

Almost everything in the article below was published
earlier by myself at the Voice of Russia World Service
or here on JAR2. We have rebublished the article below
to show how desperate and corrupt the FBI and the CIA
are and what lengths they will go to to hide their
crimes against humanity.
Site
Seized by the FBI on November 07, 2020
http://web.archive.org/web/20201102032416/https://ahtribune.com/world/europe/3622-how-the-war-in-ukraine-started.html
NOVEMBER 03, 2019 BY ERIC ZUESSE
How the War in Ukraine Started
The Obama Regime’s Plan to Seize the Russian Naval Base
in Crimea
Clear and convincing evidence will be presented here
that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S.
Government had a detailed plan, which was already active
in June 2013, to take over Russia’s main naval base,
which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a
U.S. naval base.
There can now be no question that the war in Ukraine
started, and resulted from, the U.S. Government’s plan
to take over all of Ukraine, and especially to take over
that Russian naval base, in Crimea, which then was in
Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine didn’t start at the time when a lot
of people think that it did, with the overthrow of
Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych. It was already
underway considerably before that time, because it
started in Washington, as the following masterful
11-minute documentary makes clear — it started as a
subterranean war by Washington to take over Ukraine,
before it became an overt war (a “civil war”) within
Ukraine:
YOUTUBE VIDEO
Videos/Crimea/The_Crimes_of_Euromaidan_Nazis_The_Pogrom_of_Korsun_on_20_02_2014.mp4
Videos/Crimea/Ukraine_Crisis_What_You're_Not_Being_Told.mp4
The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia claims that the war
commenced in “a series of military actions that started
in February 2014”; and, that, from the outset, it has
been a “Russian military intervention in Ukraine
(2014–present)” — not any sort of American intervention
in Ukraine. However, to the extent that Russia has been
involved in the Ukrainian war, that involvement came
later, and was a reaction against what the U.S.
Government and its agents had done to Ukraine (which
nation is, of course, on Russia’s doorstep, and so
Russia inevitably did respond). Therefore, the
propagandistic function of Wikipedia must be
acknowledged, even though Wikipedia is adequate for
providing an introductory overview of some
non-geostrategic subjects.
The U.S. regime, under Barack Obama, had been planning,
ever since June 2011, a takeover of Ukraine, in order to
become enabled ultimately to place its nuclear missiles
within less than five minutes flying-time to a
first-strike blitz destruction of the Kremlin (thus
preventing any effective Russian counter-attack).
However, things didn’t work out quite according to the
plan for the takeover of Ukraine, and here is how the
war in Ukraine actually began:
We’ll open by describing the planning for the conquest
of Russia’s key naval base, in Sevastopol in Crimea.
Crimea was inside Ukraine during 1954-2014, but had
otherwise been inside Russia, going all the way back to
1783. (During 1954, the Soviet dictator, Khrushchev,
arbitrarily transferred Crimea, from Russia to Ukraine,
even though the vast majority of Crimeans considered
themselves to be Russians, and their native language was
Russian — but, after all, the Soviet Union was a
dictatorship. Crimeans had no say in the matter.)
The U.S. regime prepared for its planned takeover of
Crimea by commissioning Gallup to poll Crimeans in 2013
to find out whether the residents there considered
themselves to be Ukrainians (which would make the U.S.
regime’s job in Crimea easier), or instead still
Russians (which would foretell resistance there); and
the findings were that Crimeans overwhelmingly still
considered themselves to be Russians, definitely not
Ukrainians. Nonetheless, the plan for the takeover went
forward — the U.S. team, it is clear, decided that the
residents of Crimea could be dealt with, in such ways as
is shown here:
YOUTUBE VIDEO
Videos/Crimea/The_Crimes_of_Euromaidan_Nazis_The_Pogrom_of_Korsun_on_20_02_2014.mp4
Videos/Crimea/Ukraine_Crisis_What_You're_Not_Being_Told.mp4
Some were clubbed to death, others became permanently
disabled from their injuries, but this was a warning to
Crimeans, to buckle under, and give up: be ruled from
Kiev, by Washington’s regime. It didn’t work. A
referendum was quickly held in Crimea about whether they
wanted to be ruled by the newly installed Ukrainian
government, and the results were in line with Gallup’s
findings: Crimeans wanted to be ruled from Moscow, not
from Kiev.
The U.S. then hired Gallup to survey Crimeans soon after
the referendum. (Perhaps the U.S. regime was hoping to
find that a scientific sampling of Crimeans would show a
far smaller percentage favoring the breakaway of Crimea
from Ukraine than the referendum had reported, which
could greatly intensify international skepticism about
the legitimacy of Russia’s takeover of Crimea. But, if
that was the purpose, Gallup’s findings again turned out
to be a disappointment.)
Here is what Gallup found in both its 2013 and 2014
polls of Crimeans:
When Gallup did their “Public Opinion Survey Residents
of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea May 16-30, 2013”
(which was called that because even when Crimea was part
of Ukraine, it had a special status, as being an
“Autonomous Republic” — not a province), only 15% (slide
8) of Crimeans viewed themselves as “Ukrainian,” but 40%
said “Russian,” and 24% said “Crimean.” 53% (slide 14)
wanted Crimeans to be part of the “Customs Union with
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,” but only 17% wanted
Crimeans to be part of “The European Union.” 68% (slide
15) said their feelings toward “Russia” were “warm,” but
only 6% said their feelings toward “USA” were “warm.
When Gallup in April 2014 (right after the referendum)
polled Crimeans again (slide 25), 76.2% had a “negative”
view of the United States, and 2.8% had a “positive”
view of it; 71.3% had a positive view of Russia, and
8.8% had a negative view of it. Asked whether (slide 28)
“The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely
reflect the views of most people there/here,” 82.8% said
yes; 6.7% said no. 89.3% in the poll expressed an
opinion on this matter, and 93% of those who expressed
an opinion said that the referendum “likely did reflect
the views” of Crimeans. That was almost exactly the same
percentage as those who in the referendum had voted to
rejoin Russia. It couldn’t have been stronger
verification of the referendum-results, than that. The
Gallup poll findings (like its predecessor) were hidden
from the public — not broadcast to the public by the
regime’s propaganda-media. After all: the U.S.
Government is a regime — it’s not a democracy. All of
the formalities, now, are just for show. Both of its
political parties are imperialists (“neoconservative”).
Only their style differs.
So: the U.S. regime knew that it wasn’t, at all, wanted
nor welcomed by Crimeans, but that Russia very much was.
The U.S. regime thus moved forward on the basis that the
government of Ukraine owned that land; the residents who
lived there did not, and should have no say about what
government owned it and would rule them. The idea was
that, if the people there didn’t like it, they should
emigrate to Russia (and, according to a Russian source,
“4.4 million went to Russia” — removed themselves from
Ukraine — after the coup).
The U.S. regime, clearly, wanted the land, not the
people who were living on it. The expectation, as soon
as Ukraine was under U.S. control from the coup, had
been that America would get the entirety of Ukraine,
including Crimea; but, then, Russia’s Vladimir Putin
stepped in and protected Crimeans who were clamoring to
hold a referendum in order to express their collective
will on this matter; and this referendum was held, on 16
March 2014, and it produced over 90% voting for Crimea
to be a part of Russia, such as Crimea had been before
Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine.
So: the U.S. regime failed to get the naval base that it
had expected to get in Sevastopol in Crimea. That was a
crucial failure for Obama.
Those events — the coup and, three weeks later, the
Crimean referendum — occurred in 2014, but the planning
for the coup had already been going on for years, and it
wasn’t being called off once Gallup reported in 2013
that most Crimeans loathed the U.S. The active operation
to take over Ukraine had started actually on 1 March
2013 inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which was almost 9
months before Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, on
20 November 2013, rejected the EU’s demand that Ukraine
must bear the full $160 billion cost of abandoning its
existing trading relationships with Russia and its
allies, in order to join the EU. Wikipedia says that the
overthrow of Yanukovych started on 21 November 2013 when
he said no to the EU, but actually it started on 1 March
2013; and the planning for it had started by no later
than June 2011. And it may be said to have begun even
prior to that, when, near the very start of Obama’s
Presidency, Obama called the
then-Ukrainian-Presidential-candidate Yanukovych to
Washington in order to sound him out on — if Yanukovych
would become the winner — getting Ukraine into NATO,
America’s anti-Russian military alliance. Getting
Ukraine into the EU was really just to be a stepping
stone to getting it into NATO so that U.S. nuclear
missiles could be placed there against Moscow. This is
what everything was really about. On 7 January 2010, the
Kiev Post bannered “Yanukovych: Ukraine will remain a
neutral state” and this is what actually sealed his
fate. Yanukovych, with that now in his platform, won the
Presidential election on 7 February 2010. So: he was in
Obama’s gunsight even at the very moment when he won the
Presidency.
There was no question as to whether Ukrainians wanted to
be in NATO: they did not. During 2003-2009, only around
20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership, while around
55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17%
of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of
your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.”
Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a
friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup,
“Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes,
one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” The
coup turned what remained of Ukraine sharply against
Russia. NATO is the key; the EU is more like an excuse
for Ukraine to be admitted into NATO.
In June 2013 (well before the ‘democratic revolution’ in
Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the U.S. Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, published on its website, a
“Project Description” for “Renovation of School#5,
Sevastopol, Ukraine,” under the euphemistic title "EUCOM
Humanitarian Assistance Program”. EUCOM is the U.S.
European Command — it is purely military, not
“humanitarian,” at all. The 124-page request for
proposals (RFP) showed extensive photos of the existing
school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other
U.S.-made products, that the U.S. regime was requiring
to be used in the renovation (by some American
corporation, yet to be determined) of that
then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at that time was
a Ukrainian Government property, not at all
American-owned or operated. So: why were U.S. taxpayers
supposed to fund this ‘humanitarian’ operation, by the
U.S. military?
The RFP was even posted again in September 2013! The
summary there says:
Federal Contract Opportunity for Renovation of
Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine N33191-13-R-1240. The
NAICS Category is 236220 - Commercial and Institutional
Building Construction. Posted Aug 20, 2013. Posted by
the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (DOD - Navy).
The work will be performed at Sevastopol 99000.
A remarkably full description, of what that
extraordinary RFP was about, was provided on 24 April
2014 by a “Lada Ray,” under the headline “Breaking! US
Planned to Turn #Crimea into Military Base Against
Russia”, and here is its opening:
Breaking! US Planned to Turn #Crimea into Military Base
Against Russia
24 April 2014, Lada Ray: A couple of weeks ago Crimea
and Sevastopol almost unanimously voted to re-join
Russia. The Crimeans said: we had been unappreciated
guests, now we are returning home after a long voyage.
More about that in my articles:
Why is Crimea Overwhelmingly Pro RE-Unification With
Russia?
Prediction: Crimea Independence Vote
The information coming to the surface now shows that if
Crimea stayed as part of Ukraine, it would have become a
huge NATO/US military base. I seriously doubt that the
people of the Crimea would have stood for that, but if
such a thing did happen, it would have meant WWIII as
Russia would never allow it. From this perspective it’s
especially clear why NATO, USA and EU were so shocked
that Russia decisively accepted Crimea back. They
already considered it theirs.
The city of Sevastopol is the prized possession. This is
one of the best harbors in the world. But the entire
Crimea is of huge strategic importance – first and
foremost, if you want to attack Russia. In addition,
Crimea is important for the control over other
countries, including Iran and Turkey. As they say, he
who controls Crimea, controls the Black Sea.
At least one hospital in Crimea’s capital Simferopol and
at least one school in Sevastopol were targeted by the
US/NATO just recently. They were planning on turning the
hospital into a base for their troops after a massive
renovation. One of the high schools (a gymnasium) in
Sevastopol the Kiev authorities were about to sell to
the US to be repurposed as a school for spies, targeting
Russia. It was planned that the kids going to that
school would be learning languages and spying techniques
since an early age.
It appears Americans wanted to turn the Crimea into a
massive military/navy/intelligence complex. The famous,
one-of-a-kind Soviet underground submarine base in
Balaklava, which is now the Museum of the Cold War, was
visited in the past several years by at least 25
delegations from the Pentagon, US Navy, NATO, and
Western political circles. Kiev gave them access to
super-secret Russian/Soviet sectors of the base, which
were supposed to be off limits. They studied with great
interest the secret documentation and technology.
In Sevastopol, called “the city of the Russian glory”
and the “hero city,” the NATO and US navy ships and
military have been present for years. The population
greeted them with constant protests, which prevented
some of the planned joint military exercises between
NATO and Kiev. Sometimes, the NATO ships had to leave
because of the population’s resistance (protest footage
on video below at 1:54). US/NATO ships in the Sevastopol
harbor tried many times to “park” right in front of the
Russian ships stationed there just out of spite. As we
know, for 23 years, since the breakup of the USSR in
1991. Russia has been leasing its own base on its
historic land for $100mln a year from Kiev.
Sevastopol had been the important base of the Russian
Fleet since 1776. Sevastopol is a large and beautiful
city populated with ethnic Russians, many of whom are
retired navy officers and their families. These people
dreamed for 23 years of going home – and by home they
always meant Russia. Add to that that Kiev constantly
attacked Russian language, little by little taking away
the right of the Russian-speakers to speak their native
language.
In Crimea, the US financed very generously various
media, NGOs, and politicians, who would essentially
become their agents. Of course, much of that was styled
as support for democracy.
People of the Crimea felt deeply insulted by such
attitude by the bought-and-paid-for Kiev and such
disrespect of their heritage and wishes by the US/NATO.
You didn’t see that information in the New York Times,
Washington Post, London Times, Telegraph, Guardian, or
any other U.S.-regime propaganda-organ; and, so, the
facts that are told there might be surprising (or even
shocking) to readers under the U.S. regime; but they are
true, and the propaganda isn’t.
Then, Ukraine’s far eastern Donbass region, which had
voted over 90% for the democratically elected President
of Ukraine whom Obama had overthrown, also broke away.
Here is how that happened:
Ukraine started its war against resisters by drafting
everyone they could grab, and sending them in tanks into
the south and east, in order to prevent any more
secessions than Crimea had already done. The draftees
were terrified, and didn’t want to kill. On 16 April
2014, the Kiev Post bannered “A day of humiliation, as
Ukrainian military offensive stalls, six armored
vehicles seized”. It opened: “On April 15, Ukraine’s
military began an anti-terrorist operation against
Kremlin-backed insurgents who have taken over numerous
government buildings and police headquarters in several
cities of Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine’s most populous region
where 10 percent of the nation’s 45 million people
live.” The residents in Donbass were now officially (by
the Obama-installed government) called “terrorists,” and
Ukraine called its war to exterminate them the
“Anti-Terrorist Operation” or ATO. Its objective was to
eliminate as many of Yanukovych’s voters as possible
(and Donbass having voted over 90% for Yanukovych meant
that all of it was now a free-fire zone for Ukraine’s
soldiers and bombers), so that the new regime would be
able to win future elections (by eliminating the
government’s opponents).
On 2 May 2014, thugs who were organized by the newly
installed American regime in Kiev burned to death an
uncounted number, perhaps over a hundred, individuals
inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, who had been
distributing flyers against the coup-regime. Some of the
massacre’s key organizers had friends inside the Obama
White House. That event set off a panic throughout the
eastern and southern half of Ukraine, where Yanukovych
had overwhelmingly won the Presidency. The secession
movement in the areas where Yanukovych had won (southern
and eastern Ukraine), formed, and during 4-9 May 2014
took over some government buildings. Donbass, where
Yanukovych had won by over 90%, seceded. The bombings
and cannonades against Donbass — and sometimes even
firebombings against them— took over.
That’s how the war started.
The U.S. regime and its supporters imposed severe
sanctions against Russia for responding.
The accounts that have been given about the Ukrainian
war by U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media have been boldly
blatant lies.