, the head of the German Foreign Ministry, Sigmar Gabriel, said that the introduction of a peacekeeping mission is a chance that must be taken, for peace, requiring a policy of detente.”
That Alexander Zakharchenko would consider deploying UN peacekeepers is a sign of his further betrayal of the people of Donbass—a betrayal already evident in his July 2015 withdrawal of the DPR militia from the so-called grey zone along the contact line. This systematic withdrawal began with the abandonment, under the direction of the Russian generals of the Joint Center for Control and Coordination (JCCC), of the town of Shirokino on the Azov Sea. It eventually left defenseless all of the villages in the grey zone, an area about 3 kilometers wide stretching the length of the contact line. The people who live in this zone, many of them elderly and unable to leave, are subject to constant attacks by Kiev regime forces.
This tragedy is a direct result of Zakharchenko’s obeisance to Moscow’s wishes. It appears Zakharchenko has fallen under the Kremlin spell, hoping Moscow will eventually incorporate the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR/LPR) into the Russian Federation, a far-fetched dream in the current world political environment.
Before this turnabout, Zakharchenko had always opposed UN peacekeepers in Ukraine, for the reason that such forces would no doubt contribute to the war effort, officially termed the anti-terrorist operation (ATO), of Petro Poroshenko’s unconstitutional regime in Kiev. After all, the vast majority of the member states of the United Nations favor Poroshenko. This support came a result of the corporate media cover-up of American intervention in the Maidan coup, as well as false allegations of Russian aggression.
Putin on arming the OSCE
The following excerpts from Putin’s September 5 press conference following the BRICS summit, as reported on his official Kremlin website, reveal unequivocally the Russian President’s betrayal of Donbass and his indifference to the fate of civilians who live and die in the region. The excerpts also indicate Putin’s apparent surrender to the American-European dual deep state. In other words, at least on the issue of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin talks like a Western neoconservative warhawk.
First, the Russian leader admits he supports arming the OSCE, a step many Donbass supporters see as a dangerous escalation in favor of Kiev. Putin’s stance is evident in the following passage:
“Question: I have a question about eastern Ukraine. Kiev has recently started promoting the idea of deploying UN peacekeepers there. Poroshenko speaks about this often, and there is even a plan according to which the idea should be taken to the UN General Assembly, which opens soon, if Russia blocks it at the Security Council. What do you think about this idea? Is it practicable, would it help?
“Vladimir Putin: This is impossible to do via the General Assembly, because UN peacekeepers cannot function other than pursuant to Security Council resolutions. But that is not the point. You are saying that someone wants to push something through. In fact, I do not see anything wrong with that. I have already said many times that I support the idea of arming the OSCE mission, but the OSCE itself refuses to arm its field personnel, since it has neither the relevant people nor the experience of such work.”
What Putin fails to mention is that only one OSCE observer has ever been killed in Donbass. This was George Bishop, who perished when his vehicle hit a landmine on a remote dirt road near the LPR contact line last April. There is a lot of evidence the landmine was planted by Ukrainian saboteurs. How arming the OSCE could have prevented this isolated event is unclear. The fact is, the proposal to arm the OSCE was a propaganda ploy on the part of Petro Poroshenko, to make it appear as if the Donbass “rebels” posed a danger to the OSCE. Putin surely knows this. So why would the Russian leader say he supports arming the observers? Because he seeks political gain with respect to the West, and especially, it appears, with Germany, probably related to economic sanctions.
UN Peacekeepers fine with Vlad
As if the above quote weren’t alarming enough, Putin goes on to say he doesn’t see anything wrong with sending UN peacekeepers to Donbass, a move many observers believe would advance the goals of the enemy [Kiev] and increase civilian massacres in the region:
“In this context, I believe that the presence of UN peacekeepers, not even peacekeepers, but those who provide security for the OSCE mission, is quite appropriate and I do not see anything wrong with that; on the contrary, I believe that this would help resolve the situation in southeastern Ukraine. Of course, we can talk only about ensuring the security of the OSCE staff. This is my first point. The second point is that, in this regard, these forces should be located on the demarcation line only and on no other territories. Thirdly, this issue should be resolved only after disengaging the parties and removing the heavy equipment. This cannot be resolved without direct contact with representatives of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic. I believe that if all this is done, it would definitely benefit resolving the situation in southeastern Ukraine. We will consider this as instructions to the Foreign Ministry to submit a relevant resolution to the Security Council.”
Putin does not explicitly state whether his UN Peacekeepers will be armed. But if not, how would they protect the OSCE? So he must be assuming they will be armed. The Russian leader is thus advocating sending armed Western-backed foreign troops to Ukraine, knowing full well they will fight on the side of Kiev. This is violation of the spirit of the Minsk accords, which did not allow for foreign armed peacekeepers lest the war spread beyond Ukraine’s borders.
The scenario I fear is this:
As a provocation, the Ukrainian Armed Forces and rogue Nazi battalions will bomb DPR/LPR frontline villages, as they have been doing for three years. If the DPR/LPR militias return fire, the UN so-called peacekeeping forces will pretend to interpret this as aggression against the OSCE and fire back. With what weapons I don’t know. Tanks?
On the other hand, if the DPR/LPR leaders do not let their militias defend their land, but callously allow the mainly elderly residents who live in frontline villages to be maimed, killed or have their houses burned, as has been happening for the last two years, then Ukrainian Army saboteurs will themselves shoot at the OSCE observers. This will serve the purpose of giving the UN troops an excuse for attacking towns along the contact line, where only civilians remain. Would UN troops have any qualms about killing civilians? They never have before.
This tragic scenario would be the likely result of the Putin’s proposal, which he disingenuously claims would resolve the situation in southeast Ukraine.
That the Russian leader says these presumably armed UN peacekeepers “should be located on the demarcation line only” is not a sign of humanitarian concern, but an act of cold dismissal. After all, it is precisely along the demarcation line that many elderly citizens live. The people of these villages have nowhere to go. That’s why they’re still there, despite being bombed day after day by the Ukrainian Army. Despite having to beat out fires in their houses with rugs while the Ukrainians shoot at them to prevent them from putting the fires out, as has been happening recently in Kominternovo and other towns:
Note that the DPR/LPR militias have deserted these villages and left the civilians defenseless. Why? Moscow has forbidden them to occupy the grey zone. This Kremlin decree was issued in order to make it appear to the West that Russia is abiding by the Minsk Agreements, even though Russia is not mentioned in the agreements and has no obligations under them whatsoever. In other words, it is all for show. Putin is letting ethnic Russians die for the sake of personal political appearances.
That Putin would propose adding armed UN troops to the mix of military forces already shelling these defenseless residents means the Russian President is no more ethical than a Western neoconservative warhawk. He’s barely better than John McCain.
Putin turns blind eye to American lethal weapons
And that isn’t the worst of it. When it comes to American lethal weapons, Vladimir “Deep State” Putin is positively ruthless toward Donbass civilians:
“Question: Continuing the theme of Ukraine. Recently, more reports have been coming from Washington regarding discussions to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. How serious do you think this is? If, indeed, such a decision is made, what consequences might it have?
“Vladimir Putin: It is the sovereign decision of the United States whom to sell arms to or whom to supply them to free of charge. They decide what countries will be recipients of such aid. We are unable to influence this process in any way.”
What are the implications here? Is it really the “sovereign decision” of the United States to encourage the slaughter of ethnic Russians? Is Putin so subjugated to Western influence, he won’t even suggest it might be wrong to bomb innocent citizens of the former Soviet Union?
Moreover, Mr. Goody Two Shoes lies through his teeth, seemingly to appear compliant toward the West. “We are unable to influence this process in any way,” he demures.
The statement is blatantly false. I could give this traitorous Russian leader a few lessons on how he might influence this process—as if slaughtering civilians were a process. He could start by condemning it outright. He could expose the bias of the OSCE. He could cease preventing the DPR/LPR militias from defending their frontline villages. He could recognize the Republics. He could denounce Poroshenko as an enemy. He could read the Minsk Package of Measures out loud on TV every time Russia is accused of violating them, to prove Russia is nowhere mentioned and therefore cannot logically be violating them. He could allow the Donbass militias to remain in the so-called grey zones, which they are entitled to do under Minsk. (Minsk only forbids the presence of heavy weapons.)
But I imagine Mr. Putin feels guilty for stealing Crimea. He shouldn’t. That was his last good move.
I also imagine he’s an agent of the Western deep state.
The excerpt from Putin’s press release gets worse:
“However, there are general international rules and approaches: the supply of weapons to a conflict zone is not conducive to peace, but only aggravates the situation. If this happens in this situation, the action, or the decision, will not change the situation fundamentally. It will not affect the situation in any way for that matter. But the number of victims could, of course, increase. I want to underscore this to make it clear for everyone: nothing will change. The number of victims may increase, which is unfortunate.”
I feel sickened that in the same sentence this coy politician could say US weapons would not change the situation even while the number of victims could increase. An increase in the number of victims is not a change in the situation? It is to me. So exactly what situation is Mr. Putin referring to? His political situation?
Vladimir Putin’s downhill slide began with his illicit affair in Sochi and subsequent divorce of Lyudmila. Nothing else explains the change in the man.
If even the best of our world leaders—Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump—behave like murderous deep state agents, it seems the corporate, largely Zionist, New World Order elite have attained a firm grip on world power.
[Author’s note: To Robin K. Purcell Twitter readers (March 18, 2019):
@RobinKPurcell tweeted March 3 2019 that my article above was a “Good example of the Propaganda.” I don’t even know which “propaganda” she means, pro-Russian, anti-Russian, or some other kind. To my knowledge, I was the only journalist who held these opinions at the time of writing. The article was based on three years of research and many eye-witness accounts. Though in this case critical of Putin, I generally support his efforts toward world peace.
Looking through some of Robin’s tweets, I can’t tell what her foreign policy is. She seems sincere in seeking truth. Maybe Robin has just learned what propaganda is, and thinks she’s found some here at Quemado Institute. In any event, it’s a lesson to me that I didn’t clarify my position on Putin and Donbass. I urge Robin to read Quemado Institute’s Foreign Policy page. No honest blogger likes to be accused of promoting propaganda. –Karl Pomeroy, author and QI chief editor]