American Origin of Ukraine War as Prelude To World War III

The following text is the result of an accurate work of information search, which is offered as an aid to discern the only possible truth concerning the past and present facts of this planet, and in particular the danger of an impending and all-destructive worldwide war, which would bring about the annihilation of the Northern Hemisphere and the end of this Western society, as well as years of hardship and suffering for the human beings who might survive there in the future.

So the information contained in this text is no substitute for the truth. However, they absolutely open the way to the free, individual and independent recognition of the truth itself, and precisely the only possible truth that arises from the facts of reality.

Human beings who are familiar with the works of ‘Billy’ Eduard Albert Meier and the FIGU will find here a correspondence with what they already know. Human beings, on the other hand, who are not familiar with it, or who even scoff at it, will be able to question what they know, or think they know, so far. In both cases, however, the human being can first recognise his own responsibility, and then talk honestly to himself and decide in his depths whether he will stubbornly give in to his weaknesses, his selfishness and his know-it-all attitude once again, as he always has, or whether instead, through the information available to him, he will do everything possible to avoid this catastrophe now.

NATO, i.e. the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, was founded in Washington on the 4th of April 1949, 6 years before the Warsaw Pact was founded, on the impulse of Henry Truman, President of the United States of America, and the US shadow government, which has existed since 1787 and secretly directs the major decisions of the US presidents, in particular dictating to them the guidelines of US foreign policy. The NATO military alliance, which is only a defence alliance in appearance but in fact a war-mongering mercenary and murderous organisation, is intended, in the intentions of the US president and the dark government influencing him, to reinforce the world dominance of the US as a military power and to secure its strategic and military superiority over the USSR. In other words, NATO was seen by the dark forces of US politics and the head of state at the time as the appropriate means to achieve the goal of total world domination of the United States of America over time. The military defence of Western Europe against a possible invasion by the Soviet Union, feared by the Western states, was only a secondary objective. The fact that NATO is merely a tool of power in the hands of the US government and the shadow government secretly directing it to secure its own partly secret power and geopolitical claims, influencing and unscrupulously exploiting the allied countries in favour of the pursuit of the basic interests and fulfilment of the strategic objectives of the US, is confirmed by the fact that the Commander-in-Chief of NATO in Europe has always and without exception been an American general since its inception.

In order to better understand whose brainchild Truman was, one should bear in mind, among other things, that at that time a secret plan was forged by his government – as has emerged from declassified documents of the National Security Archive – according to which, in the event of a supposed, feared invasion of the Persian Gulf by the Soviet Union, the oil fields in the Middle East would be sabotaged in order to leave the Soviets ‘scorched Earth’, so to speak, by a kind of cloak-and-dagger action. The US and British plan was to seal off oil wells in the region with cement and then blow up refineries and oil tanks. However, as the execution of this plan would have taken too much time, a faster option was even considered to contaminate the oil fields radioactively by scattering radioactive pellets by plane through the surrounding desert area.

(Source: National Security Council, [NSC 26/2] report, “Removal and Demolition of Oil Facilities, Equipment and Supplies in the Middle East” December 30, 1948, Top Secret, with cover note for the President, January 6, 1949).

It must also be mentioned that Harry Truman was the one who ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not only completely destroying both cities and killing 250,000 and 70,000 humans respectively, but also inflicting devastating and lasting damage to the Earth’s atmosphere as well as to the health of many Earth-humans around the globe. This was a great and terrible crime. Since then, many historians and other scribblers have wondered why this enormous and unprecedented act of destruction was ordered by the US government and what purpose it was intended to serve.

The widespread and predominant opinion was and is that this was the quickest way to bring the US war against Japan to a victorious end and to avoid a bloody US ground troop invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in heavy losses. But this was not the only aim, and indeed not the main aim of this terrorist action that screamed to heaven, for as is often the case, appearances are deceptive and the actual, effective truth looks different from appearances. This has been communicated to the earthlings by the Plejaren and BEAM time and again since the forties, whereby the very large amount of information, warnings and insights transmitted, which were sometimes also future-related, have always proved to be precise, accurate and true upon close and honest examination, and have often found confirmation in the short, medium or long term through earthly research, discoveries or facts and events. But nevertheless, the vast majority of the earth’s population, consisting of more than 9 billion human beings, stubbornly clings to their rooted, illogical and unrealistic convictions and beliefs and is and remains completely immune to the teachings of truth, life and Creation-energy, which has extremely negative consequences for the consciousness- and learning-based evolutionary path of each individual human being and only promotes consciousness-based stagnation and degenerations of all kinds.

Now, the effective purpose of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the part of Truman and the US shadow government was indeed to send a strong, terrible and threatening signal regarding US military strength to the USSR, which was preparing to declare war on Japan in the summer of 1945, and thereby to demonstrate to it in an intimidating manner, that she had better stay away from Japan and other areas of Europe occupied by US forces and be prepared to make some concessions regarding her future sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, Germany and the US-dominated Western Alliance. The USA wanted to stand as the sole victor in the Pacific region. And the construction and use of the atomic bomb as an instrument of US world domination was planned by US government elites immediately after the outbreak of the Second World War and work on it was already underway in the early 1940s, with the decisive findings coming from German scientists.

After the outbreak of the Second World War, the US government needed a ‘casus belli’, i.e. a pretext for war, in order to realise the secret plans of the shadow government and to justify its involvement in the war before the public, which was mostly unwilling to go to war, and thus later to use the atomic bombs, the development of which was worked on from the early 1940s. To this end, harsh economic sanctions were imposed on raw materials necessary for Japanese warfare in order to induce Japan to attack US bases in the Pacific and thus to shift the responsibility of the US entry into the war onto the shoulders of the Japanese and to make its own armed forces appear to its own public and to the world as the victims of a brutal and unprovoked attack (which then actually occurred at Pearl Harbor, as the American Chiefs of Staff and the government had wanted and learned).

As the American historian Robert B. Stinnet has proved in his well-researched book entitled ‘The Day of Deception’ on the basis of declassified documents, and as the Plejaren took note of and communicated to the Earth-humans, the US military leaders and top government officials knew in advance quite well about the impending Japanese attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, because the Japanese naval code had been broken, but they did nothing to avert it, instead cynically confining themselves to bringing the largest and most important warships – the aircraft carriers – to safety and leaving all the other warships to be destroyed and all their sailors and the naval infantry soldiers stationed there to their tragic fate of death. Approximately 2,400 human beings met their deaths at Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941, and a wave of public outrage spread, paving the way for the entry of the war, which took place the following day.

Billy:

Similar insidious deceptive manoeuvres, be it through targeted provocations, economic sanctions as well as so-called ‘false flag’ operations, and other intelligence tricks and machinations aimed at providing a pretext to justify an intended entry into war, and other intelligence tricks and machinations designed to provide a pretext for justifying a desired entry into war, thereby washing one’s dirty hands of innocence before the public and thus perfidiously deceiving and misleading the public, have been put into practice and used by the US government and the shadow government, as before and after, on several occasions to achieve the foreign policy objectives of the US elites of a dark and official nature. One need only recall a whole series of incidents which can be brought to mind and which confirm what has been said above, such as. the sinking of the warship ‘USS-Maine’ because of an explosion which killed 266 of the crew and served the government to declare war against Spain in 1898; then the Lusitania incident of 1915, in which an English passenger ship with 127 American citizens on board – on which weapons were being hidden and transported without the captain’s knowledge – was sunk by a German submarine in the Atlantic, which according to two British historians and journalists, it was a deception planned by Winston Churchill to provide the US government with a pretext to justify US entry into the war, as reported in a 1972 article in the German weekly magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ entitled ‘Dirty Business’ (issue no. 45/1972); and also still the 1964 Tonkin Gulf accident, which was staged to enter the Vietnam War.

Billy:

The alleged first moon landing in 1969 was also a large-scale deception in the context of the competition for supremacy in space conquest with the USSR, which was on the verge of beating the USA to it, as was personally admitted to the Plejaren by a German scientist named Ernst Stuhlinger, who was involved in the Apollo project and belonged to a small group of 37 persons who were well informed about the great hoax and were later subjected to post-hypnotic brainwashing, as a result of which they were dictated artificial memories of experiences they had not had, whereby the moon landing staging in the American desert was also observed by Plejaren human beings.

On the 12th of March 1947, in a speech to Congress, President Truman announced the seminal beginnings of the foreign policy strategy known as the ‘Truman Doctrine’, which effectively ushered in the start of the ‘Cold War’ against the USSR, although it was rhetorically justified by the need for the US to stop the perceived expansion of the Soviet Union. In doing so, the US president deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Soviet Union in order to mobilise public opinion. According to various contemporary witnesses and historians, he is said to have told his close advisors that in order to achieve consensus for a foreign policy as demanding as his, “the greatest publicity campaign that has ever fallen to a president” would be necessary.

According to American professor of international law Michael J. Lennon, the Truman era established what he calls a ‘dual system of government’. That is, in addition to the traditional constitutional bodies (Congress, government, judiciary), at Truman’s instigation, a power apparatus was developed consisting of intelligence agencies, security agencies, military top brass, senior diplomats and presidential advisers, which the constitutional bodies could in effect no longer control. In his book ‘National Security and Double Government’ (2014), he writes that Truman was more responsible than any other US president for the creation of the so-called ‘state security apparatus’ and the enormous increase in power of the executive branch. According to his analysis, this came about as a result of the 1947 National Security Act, which created the CIA, the National Security Council and the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. Later, the NSA (National Security Agency) was also established. The author believes that such an imposing and opaque power apparatus is based on fear of communism, distrust of its own population and a policy of hegemony. He also notes that US presidents have little ability to limit the influence of such power apparatuses and unelected leaders, as their supposed expertise and permanent incumbency lend remarkable weight to their own positions and opinions.

References to the existence of a shadow government or dark government in the USA can be found in several articles and books, such as the book ‘America Game Over? The Great Land of Heroes and Liberators after Democracy’ (by Norman Spreng, Books on Demand, 2017), where the following can be read on pages 271-272:

‘Actually, it makes no difference at all who is at the helm of the USA, for only political nuances change, but the basic direction remains the same, one may be sure.’ (…) The French journalist Thierry Meyssan explains: “Despite appearances, the office of the president has only limited might. For example, it was obvious to everyone that President G.W. Bush did not have the skills to govern and others did it for him. Similarly, it is obvious today that President Barack Obama failed to gain obedience from his entire administration. In truth, the White House’s main job is not to command the armed forces, but to appoint or confirm 14,000 senior officials. Moreover, the president is the guarantor of the ruling class’s hold on power; that is the reason why they, and not the people, elect the president.”

And he continues:

“According to Paul Craig Roberts, the powerful oligarchs are Wall Street, the MegaBanks, the Federal Reserve (FED) as a federal agency, as well as the Military-Industrial Complex (MIK), the neo-cons in the US Congress and the US multinationals (…). This shadow government is an octopus, its tentacles now extending into all areas of politics, military, business and culture.”

“Many Americans cling to the comforting belief that the Deep State is a fiction, at least in a ‘democracy’ like the US. Hints of the continuing might of the security agencies and other key officialdom barely get a mention in the mainstream media, which many other suspicious Americans see as another component of the Deep State.”

Ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern said. And he also noted that ‘Trump appeared to have been as intimidated by the Deep State as his predecessor, Obama.’

(Source: www.rubikon.news/artikel/der-jfk-triumph-des-tiefen-staates-uber-trump)

The term ‘Deep State’ was coined by the 2016 US book by Mike Lofgren – who worked as a US Congressional aide for 28 years – entitled ‘The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government’ circulated and popularised. In the book, he speaks of a power grouping whose origins he traces back to the early days of the Cold War, which emerged from an intertwining of bureaucracy, military, financial and high-tech industries and became increasingly similar to the Soviet nomenclature as a ruling class. This form of government was first conceived by the Manhattan Project and found an exemplary embodiment when, under strict secrecy, unheard-of amounts of money were invested and entire cities, laboratories and facilities were built from nothing in a very short time. After the end of the war, this organisational model had been extended to the whole state and had reached a turning point in Truman’s time, through the rhetorical exploitation of the alleged constant threat to national security posed by totalitarian regimes to legitimise the abnormal growth of the military apparatus, whose activities were concealed under the cloak of secrecy. This militarisation of the state has developed in such a deep and comprehensive form that it cannot be limited in time or to specific areas, but has become a permanent state of emergency that can be described as a basic element of the effective state order, emptying it of any function of the constitutional organs.

In this regard, it must be mentioned that, according to Plejaren, the USA is a polyarchy of the oligarchic type in terms of state form, i.e. a state structure structured by various independently operating and sometimes competing centres of power (such as Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the CIA and other secret services, the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex, as well as precisely the shadow government). In this regard, on 17 January 1961, the 34th President of the United States of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his last televised address shortly before leaving office, uttered the following words:

‘This combination of a vast military apparatus with a great armaments industry represents a new experience in the United States. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, in every legislature of our states and every agency of the federal government. We recognise the necessity of this development. But we must also not close our eyes to its grave consequences. All our efforts, resources and livelihoods are affected; so is the structure of our society. (…) In the bodies of government, we must resist the seizure of unauthorised interference, solicited or otherwise, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the catastrophic growth of misplaced might exists and will continue.

And Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges writes the following about the American shadow government:

In the United States, in addition to the visible government, there is an invisible government made up of anonymous technocrats, intelligence officers, generals, bankers, entrepreneurs and lobbyists. The United States of America is firmly in the grip of an invisible government, led by the country’s intelligence services.

Chris Hedges uses excerpts from journalist Stephen Kinzer’s new book to trace the historical and current crimes committed by the CIA and the impact they have had on the US and the world:

There are two kinds of government in the United States: on the one hand, there is the visible government – the ‘White House’, Congress, the courts, state legislatures and governors – and on the other hand, there is the invisible government, or deep state, in which anonymous technocrats, intelligence officers, generals, bankers, entrepreneurs and lobbyists control domestic and foreign policy, regardless of which political party is in power.

The most powerful and important organs of the invisible government are the nation’s bloated and unaccountable intelligence agencies. They are its vanguard; oversee a vast shadow world and are tasked with maintaining the invisible government’s position of power; spy on domestic and foreign critics and smear their names, rig elections, bribe, blackmail, torture, assassinate and flood the media with ‘black propaganda’; are immune to the chaos and human suffering they leave in their wake. The invisible government has overthrown democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala and Chile, and driven the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

This has resulted in disasters, social unrest, economic collapse, massive misery, death and a fanatical anti-American resistance. The United States and the rest of the world would be far safer if our self-appointed shadow warriors, who failed to foresee the Iranian Revolution, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, were seemingly unaware of the non-existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and whose extensive use of torture makes them the most efficient recruiters of radical jihadism, were held accountable to the public and the rule of law. Every now and then one catches a glimpse of the moral dereliction and ineptitude that is the shadowy world of the US.

(Source: https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-schattenregierung)

That the USA is actually not a democracy but an oligarchy is argued, among others, by the Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser. In a lecture given in Berlin under the title ‘The US Empire is an Oligarchy’, which can also be seen on YouTube, he quotes the following words of former US President Jimmy Carter (from an interview given to American talk show host Oprah Winfrey in 2015):

All US presidential candidates must have at least $200 or $300 million. (…) We have become an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that is the greatest damage to the fundamental ethical and moral standards of the American political system that I have ever seen in my life.

(Source of quote: Daniele Ganser’s book ‘Illegal Wars’ p.33)

“The One Hundred US Senators have an average private wealth of three million dollars, according to a recent survey. This means that the US Senate is not the council of the old and wise, but of the rich,” he added. From this, Ganser believes, it can be concluded that the US is therefore an oligarchy (the word comes from the Greek and means ‘rule by the few’) because it is “dominated by a rich and powerful elite, while the average American has little might to influence policy”. This entails that “American foreign policy serves exclusively the interests of the oligarchs”.

The relationship between the so-called ‘Deep State’ and the US president can be exemplified most obviously by the parable of Obama, for he was elected to the White House on the basis of a widespread wave of enthusiasm, but on the other hand also at a time marked by a general crisis of the American social and economic system.

In his election campaign, he had held out the prospect of questioning and reforming some of the cornerstones of the American power order (such as the excessive power of the security apparatuses and the financial world, the excessive military spending, the lack of effective democracy and social justice, the aggressive and bellicose foreign policy), thereby raising high hopes for a radical course of change with regard to governance. But the final record of his eight-year presidency – with a majority in both houses of Congress for most of the term – was very disappointing and, in the final analysis, testified to his political irrelevance and subordination to the effective order of power and certain figures dictating the rules of the game, as well as his abject failure to deliver on the promise of fundamentally reforming the system. What soon emerged, on the other hand, were his efforts to preserve the status quo and not be seen as a foreign body by the main centres of power, official and unofficial, but to be favourably received. This objective was clearly evident in the selection of his ministers, senior officials and advisers, no small proportion of whom were members of the Bush administration staff. To bring Obama’s governing experience to a brief denominator by way of example, Lofgren recounts a significant episode that, in his view, most clearly represents the president’s relationship of subordination to the Deep State. In an interview published in March 2015, the often-criticised former CIA director John Brennan, to whom Obama had always shown great loyalty, said “the president did not have a great regard for national security when he took office, but through tutelage on his part and on the part of other experts, he was trained and came to understand the complexity of it all”. This shows that Brennan did not express any gratitude for the loyalty shown to him by the president, which was at odds with his moral values, as if this was a duty on the part of the president towards the CIA anyway. For his part, the fate of Obama, who had embodied the symbol of change before taking office, has tragically revealed how a president with strong and sincere intentions of change soon became the victim of foreign and subtle influences by powerful key figures and wire-pullers, as well as by the shadow government and the official apparatus of power, as if taken over and virtually remote-controlled by an automatic cooperation process. Incidentally, it was made known through the Plejaren that Obama was also threatened with death by dark forces.

In the preface to his 1998 book ‘The Secret History of American Wars. Conspiracy and War in US Foreign Policy’, Mansur Khan writes the following:

‘Ever since the American-Mexican War (1846-1848), provocation and intrigue have been a means of triggering wars in American foreign policy. A common thread running through the history of American wars points to provocations and staging of ‘incidents’ that those in power use to make their own people believe that war is now justified. One must not forget that war is also always a profitable business for the business and arms world. In connection with the American wars, it always struck me that the real policy was not made by the politicians, but by a power elite that pulled the strings in the background. (…) Moreover, the same power elite controls our media, deciding which ‘news’ to broadcast and which not. Most of the US presidents were only instruments of this power elite and they did what they were indirectly or directly ordered to do.

If one wants to take note of and delve into the whole history of the tricky US foreign policy and the American war operations in detail, one can, besides the book quoted above, read, among others, the following books: ‘The Moloch. A Critical History of the USA’, by Karlheinz Deschner, and ‘Zerstörung der Hoffnung (Killing Hope): Armed Interventions by the USA and the CIA since World War 2’, by William Blum. The latter worked for a time as a civil servant at the US State Department. As for Blum, it is worth noting what he said in a 2015 television interview with ‘Russia Today’, namely, “I don’t think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House; which presidential candidate and from which party doesn’t matter.” Asked by the moderator why he thought there would be no difference, he replied:

“Because US-America has been pursuing one basic goal for two centuries and that is world domination. (…) Both the Republicans and the Democrats dream of US domination (…). The idea is that we are the chosen nation and we have something important to teach the rest of the world, namely our values of US chosenness. (…) NATO shares the US desire to rule the world. NATO is merely a tool for the US. There is no point in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy. (…)”

Then the moderator asked him: “NATO’s intervention forces in Eastern Europe are to be increased to 30,000 soldiers. Why are they doing this and against whom are these troops directed?” To which he replied:

“NATO activities are directed against Russia. The US will not tolerate anyone who stands in the way of the global expansion of the US empire. Russia and China are the only nations capable of standing in the way of the US empire.”

In the history of the USA, there has always been a close relationship between Christian faith and politics since its beginning, so that almost all presidents have been happy to invoke God in important speeches, decisions and entries into wars, as the German writer and church critic Karlheinz Deschner describes in the following book excerpt:

US presidents accompany their actions, deeds or misdeeds (mostly identical here) with lofty thoughts, with explicit reference to God, the Bible, Christianity – from Benjamin Franklin, who invokes divine assistance for the success of a huckster revolution, to McKinley, who sets out to conquer the Philippines in order to ‘Christianise’ it, to Truman, the atomic-bomb slasher, who sees in the Bible ‘the foundations’ of the American Constitution, to Lyndon B. Johnson, the Vietnam fighter and ‘Disciple of Christ’ member. Johnson, who ‘will never let a line be drawn’ ‘between the power we possess and God who rests deep in our hearts’; and to the crook Nixon, who calls his nation the ‘nation under God’; to the Hollywood mime Reagan, who celebrates the USA as the ‘golden hope for all humanity’, as ‘the last great hope of Earth’s humanity’; who claims that ‘God, pouring out his grace on this land, always looked upon us and led us to the land that is the land of promise’, ‘the land that was never meant to be second best’. And why? The actor knew that too: “Because Americans are far more religious than human beings in other countries.”

(Source: Karlheinz Deschner, ‘The Moloch. A Critical History of the USA’ page 35, 2002, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, Munich).

The technique of deception and misdirection described earlier, as well as propaganda warfare for the purpose of constructing the perfect image of the enemy, has been systematically applied for years by the American secret services and NATO with regard to Russia in order to make the Russian president appear before the eyes of the public as the number one villain and a great threat to the West.

The list of incidents and intrigues in which, according to Western propaganda, the Kremlin leader has had a hand as the evil mastermind is very long. This includes, among others, Brexit, the Skripal affair, the Trump election, the corresponding manipulation of public opinion for political purposes through social media with the use of ‘trolls’, as well as hacking attacks against various institutions, companies and authorities in the EU and the USA, the financing of far-right parties in Europe, the murder of a whole number of critical journalists and political opponents in Russia and, most recently, also the poisoning of the dissident Alexei Nawalny, which, by the way, based on what was discovered by the Plejaren, was thought up and perpetrated by someone from his own circle, presumably in agreement with some secret service people from the West. Here is an extract from the Plejaren contact reports:

Bermunda:

Billy:

Bermunda:

It is undeniable that Putin is contradictorily accused of conspiring against the EU, the USA and NATO in every conceivable and obscure way by those who, through their media and journalists, or rather their propagandist lackeys, are making a great effort to make the EU, the USA and NATO look bad. propagandist lackeys to make it clear to the citizens again and again that there are no conspiracies, secret agreements and intrigues on the part of the rulers of the Western states and that it can be completely ruled out that there will ever be such, because in the Western states, which they sell as democracies, in contrast to all other states on Earth, everything political and governmental is transparent, i.e. it takes place before the eyes of the citizens and is under their control as if they were completely transparent glass houses. This naïve and deceptive narrative is then believed by many listeners, viewers and readers who have not the faintest idea of what democracy really means, how it is to be effectively realised and how it has been practised concretely on other planets and by foreign civilisations in the universe for thousands of years. There are various political systems on Earth, but they all have nothing to do with democracy, with the sole exception of Switzerland, which is also only a partial democracy. The Western states are representative constitutional systems of the oligarchic type, which can also be described as corrupt multi-party dictatorships, whereby every 4 or 5 years an ever smaller part of the population elects parliamentarians who, once elected, as a rule only represent their own interests or those of their own party or inner-party grouping as well as those of certain national or international lobbies, financial and power centres (such as NATO, the Bilderberg Group, etc.) of an official or secret nature. ) of an official or secret nature, in such a way that they do not represent the will of the people or at least their majority at all, but constantly betray and trample on it. The people do not even have the might to remove treacherous, corrupt, incompetent and war-mongering rulers from office. When wars break out, it is usually the case that politicians and those in power send their fellow citizens to the front as soldiers, i.e. as cannon fodder, without a second thought, while they remain safe at home in their magnificent government palaces and beautiful flats, indulge in luxury in their comfort zone and, from their comfortable position, spout empty inflammatory slogans and mendacious slogans that bristle with rhetoric, primitiveness and stupidity, but which often even they themselves do not believe in. And when the bombs start falling in their own country, they fearfully hide in their bunkers and, in front of running cameras, continue to incite the people to fight hard against the enemy, no matter how many human lives it costs, because they are too cowardly to go to the battlefield, to fight on the war front alongside their fellow citizens and to risk their lives.

As for the fighting term ‘conspiracy theory’, which serves to stigmatise, discredit and demonise dissenters, and its obsessive and systematic use by self-appointed fact-checkers and media gurus in general, it is interesting to reconstruct briefly the history of the origins of this rhetorical and disqualifying phrase so readily used. The whole thing is traceable to the Kennedy assassination and the subsequent intelligence machinations in the field of psychological warfare. The purpose was to cover up the masterminds in order to discredit those who wanted to uncover the truth and therefore questioned the official government version of the lone assassin, thus diverting the public’s attention from the so-called alternative explanations, which consisted of circumstantial evidence, materials and facts that had been ignored by the official Warren Inquiry Commission of the US Congress. After the courageous prosecutor Jim Garrison launched an investigation into the CIA connections of some of the assassin’s contacts in the first criminal trial of the Kennedy assassination, it emerged that in April 1967 a memorandum was sent by the CIA’s Psychological Warfare/Clandestine Services (PW/CS) Division to all CIA stations in the country. (This is document number 1035-960). In it they were instructed how to deal with those who doubted and criticised the official version of the assassination, and to this end the hitherto common term ‘Assassination Theories’ was replaced by the term ‘Conspiracy Theories’ and given an explicitly negative connotation, so that it was turned into a fighting term, i.e. a term was put into circulation that served to stigmatise those who did not conform to any official explanations and versions propagated by the government and the mainstream media and were critical of them, with a label that signalled that they were cranks, lateral thinkers and fools, namely irrational, confused, paranoid, extravagant, dubious and untrustworthy human beings whose claims and theses were therefore to be ignored and excluded from public discourse, i.e. tabooed. It must be said, however, that such human beings and the completely absurd theories invented by them, not infrequently for reasons of profit and prestige, and based on imaginary conspiracies do of course exist. But this does not mean that there have not been, are not and will not be any real conspiracies that have actually taken place. One does not exclude the other, because secrecy and intrigue have been and still are the order of the day in human history, especially in domestic and foreign politics. To take note of it, to expose it, to pillory it and to communicate it to the human beings so that they become aware of it, as the Plejaren and BEAM do, is not at all to have a paranoid attitude and mentality and to be unserious. The fact that those who forge conspiracies and intrigues are often paranoid and psychopathic human beings does not mean that those who, because of their love for the truth, are engaged in clearing it up and revealing it to the public, also belong to it, i.e. that they are not sick in the same hospital. This fits the saying, “When a wise man points to the moon, only the fool looks at his index finger.”

The human beings from the Plejaren who have been in contact with Billy Meier for several decades have come to the realisation, based on objective analysis and not on prejudice and unreasonable partisanship – as happens with most Earth-humans when they assess something or someone – that the state powers of the Western states are making completely wrong decisions with regard to the currently ongoing war in Ukraine, which could have devastating and unprecedented consequences, which they cannot even imagine due to their grave inability to think and to anticipate the consequences of their own actions and decisions, because they do not recognise the universal law of cause and effect, which can somehow be compared to a pendulum movement of actions and reactions, and behave like little children as if it were possible to trick this law of nature, which is valid everywhere in the universe and eternally, i.e. that they are in a severe form of delusion. i.e. that they are severely affected by a lack of ability to recognise reality and are therefore not at all up to the task of their responsible office.

Particularly interesting is the following analysis by the Plejaren Quinto – who is, among other things, an expert on Earthly politics, i.e. that he is concerned, in his own words, with the “observation and assessment of political movements and machinations of all domains of all states” – of the American state power and social structure, its emergence and the exploitative, hegemonic as well as unrest and strife-making relationship of the US governments to other states and countries of Earth.

Quinto:

The USA keeps all regional states of the Earth under its dominating supervision under strict control, whereby they cannot develop further, cannot strive higher and cannot determine themselves, but are as good as dependents and vassals of the USA, which believes itself to be the only world power and wants to exist in this way with all its dishonest infiltrations. For this reason, the USA does not want peace, but hates it and does everything it can to keep all the states it controls down with the same means of oppression and to keep them small and unable to act for themselves. The USA intervenes actively in the affairs of other states under its control, politically, financially, militarily, secretly, economically and even religiously, when this seems necessary and beneficial, but it also interferes everywhere in foreign problems and circumstances that are none of its business. In doing so, however, they are tormented by the constant fear that other states, especially Russia and China, might cause them politically, militarily, secretly, diplomatically and economically harmful competition, and also that certain government leaders of other states – especially Russia – might undertake efforts towards world peace and also encourage other states to do so. This miserable fear, anxiety and threat of the US rulers, military and secret services – along with various other profoundly low, unprofessional and empty motives – have existed since the founding of the United States of America and have always caused all those responsible to thwart any peace efforts that have been undertaken in numerous states on Earth since ancient times and are still emerging again and again today in the 3rd millennium. Since the United States of America has been in existence, it has not allowed peace to come about among the peoples of Earth, because it does not want peace but hates it, because on the one hand it is afraid of losing the far-reaching power it has built up on Earth, and on the other hand because it would have to give up its striving for world domination. From the US side, everything violent is done and undertaken at all costs against peace on Earth and with regard to their desire for world domination. And this is being done first and foremost according to the power-driven will of those responsible for the government, the military, the secret services and the economic powers, but also according to the will of that part of the population which is dependent on the government, the military, the secret services and the economy, and absolutely against the will of that minority of the population which is striving for peace and freedom with reason and intellect and is also making efforts to achieve this with appeals and peaceful demonstrations, etc. The incontrovertible fact is – because the USA neither want nor strive for a far-reaching nor a world-wide peace and also no true freedom, but want to seize world domination – that there is absolutely no will to bring about an actually truthful abandonment of nuclear physics, just as no responsibility and no interest can arise with regard to an end to the further development of even more dangerous and destructive and ultimately all-destroying nuclear weapons. So there are also no efforts for nuclear disarmament to free the Earth in honest and reasonable cooperation with all other nuclear powers from this world existence-threatening scourge of fear and destruction, which was created by the USA and used nefariously and criminally in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and since then has been constantly further developed and up to the present time has become a planet-destroying and human extinction danger. This, while also in their own country sacrilegiously and reprehensibly crimes were committed against their own ignorant population by ordering their own military, actors, internees and private persons etc. into areas, letting them in and deliberately contaminating them with radiation by exposing them to atomic experiments with atomic bomb tests and contaminating them with radiation. Of course, it could not fail that through espionage and scientists, other states also took up nuclear research and developed nuclear weapons of various kinds, creating further nuclear powers and also the danger of an all-destroying and all-destroying nuclear war. And this danger has persisted to this day, and it has even been rekindled by the new hostilities of the United States of America and the dictatorship of the European Union and various supporters of these two dictatorships, as a result of the hateful and hostile machinations against Russia. Despite the partial disarmament of nuclear weapons, the threat and danger of the use of nuclear weapons and thus of nuclear war, triggered by the nuclear powers in armed conflicts, but also by extreme terrorist organisations in possession of nuclear weapons, is very great. Moreover, all nuclear powers still have more nuclear weapons than officially admitted, although not even this larger number of nuclear weapons would be necessary to destroy the Earth to such an extent that all life on the planet would be destroyed and none could exist any more. Just a small part of the officially known and existing nuclear arsenal of the largest nuclear powers would be quite sufficient for this. But to stay with the United States of America, of which I speak with regard to your questions, it is to be said that in view of all the facts mentioned so far alone, it can be stated that the hostility to peace and the hatred of peace as well as the permanent addiction to world domination of the rulers of the USA and their supporters from the population will continue far into the future. The irresponsible and powerless part of the state leaders, as well as their incompetent advisors, secret services and economic powers, etc., but also that part of the power-obsessed and war-mongering elements of the military leaders and military-obsessed from the population of the United States of America, persist in the same delusion as was the case in the early times of the formation of this multi-state structure. Even then, many outlaws committed serious crimes, just as many state officials acted criminally, because they were just as shamed, conscienceless and criminal-minded as many of their successors have been up to the present time. Even in the early days, the rulers in the USA exercised their power and abused the trust of that part of the population which was straightforward, capable and blameless, as is still the case today, but as will also be the case far into the future – also in undemocratic other states on Earth. (…)

Contrary to the ‘factual version’ propagated by Western media and politicians, which insists that the Russian side had planned the war for a long time and was not prepared to compromise, if the course of events leading up to the war as well as the behaviour of the protagonists in this process are examined objectively and without prejudice, one comes to the conclusion that it was quite possible for the Russian side to have been involved in the war, the conclusion is that it was quite possible to avoid the outbreak of the current Ukrainian war through a fair agreement between Russia and the NATO bloc and between Russia and Ukraine to renounce Russia’s security and guarantee demands regarding the stationing of NATO missile facilities in the countries of Eastern Europe. The goal claimed by the head of the Ukrainian government – which was even laid down in the Ukrainian constitution – of applying for membership in NATO, was never up for discussion and on the negotiating table because of the arrogant refusal of US America and the NATO leadership to even talk to the Russian side about it, although this would have been precisely the most important point to be discussed and the core question to be solved for peace, as the Chinese government has signalled. In recent years, nothing serious has been done by the European side, especially by Germany and France, which acted as guarantors of the agreements signed in Minsk between Russia and Ukraine, to call on both parties to the dispute through diplomatic channels to commit themselves to truly and effectively respecting and maintaining the Minsk agreements and, above all, to putting them into practice, which was the only viable way to avert war. It is known to anyone who has seriously, impartially and objectively studied the Donbass conflict, or rather the civil war in Ukraine, that the Minsk peace agreements, which were supposed to guarantee autonomy status for the Donbass region, were in fact never implemented. The resistance to this on the Ukrainian side was due to internal political reasons, interests, political calculations and fears of rebellions on the part of nationalists and right-wing extremist groups, as well as strong pressure from outside (presumably from the US government and Eastern European countries such as Poland and the Baltic states, which were interested in a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian conflict), in opposing a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian civil war in order to blame Russia and weaken it diplomatically and sanction it for its military support to the Donbass separatists and the annexation of Crimea), which was particularly strong, as has been admitted both publicly and in internal intergovernmental conversations by former Ukrainian presidents and government officials. To this end, it suffices to recall that the current president of Ukraine promised during his election campaign in 2019 that, if elected, he would make a serious effort to finally implement the Minsk agreements, even if this would require a bold willingness to compromise, because some concessions would be necessary vis-à-vis Russia and the Donbass separatists. There is no need to go into whether this promise was kept, because the answer is in front of everyone.

Moreover, peaceful proposals for solutions were also made immediately before the outbreak of war, i.e. in the first half of February this year, both by the indecisive and easily influenced German Chancellor at the annual Munich Security Conference – which were, however, not accepted by the Ukrainian President – and by the French President during his visit to Kiev, whereby a peace plan was suggested to the Ukrainian side, which was at first at least partially accepted, but on the following day contradictorily and in a seemingly inexplicable manner rejected by the Ukrainian President.

An undeniable fact is that all peace efforts and proposals from the German and French sides, as well as the peace plan proposed by the Russian side, which could have avoided this war – which stood in the way of the secret plans of the American shadow government – were rejected by the Ukrainian side. It is certain that some representatives of the official US government or other emissaries have influenced the Ukrainian president on the basis of their detailed knowledge of his personality and concerns, so that he dances to their tune out of claims to power, ambitions and personal interests known to them, and thus makes an important contribution to the realisation of the secret plan of the US shadow government, according to which, as a result of the cynically provoked and accepted invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops, i.e. by causing the outbreak of the Ukrainian war, an attempt is being made to defeat Russia once and for all.

Based on what the newspaper ‘Wall Street Journal’ reported on 1.4.2022, during the Munich Security Conference, the acting German Chancellor had proposed to the Ukrainian President, five days before the Russian invasion, namely on 19 February, to declare publicly, i.e. officially, that he renounced to apply for NATO membership and was ready to advocate his country’s neutrality within the framework of a comprehensive agreement on the security of Europe and Ukraine in order to avert the impending war, but the latter is said to have rejected the proposal. The proposed agreement was to have been signed by the presidents of the USA and Russia. The Ukrainian president is said to have justified his rejection by saying that “it is not credible that Putin would abide by such an agreement” and that “the majority of the Ukrainian population favours joining NATO”. The American newspaper commented that “such responses made German government officials fear that the chances for peace were fading”. The same newspaper article also reconstructed the CIA’s role in preparing the Ukrainian government for the Russian invasion. It emerged that the CIA chief had travelled to Kiev in January 2022 to allegedly notify the Ukrainian president of the Kremlin’s war plans, thereby enabling him to prepare a counter-offensive. And he allegedly carried out two secret missions in the months before the outbreak of war: The first in Moscow in November 2021 to convey the message to Putin that the West would respond with tough sanctions if he attacked the neighbouring country, and the second in Kiev to deliver important information to the Ukrainian president regarding the first days of the war, aimed at averting a possible lightning attack on the capital’s airport. In doing so, he is said to have stated that Putin had planned a blitzkrieg-type attack starting from Belarus and directed at Kiev in order to capture the airport and gain control of the capital through the use of paratroopers, with the aim of overthrowing the government.

In his response to the message relayed to him by the CIA director through an encrypted connection, the Kremlin chief reportedly dismissed any suspicion of a planned invasion and criticised the US for ignoring Russian security demands for years – the aforementioned newspaper reported.

The Russian president had signalled several times in recent years and months that Ukraine’s NATO membership and the consequent installation of NATO and US military facilities, including missile launch systems, near Russia’s western borders was a ‘red line’ that could not be crossed.

Nevertheless, this ‘red line’ was crossed, because the peace-promoting path of decentralisation of the Ukrainian state in the sense of a federal state constitution and the accompanying autonomy for the Donbass region according to the model of South Tyrol as well as the protection of minorities with regard to the Russian ethnic and linguistic population of Ukraine and, above all, the alliance-political neutrality of Ukraine within the framework of a comprehensive security agreement between NATO, the EU and Russia was not taken.

Putin had been invited as a guest at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008 when it was announced that Ukraine and Georgia were to join NATO. His repeated warnings about the dangerous consequences of this reckless plan fell on deaf ears in Washington, as the US and its allies probably believed that Russia would not be able to stop further NATO enlargement, as it had also done in the previous NATO enlargement process from 1999 to 2004. This thesis is also held by the renowned US political scientist John J. Mearsheimer. He rightly noted in a 2014 article (entitled ‘Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault’) that great powers become particularly irritated when they perceive a potential threat near their borders. If, for example, some state that is not an ally of the US and not a member of NATO were to station military facilities and soldiers near the borders of the United States, say in Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean, or a neighbouring state of the US were to join a hostile or foreign military alliance, how would the US react? Certainly not peacefully, as the Monroe Doctrine, which has existed since 1823, states, namely that the USA will not tolerate any military presence of European or foreign (in the sense of belonging to another continent) states on the entire American continent (i.e. from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego).

Worse still, when thousands of Russian tanks and hundreds of thousands of soldiers were stationed near the Ukrainian border in the months and weeks leading up to the war, the US government was committed to launching and continuing a gruelling war of information and nerves, the purpose of which was to bring the Russian president to the point where he finally lost patience and saw no other way out of the crisis than to go to war, which as such is and will always be the wrong way.

Even after the outbreak of the war, this war of nerves was and is still being perfidiously continued by claiming from the official NATO and US side that Russia is ready to use chemical and even nuclear weapons, so that sooner or later, as is the case with a self-fulfilling prophecy, this can actually happen, so that the intended plan of the dark government comes true to have a pretext in the Ukrainian conflict for NATO to go directly to war against Russia, which will inevitably cause the Third/Fourth World War to break out. Unfortunately, the intellectually and rationally deficient, America-friendly EU powers-that-be have not understood where this is all leading, and if they ever do, it will be too late. The horrendously high price to be paid for their hair-raising, borderless stupidity will be the unprecedented destruction of large parts of the European continent. Albert Einstein is said to have once said the following: “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I’m not quite sure about the universe yet.”

As for the contacts and conversations between European leaders and the Russian president that took place just before the war began, it is worth mentioning what the French daily ‘Le Figaro’ reported about President Emmanuel Macron’s visits to Moscow and Kiev. On 9.2.2022, the aforementioned newspaper reported that, according to information from the Elysee Palace (the seat of the French presidency), “during his conversation with Macron, the Ukrainian president reaffirmed his commitment to implement the Minsk agreements”. Nevertheless, in the days that followed, many newspapers in various countries reported that Macron’s endorsement of the implementation of the Minsk agreements and his call to the Ukrainian president to do so had caused unease in Kiev government circles and that the Ukrainian president had conspicuously rejected a renewed commitment to the full implementation of the Minsk agreements during his meeting with Macron. In contrast, at the press conference held jointly with his Ukrainian counterpart in Kiev on 8.2.2022, the French president had announced that the heads of state of Russia and Ukraine were committed to respecting the Minsk agreements and he claimed with satisfaction: “There is now the possibility to continue negotiations.” In his speech at the joint press conference, the Ukrainian president did not cite the Minsk agreements at all. Some think this is explained by the fact that these agreements are extremely unpopular in the country (except in the regions inhabited by the Russian minority). He said only that he hoped the planned meeting of Ukrainian, Russian, German and French representatives in Berlin would be a signpost to revive the peace process. He added: “Actually, I don’t trust words, but I believe that any politician can be transparent by taking concrete steps.”

The next day, based on a report by the RIA Novosti news agency, the Ukrainian foreign minister said that the Kiev government was not refusing to comply with the Minsk agreements as a solution to the conflict in the Donbass, but under no conditions from the Russian Federation. On this he also said: “The sentence that the Minsk agreements must be implemented is like the prayer ‘Our Father’ – everyone repeats it. The question is different, namely whether the Minsk Agreements should be implemented under the Russian conditions and based on the Russian interpretation, or as they are, i.e. in a way that is not distorted by the Russians.” And he added that during his visit the previous day, Macron “had not convinced the Ukrainian leadership to implement the Minsk agreements under Moscow’s conditions”.

The Ukrainian foreign minister’s statement sounds strange, as the Ukrainian government had agreed to UN Security Council Resolution No. 2202 of 17 February 2015, which states the following in its preamble:

The Security Council, recalling the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirming its full respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, expressing its grave concern at the tragic events and violence in the eastern regions of Ukraine, reaffirming its resolution 2166 (2014) of 21 July 2014, is firmly convinced that the situation in the eastern regions of Ukraine can only be resolved through a peaceful settlement of the current crisis,

1. Endorses the package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements adopted and signed in Minsk on 12 February 2015 (Annex I);

Something is obviously wrong with the whole affair. For either the German Chancellor and the French President did not fully understand that their counterpart was not ready to respond to the commitment they advocated and sought with regard to the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements, or they were misled by an apparent readiness to implement signalled to them by their counterpart, although the latter did not intend to follow up at all, which came out openly shortly afterwards and was reported by some newspapers.

As a result of the five-hour conversation with Macron in the Kremlin on 7.2.2022, which came a day before the French leader’s visit to Kyiv, Putin said at the joint press conference that he considered it possible to “consider a number of proposals and ideas [from Macron] to reduce the escalation regarding the situation in Ukraine, which could lay the foundations for further steps.”

What is also noteworthy are some excerpts from the less than ten-minute telephone conversation between Macron and Putin that took place four days before the war began, i.e. on 20 February 2022. These were published in the French newspapers at the end of June, as well as broadcast on France 2 television on 30 June 2022, and then also picked up by many other press organs around the world. In this, Putin told his French counterpart, among other things, that the government of Ukraine was striving to ‘get access to the nuclear weapon’, and immediately afterwards Macron’s diplomatic advisor, Emanuelle Bonne, can be heard commenting, “But no, what are you saying …” and then Macron said, “This is absurd …”. At the beginning of the telephone conversation, Putin had accused the Ukrainian president of doing nothing to respect the Minsk agreements. Putin’s words in the original: “You can see for yourself what is happening (…). You and Chancellor Scholz told me that Zelensky was ready to make a gesture of goodwill and that he had prepared a draft law to implement the Minsk agreements (…) But in reality, our dear colleague, Mr Zelensky, is doing nothing at all. He is lying to you.” Then there was talk about Ukraine’s proposals and the possible involvement of representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Kremlin leader claimed in this regard:

[The Ukrainian government] is not a democratically elected government. They might have come to power in a coup. Listen to me carefully: the principle of dialogue provides for taking into account the interests of the other party. The proposals are there. The separatists, as you call them, have submitted them to the Ukrainian government, but they have not received a response. Where is the dialogue?

In order to understand whether the Ukrainian government had really and honestly intended to walk the path of dialogue and implementation of the Minsk Agreements signed in 2015, as well as the compromise, in order to avert the threat of war, or not, it is appropriate to recall that since 16 February 2022, i.e. before the Russian incursion, when tensions between Russia and Ukraine were on the rise, intensive attacks were carried out by regular Ukrainian armed forces and paramilitary forces in the territories of the self-proclaimed republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, destroying or damaging various civilian facilities to the extent that several hundred thousand residents had to be evacuated from the Donbass to Russia. On 19 February, news was circulated that a kindergarten in a village in the Luhansk region had been shelled as a result of bombardments near the Russian border. There were 20 children there who miraculously survived. The teachers, some of whom were injured, said the attack on the school building had been targeted. The Ukrainian government blamed it on the pro-Russian separatists. And according to a report by the Donetsk Republic Security Ministry on 18 February 2022, some persons of non-Ukrainian descent were said to have been involved in acts of sabotage. The foreign-language saboteurs, equipped with specific devices, had been intercepted by some separatist fighters when they tried to cause an accident by blowing up chlorine gas containers at a fertiliser treatment plant in Horlivka at 4.00 hrs in the morning. The report was defined as Fake News by the Ukrainian government. In addition, OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) observers reported 591 ceasefire violations including 316 explosions in the Donbass region on 16 February, which was an increase compared to the previous days.

At the end of October 2021, for the first time since the beginning of the civil war in the Donbass, the Ukrainian army carried out an attack using drones in violation of the Minsk peace agreements, as a result of which a fuel depot and an artillery position came under fire. The German government also expressed concern about this and appeared to disapprove of the attack, although in the official Foreign Office communiqué it blamed the use of Pilate-style combat drones on both sides in the conflict and warned that this ‘was reserved for the OSCE alone, according to the peace agreements’. The Ukrainian government indignantly rejected Germany’s admonishing statement, stressing through its ambassador in Berlin that the German government should have saved itself the trouble and instead called on it to ‘put Moscow in its place’. Furthermore, the threat was justified by ‘the right to self-defence’.

It is clear, however, that according to the agreements reached in Minsk, an unarmed drone mission is only permitted to the OSCE observer mission. As early as April 2021, it had called on NATO to press ahead with its country’s accession to the military alliance, arguing that NATO was “the only way to end the war in the Donbass” and that “an accelerated accession process would be a real signal to Russia”.

Moreover, it is also the case that on 21 March 2021, the President of Ukraine issued Decree No. 117, on the basis of which, as reported by the ‘Berliner Zeitung’ among others:

(…) he intends to implement the decision of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine of 11 March 2021 (“On the strategy of de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”). The decree announces the preparation of measures to ‘end the temporary occupation’ of Crimea and the Donbass. According to the Ukrainian state news agency UKRINFORM, the government was ordered to develop a corresponding ‘action plan’.

The same newspaper article also reported the following:

Russia is currently massing units on its northern and eastern borders with Ukraine, as well as on the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea annexed by Moscow. This is a reaction to ‘the increasing activities of NATO countries on the territory of Ukraine’, Peskov said. The Kremlin spokesman had already warned on Friday about NATO activities in Ukraine: ‘Undoubtedly, such a scenario would lead to further tensions near Russia’s borders,’ Peskov said, according to Interfax.

And lastly, there is also to read:

According to a decision of the Ukrainian parliament, up to 2000 US soldiers with heavy equipment and aircraft may be in Ukraine this year for training purposes. However, the constitution prohibits a permanent stationing.

(Source: Berliner Zeitung, article title: NATO and Ukraine: ‘We remain vigilant’, published 6.4.2021)

So doesn’t the whole thing look like adding fuel to the fire in an already highly tense situation? What for? Have the USA, NATO and the EU perhaps called on the Ukrainian government to cease the acts of war against its own Russian ethnic population in the Donbass region, which began on 16 February, and to respect the Minsk peace agreements? Are there double standards on the part of the West regarding the issues of respect for international agreements and human rights violations? What kind of community of values is the Western world, since it turned a blind eye for eight years to the multiple human rights violations and crimes against humanity, i.e. the systematic attacks against the civilian population of the eastern Ukrainian Donbass region, which violate international law and the UN Human Rights Charter? Apparently, the thousands of human lives of innocent and civilian persons destroyed in the Donbass during this period were not worth much in the eyes of the Western states and their rulers. Does this perhaps depend on the fact that they are ethnically and/or linguistically Russian and that they sympathise with the separatists and Russia?

When in the late 1990s the Serbian government launched an ethnic cleansing in the predominantly Albanian region of Kosovo, the major EU countries and NATO went to war against Serbia on the grounds that they wanted to protect the ethnic minority of Kosovo Albanians, and when a few years later (on 17 February 2008) Kosovo was reunited with Russia as a result of a referendum in Kosovo. February 2008) Kosovo proclaimed its independence as a result of a referendum, this act based on the election result was recognised by the Western community of states and declared legal by the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 2010, so that since then Kosovo has been granted the right to self-determination and therefore legitimately no longer belongs to Serbia. Why was the same right to self-determination not also granted to the populations of both regions belonging to Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as demanded by Russia? When the Russian government recognised both regions as independent state territories in 2008, it was accused by the West of supporting separatist efforts in the Caucasus and the then US-backed and provocative President of Georgia was even encouraged to join NATO, which then led to war between Russia and Georgia. And further: Why was the result of the referendum held in Crimea in 2014, i.e. the democratically expressed will of the predominantly Russian population of Crimea to belong to Russia, also not recognised by the Western states, but condemned as an annexation in violation of international law and Russia sanctioned for it? Was this not a referendum that was valid and regular under international law, like the one in Kosovo?

There is no denying that the Russia-Ukraine war is being handled by the official American government and the shadow government in the same way that a long tradition of intrigue, covert operations, intelligence manoeuvres, interference in the internal affairs of other countries and provoked wars have always been used to destabilise foreign countries in favour of their own interests and to overthrow their undesirable governments (what the Americans call ‘regime change’). The supply of weapons to certain parties or groups plays an important role in instigating and escalating chaos, discord and civil war with the covert aim of bringing about a change of power in favour of US policy and economics.

Earth’s humanity, which unfortunately consists mostly of incapable, lazy, uncritical, gullible, unteachable, unwilling to learn, untruthful, consciously dependent and underdeveloped, fickle, inwardly divided individuals, afflicted with delusions of God and with an extremely materialistic mentality and therefore easily influenced, is, as always in its history, manipulated by the powerful through lies, propaganda, opinion control, distortion of other opinions, censorship, banning of foreign or hostile news, manipulation of words and feelings, rhetoric, spreading of false news, collective brainwashing, creation of mass hysteria, paranoid mood-making, conformity, stigmatisation, discrediting and discrimination of those who think differently, Witch-hunting in the form of fakenews control and fact-checking, promotion of conformism, agitation, polarisation of opinions, division of society, demonisation of the other side, scapegoating, spreading of hatred and anger, distortion of facts, omission of information, artificial construction of enemy images, one-sided presentation of history, Hitler comparisons, extreme simplification of complex contexts and problems, tendentious reporting, Partisanship, bias, constant repetition of slogans and phrases as well as emotional and shocking messages and images, imposition of double standards, scaremongering, subliminal suggestion, obedience to authority, false expectations and promises and the illusion of moral, political, economic and military superiority of one’s own camp or position, deceived and abused for their own ends.

What the US shadow government and its compliant enforcers, i.e. the puppets of the official US government, are striving for by every insidious means is to drag out the Ukraine war as far as possible and thereby achieve its escalation, i.e. its intensification and expansion, in order to make the planned direct US and NATO entry into the Ukraine war against Russia appear to the Western public as inevitable, unpostponable and absolutely necessary and to justify it. And of course this is indispensable for the security, freedom and peace of Europe, how could it be otherwise, because the Hollywood narrative of the USA as saviour in distress, bringer of salvation as well as selfless defenders and missionaries of freedom and democracy, i.e. relentless fighters against all dictatorships and all evil on Earth is an evergreen, a classic leitmotif of US propaganda.

All expedient and conceivable tactics, provocations, tricks and manoeuvres are thus used in the context of this large-scale and subtle war of nerves and information, whereby it is always repeated and hammered into the heads of human beings that the Russian leadership is prepared to use nuclear or chemical weapons in the theatre of war. Therefore, it would not be at all surprising if at some point in the Ukrainian war such unconventional weapons were used and then blamed on the Russian side, as was and is the case several times in the previous months with massacres of civilians and shelling of civilian facilities, which are usually exploited propagandistically to promote more weapons and tougher sanctions against the enemy.

It is astonishing why it does not make sense to the broad mass of the Western population that the whole thing is heading for the outbreak of the Third, in reality the Fourth World War, and that it is getting closer and closer until there will be no way back. In this regard, there is a well-known phrase that says: “The sleep of reason gives birth to monsters.” And what seems inconceivably insane in all these machinations is the paranoid illusion of their authors at the official and secret level, which testifies to a total loss of reality, that they can thereby bring Russia to its knees once and for all, defeat it once and for all and get hold of its large and valuable raw material reserves. But such a scenario will never become reality, because it is a dangerous delusion that only exists and haunts the totally unrealistic, confused, hateful and incapable of thinking minds of the US shadow government members, the senile US president and his advisors, who are characterised by an aggressive cold warrior mentality, as well as some European heads of government, especially those of England, Poland, the Baltic states and, last but not least, the head of the EU Commission and the German foreign minister. In order to visualise the people with whom the current US president has surrounded himself, among whom there are also the so-called neocons (neoconservatives), i.e. the notorious, behind the disastrous Iraq war, justified by lies, instigated by G.W. Bush and promoting other US wars for the alleged export of democracy by means of regime change, which plays no small role, it is advisable to watch the documentary film from the TV programme ‘Monitor’ entitled ‘Return of the US Falcons: The Network of Joe Biden’, which was broadcast by the German state television WDR/ARD on 12.11.2020 immediately after his election. The introductory text to the docu-film on the broadcast website states the following:

The elected new US President Joe Biden speaks of reconciliation, common ground, multilateralism. Yet as a US senator he had struck quite different notes: he was a strong advocate of US military interventions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq and a supporter of the drone war under Obama. And today? Looking at Biden’s network of foreign policy advisers, some hardliners may soon be calling the shots again. Advisors with the best connections to the US arms industry.

And at the beginning of the film the following words are spoken:

Joe Biden. He wants to be the friendly face of the USA. Reconciliation and cooperation, instead of division and going it alone. But what does a President Biden mean for a world full of conflicts, in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and many other trouble spots? What does the world expect with a President Joe Biden? To understand this, one has to look into the past. Joe Biden had a decisive influence on US foreign policy for decades. First as a senator on the Foreign Relations Committee for 12 years, later as Vice President under Barack Obama for 8 years. Throughout this time, Biden has advocated many military deployments. Edward Knudsen, political scientist and activist: Joe Biden certainly believes in what he calls America’s leadership role. That means US supremacy and military intervention. He believes America has the right to intervene anywhere, anytime.

Incidentally, the US president, who likes to portray himself as a devout Catholic, referred to the US as the world leader on 17.3. 2021, the US president, who likes to portray himself as a devout Catholic, literally called the Russian head of state a killer and vindictively threatened to pay a heavy price for the interference in the 2016 US presidential election that allegedly helped Trump win, which acts as a psychological war and a sinister and insidious prelude to the coming, first cold, then hot war with Russia, to be brought about by persistence, and clearly shows what his advisors and his dark masterminds have in store with regard to Russia and whose brainchild they are. Because when a head of state uses such trivial, brutal and aggressive language towards another state power without any reason and without any evidence, and verbally attacks him out of the blue, it is like a planned declaration of war and a kind of declaration of war. It should be recalled that despite intensive and lengthy investigations by intelligence agencies, the FBI and other US authorities, no evidence whatsoever could be found that Putin and/or Russian government officials had a hand in Trump’s election victory and influenced the election results. On the contrary, it turned out that in the Democratic Party primaries, intrigues and machinations had been carried out in favour of Hillary Clinton to prevent the likely election victory of her popular rival Bernie Sanders, who represented a completely different domestic and foreign policy perspective. After the publication of about 20,000 hacked emails by the organisation and disclosure platform Wikileaks, founded by Julian Assange, revealed the intrigues to the detriment of rival Sanders as well as his mockery by officials of the DNC (National Committee of the Democratic Party), there was a scandal and later the Democratic presidential candidate lost the election and thus, contrary to the wishes of the shadow government, did not become US president, whereby her eventual election victory, according to Plejaren statements, would certainly lead to war with Russia, i.e. to the Third/World War. i.e. the Third/Fourth World War. Thereupon the story was invented as a deception and, as it were, a weapon of mass distraction – known as Russia Gate – according to which the hacking of Clinton’s emails on her private mobile phone and PC when she was Secretary of State, as well as the Wikileaks documents and later also the Trump election as US President were supposed to be due to machinations of the Kremlin, in order to cover up and make forgotten the actual scandal concerning the sabotage of Sanders’ expected election victory in the Democratic primaries and thus the boycott of his presidential candidacy, by blaming the election defeat of Hilary Clinton, which was unforeseen and not absorbed by the US political establishment and shadow government, on Putin’s shoes.

The involvement of Victoria Nuland and the son of the current US president in Ukrainian affairs and the history of biolabs in Ukraine.

Anyone who looks at historical events with honesty and objectivity cannot help but notice that the war or civil war in Ukraine broke out in 2014 and caused about 16,000 deaths over the course of 8 years as a result of the regime change supported by the USA, which indeed amounts to a coup d’état. The then Deputy Secretary of State at the US State Department, Victoria J. Nuland, played no small part in this change of power process. She made her career under the US administration of G.H. Bush, who elevated her to advisor to then Vice President Dick Cheney and then to ambassador to NATO. Then under the Obama presidency, she was appointed the US Secretary of State’s (i.e. Secretary of State’s) Representative for European and Euro-Asian Affairs. She is the wife of the influential neo-conservative political scientist and historian Robert Kagan, who is the co-founder of the think tank ‘Project for a new american century’ and propounds the theory of so-called ‘liberal interventionism’, and accordingly she has advocated the US wars and military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. In December 2013, during a conversation with Ukraine’s President Yanukovych in Kiev, Nuland tried to pressure him into signing the controversial economic agreement with the EU. But the president refused, not wanting to jeopardise his relations with Moscow. Since then, his political fate was somehow sealed and he was to be removed from power in the eyes of Nuland and the US establishment because he was apparently standing in the way of the US project to annex Ukraine to the EU and possibly NATO. Shortly before the above conversation, on 24 November 2013, the initially peaceful popular protests against the government by those in favour of the economic agreement with the EU had begun in Kiev’s Maidan Square. But soon the radical, nationalist and violent wings of the protest movement gained the upper hand. Tensions between the demonstrators and the police escalated and violence broke out. On 13 and 20 February, 80 human beings, including activists and police officers, were shot dead in Maidan Square. Berkut, the men of the special security forces loyal to President Yanukovych, were blamed for the massacre, which then led to the acting head of state fleeing the country. The accusation levelled at the government by the opposition was that the massacre was deliberately committed to silence the protest movement through a bloodbath. However, the reportage of a well-known Italian journalist and war correspondent, named Gian Micalessin, which was broadcast on a popular channel of Italian private television (Canale 5) in 2017 and picked up by several news sources on the internet across Europe, shed new light on the Maidan events. The TV report interviewed some Georgian snipers for the first time and they gave their version of the events in which they were directly involved.

What came to light in this report was not entirely new, however, as the official version regarding the Maidan events had already been questioned earlier by former Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet. When he returned to his home country from his trip to Kiev 5 days after the Maidan massacre, he told the then EU foreign affairs envoy Catherine Ashton what had been revealed to him by a Ukrainian doctor who had examined the bodies of many of the persons shot on Maidan Square. The telephone conversation was intercepted and its content disseminated by the Russian media. Then Paet stated the following: “The most disturbing thing about this is that all the findings proved that all the persons killed – both among the policemen and among the people on the street – were shot by the same snipers.” And then he quotes the doctor’s testimony that “wound signs attributable to the same type of bullet were found on all the bodies.” And he notes that it is ‘disturbing that the new ruling coalition refuses to investigate what really happened’ and ‘there are strong indications that behind the snipers is not Yanukovych but someone from the coalition’.

In fact, as it turned out in the above-mentioned TV report, it was Georgian snipers who were not only connected to former President of Georgia Saakashvili as members of his own security services and even to his party (although their names will not be mentioned here, but they can be found out through an internet search), but were also involved in the Maidan Square massacre of 20 February 2014. Saakashvili, who had studied in the USA and was supported by the US government during his time in office, had provoked a short but bloody war with Russia in August 2008. Two of the Georgian snipers mentioned above (namely K.N. and K.Z.), decided to spill the beans in Skopje, the capital of Macedonia, in 2017, because they felt “it was necessary to shed light on these facts”. A few months later, the same was done by a third sniper, A.R., who had worked in the Georgian army. All three told in late 2013 that they had been recruited by a military adviser, M.M., to the then Georgian president. The latter went to the Donbass after the Maiden events to lead the so-called ‘Georgian Legion’ in the civil war against the pro-Russian separatists. K.Z. recounts that the first meeting with M.M. took place in the office of the ‘National Movement’ party and that, “the revolt in Ukraine was supposed to have similarities with the so-called ‘Rose Revolution’ that had happened in Georgia a few years earlier”. The three men were then given false passports on the plane to Kiev and an advance payment of $1,000 each, with the promise of a much larger sum later. Once in Kiev, they began to better understand what they had been recruited to do. A.R. says that their task was “to stage provocations to get the police to advance against the crowd of demonstrators. But by mid-February there were not many weapons in circulation. At most, shields, batons and Molotov cocktails were used. But then the riots around Maidan Square became more and more violent.” From 14/15 February, K.N. recalled, “the situation got out of control and the first shots were heard”. One day, on 15 February, said A.R., “M.M. visited our tent camp. He was accompanied by a guy in uniform whom he introduced to us. He told us he was an American military instructor, named B.C.B., and had been a former U.S. officer and sniper with the 101st U.S. Airborne Division.” After the Maiden events, he also moved to the Donbass to fight with the Georgian Legion. K.N.

He was the one who gave you the orders. I had to follow all his instructions. It was explained to us that we had to shoot to create chaos and confusion, [un]interrupted. Whether we were shooting at a tree, at a barricade or at those throwing Molotov cocktails. On the morning of 20 February 2014, guns came into play. It must have been at sunrise when I heard the sound of shooting, it was single shots, and it came from the room next door. At the same moment the Lithuanians opened the window, one of them fired a shot and immediately closed it. Then they all started firing 2-3 shots in a row continuously. We had no other choice, because we were ordered to shoot at the Berkut (the policemen) and the demonstrators. I was completely terrified. We were in the conservatory building. It took 15-20 minutes. I was beside myself, restless and stressed (…)

Shortly after the Italian TV report was broadcast, Macedonian journalist Milenko Nedelkovski published another interview with a sniper who was also sent to Kyiv from Georgia in February 2014 and who confirmed the story told above.

The following quote is from an article published on the German website Telepolis on 15.2.2018 under the title ‘Ever more overwhelming evidence on Maidan sniper operation in February 2014’:

The rushed arrest and deportation of former Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili [from] Kiev to Warsaw on Monday apparently had a second reason. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko not only wanted to get rid of an adversary. On Tuesday, the former Georgian president was supposed to testify in a Kiev court as a witness about the 100 deaths on the Maidan in February 2014. Ukrainian security agencies blame the special police unit Berkut for the deaths of 53 human beings – 49 protesters and four police officers – who died on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 alone. By summoning Saakashvili to court, the lawyers of the former Berkut police officers tried to exonerate their clients. (…)

On Wednesday, the Russian news agencies Sputnik and Ria Novosti published a comprehensive documentation with allegedly new facts about the Georgian snipers. Between December 2013 and February 2014, the Georgian snipers were detached from Georgia to Kiev on the Maidan, where they were initially responsible for general security and were then used as snipers against demonstrators and police officers. The allegations are substantiated today, Thursday, by the Sputnik news agency with the publication of multi-page written testimonies of two Georgian snipers, recorded by lawyers, as well as copies of two Tbilisi-Kiev plane tickets.

Some of the snipers sent to Kiev were part of a so-called ‘special unit’ in 2007, when there were mass demonstrations in Georgia against then-President Saakashvili, and were tasked with beating up individual demonstrators while masked. Each sniper sent to Kiev was promised 50,000 dollars, reports K. N., one of the Georgian snipers.

In the Sputnik documentary, the Georgian snipers incriminate numerous senior Ukrainian officials and politicians who were allegedly involved in debriefings with the Georgian snipers – such as A. P., now parliamentary speaker, and S. P., now a People’s Front deputy – or fired into the crowd alongside them, such as W. P. – then commander of a Maidan hundred, now a Rada deputy. Moreover, the Georgian snipers claim that on the Maidan there were not only snipers from Georgia, but also from Poland and the Baltic states. And that is not all. A certain C. B., who was introduced to the Georgians as a former US soldier, was also involved in the debriefings with the snipers.

The Russian news agency Ria Novosti published a video interview on Wednesday with Georgian General T. Z., a former commander of the Georgian army battalion ‘Awasa’ (Panter), who confirmed that former subordinates of his were ordered to Kiev in 2014. “The people there were carrying out orders from Saakashvili and A. P., the speaker of Ukraine’s parliament, and S. P.,” the general explained.

Speaking to the US-Ukraine Foundation in Washington on 13 December 2013, Nuland spoke of her visit to Kiev a few days earlier and her meeting with the Ukrainian president. Among other things, she said, “the Euro-Maidan movement embodies those principles and values that are milestones of all free democracies” and “a prominent Ukrainian businessman told me: ‘The greatest result of the Maidan movement is that it has proved that the Ukrainian people will no longer support any president – this one or the one to come – who does not lead them down the road to Europe.'” She went on to say that she had spent more than two hours with President Yanukovych during her third visit to Kyiv, that ‘it was a tough conversation, but also a realistic one’ and that she had “made it absolutely clear to him on behalf of the United States that what happened on 10 December and more generally in terms of security is absolutely unacceptable in a European and democratic state”. She stressed that the way out of the crisis for Ukraine was for the president to ‘take immediate steps to de-escalate the security situation and political steps to end the crisis’ and ‘bring Ukraine back to the table of talks with the EU and the International Monetary Fund’. And she added, ‘as Vice President Biden said in his remarks last night, President Yanukovych has a choice. He can choose the path that leads to division and isolation, or he can take a leap” by “open[ing] up to genuine dialogue with the opposition and agree[ing] with a path that returns Ukraine to economic and political health”. On 28 January 2014, in a confidential phone conversation with the US ambassador to Kiev, Nuland said the US had invested $5 billion “to secure the future Ukraine deserves”. This took place a few weeks before then Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster from office in the wake of the Maidan massacre on 20 February. She also spoke of those opposition politicians who, in her opinion, should be involved in the new pro-Western Ukrainian government, as if they could have a decisive influence on the formation of the government. But the conversation was intercepted and published by the Ukrainian secret service, which had remained loyal to the incumbent president. What emerged from the intercepted conversation was that Nuland accused the EU of taking a too soft and hesitant political stance towards the Kiev regime, while the US government had taken a tougher line by adopting sanctions against certain politicians in the pro-Russian Ukrainian government. Then she slipped out the well-known curse: “Fuck the EU”, which caused a lot of stir in Europe at the time. Now the following question arises: What role did Nuland play in supporting the Maidan protest movement and the bloody violence in Kiev (on 22 February 2014) against Yanukovych, in which far-right militias were also involved and as a result of which the incumbent president left the country and went into exile? Incidentally, the US establishment’s interest in Ukraine was not new, as the so-called ‘Orange Revolution’, influenced the rise of the pro-Western candidate Yushchenko in the 2004 presidential election, whose wife grew up in the US and worked as a senior official in the State Department, which was funded by the US. Although Yushchenko was defeated in the election by Yanukovych after mass protests against the pro-Russian candidate’s victory amid suspicions of electoral fraud, 12 days later the opposition-appointed Supreme Court declared the runoff result invalid. In the new run-off election, the pro-Western candidate was then elected president.

As the ‘Neue Zürcher Zeitung’ reported at the time, the American government “according to the US State Department, had provided a total of 34.1 million dollars for so-called democracy projects in Ukraine in the 2004 fiscal year, with the money going to non-governmental organisations and independent media, among others.” And journalist Ian Traynor wrote in the British daily ‘The Guardian’ that Yushchenko’s election campaign had been ‘an American machination’. He had noted that Ukrainian election observers and protest groups had received American money for training and projections had been funded by the US to prove that Yanukovych was responsible for electoral fraud. This was the $5 billion from the US that was previously talked about, which was said to have flowed between 1991, when Ukraine became independent after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, to 2014, when Yanukovych fled office and there was regime change in Kiev. Most of the money came from the US State Department and state organisations, as well as from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The former CIA analyst Ray McGovern expressed the opinion in some interviews at the time that the National Endowment for Democracy, which was founded in 1983 under the Reagan presidency and has connections with the CIA and is regarded as its global economic organisation (also known as the ‘second CIA’), probably also played a certain role in the regime change in Kiev. This organisation, which acts as an extension of the CIA and serves to cover clandestine operations aimed at destabilising and subverting foreign governments, and which finances numerous NGOs (non-governmental organisations) as well as other private foundations and media worldwide, had financed a total of 65 projects in Ukraine. The US ambassador in Kiev at the time had also lobbied for funding for Ukrainian media supporting the Maidan protest movement (such as Hromadske TV, whose director had worked for the American CIA-linked Radio Free Europe and had earlier founded Channel 5, considered the television of the Orange Revolution). World-renowned financier and speculator George Soros has also had a hand in Ukraine for some time, as he himself has admitted. In an interview on 25 May 2014, CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria asked him the following question: “One of the things that many credit them with is that in 1989, during the revolutions, they financed a large amount of dissident activities and civic associations in Eastern Europe, in Poland and the Czech Republic. Are you also doing something similar in Ukraine?” To which Soros replied, “I set up a foundation in Ukraine before it became independent from Russia. And since then it has been functioning and has played an important role in the events that are taking place now.” He is alluding to the ‘International Renaissance Foundation’ (IRF) he founded in 1990, which is one of the largest foundations or non-governmental organisations operating in Ukraine and part of his global network of ‘Open Society Foundations’. According to his own words, Soros agreed in 2015 to invest one billion dollars in Ukraine.

Returning to the intercepted conversation with the US ambassador, Pyatt, in Kiev, which took place when President Yanukovych was still in power, Victoria Nuland also spoke of tipping Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom she calls ‘Yats’, for the post of future prime minister ad interim (original quote: “We want Yats in there”). He is a technocrat and lawyer coming from the banking world. In fact, after the Maidan events, this man became temporary head of government and in the formation of the cabinet, the right-wing Freedom Party (Svoboda) was given 4 ministerial posts, including the Ministry of Defence. Two ministers of this right-wing party were even photographed with symbols and letters (HH) reminiscent of National Socialism. And in all these machinations and entanglements in internal Ukrainian affairs, Nuland, who had also previously operated as chief at the CIA station in Moscow, got political backing from the then Vice-President of the USA, Joe Biden. In return, Joe Biden’s son got a lucrative post on the board of directors of Ukraine’s largest private gas production company, formerly owned by an ex-minister of ousted President Yanukovych. Alongside him was also D. A., a close friend of the stepson of the then US Secretary of State John Kerry, was appointed to the board of directors of the above-mentioned company. There he was supposed to deal with Ukraine’s energy supply (one wonders on the basis of what expertise and competence) and the possible development of the fracking industry, as there are huge shale gas reserves in the Ukrainian subsoil.

As a video recording shows, in January 2018, the then US Vice-President had boasted during a public speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, considered corrupt, who had led investigations into the machinations of the stepson – at the time when he sat for some five years on the supervisory board of the largest Ukrainian gas company and was paid handsomely for it – had been dismissed at his behest. These were his words: “I said you won’t get the billion dollars. I give you six hours and if the prosecutor is not fired, you won’t get the money. And that son of a bitch was fired.”

The whole thing was cannibalised during the 2020 election campaign by his opponent, then US President Trump. During the period when V.S. headed Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office, investigations into the B. gas company and the president’s son were not pursued, Deputy Prosecutor General V.K. told Bloomberg-TV. In general, V.S. had made too little effort to fight corruption, prompting V.K. to resign, he said. Bloomberg-TV also discovered that V.S. had been tasked with investigating the gas company affair before he was appointed attorney general in February 2015. However, he showed reluctance to continue the investigation into the gas company. Incidentally, even before his appointment as Prosecutor General, he is said to have had a bad reputation internationally because he allegedly dropped some court cases against persons accused of their involvement in the Maidan Square shooting.

The U.S. Embassy, on the instructions of the U.S. government, reportedly sought to remove V.S. from office, allegedly on the grounds that he had not worked to fight corruption as required by international authorities. In March 2016, the then vice-president and presidential envoy for international affairs allegedly gave the Ukrainian government a short deadline to fire V.S., the prosecutor-general, under the threat of otherwise blocking a $1 billion aid package to Ukraine. The Ukrainian government under Poroshenko’s presidency relented. “President Poroshenko told me that Biden demanded that I be deposed. I asked him on what pretext I should be deposed. I write a letter of resignation, no problem (because already from the beginning I was ready to do that.) With me there is no corruption, nothing. How can you explain that I am being deposed?” asked V. S.

This fuelled the suspicion that the then US Vice-President had demanded the dismissal of the Prosecutor General, especially since he was supposed to have personally flown to Kiev for this purpose in order to protect his own son from the investigations into his involvement in the gas company affair and possible criminal charges. In this regard, Biden has claimed, “I never spoke to my son about his overseas business dealings” and denied any conflict of interest or wrongdoing on his part.

In his 2016 book ‘Illegal Wars’, historian Daniele Ganser wrote in a chapter titled.

‘Fuck the EU: The Illegal US Coup in Kiev’ about the role of the US in the regime change in the following: “While the ousted President Yanukovych was given asylum in Russia, the new President Petro Poroshenko, who came to power through the coup, travelled to Washington and gave a blazing speech to the US Congress in September 2014, declaring: ‘I thank the US for its solidarity’.”

Meanwhile, based on available historical documents, it must be assumed that the US supported the coup in Ukraine in February 2014. “It was a Western-sponsored coup, there is little doubt about it,” former CIA officer Ray McGovern declared. The US had overthrown the government in Ukraine and Victoria Nuland had pulled the strings in the US State Department, together with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. A detailed investigation of the coup by political scientist Ivan Katchanovski of the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa also confirms that a coup took place in Ukraine in February 2014. The Berkut were just the scapegoats who were framed for the crime as part of a false flag operation to discredit the incumbent president. “The Maidan massacre of 20 February 2014 was a successful ‘false flag’ operation, carried out by the leaders of the Maidan protest movement and undercover snipers to seize power in Ukraine,” says political analyst Katchanovski. “The new government, which came to power through the massacre, distorted the investigation.” (…)

Paul Craig Roberts, who had served as deputy Treasury secretary in the Reagan administration, confirmed just that. “The neoconservatives believe that history has chosen the US to establish hegemony over the whole world,” Roberts said. “Obama appointed neoconservative Victoria Nuland as deputy secretary of state. Nuland’s office works with the CIA as well as (the) Washington-funded non-governmental organisations and organised the US coup in Ukraine.”

Victoria Nuland organised the coup in the US State Department, put together the new government for Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and insulted Europeans by quoting “Fuck the EU”, according to a wiretapped telephone conversation. (…)

After the coup, Yatsenyuk became prime minister and Poroshenko president, just as Nuland and her superior Secretary of State John Kerry wanted. Vitali Klitschko, the former world heavyweight boxing champion, had to settle for the post of mayor of Kiev.

Some Ukrainians knew that the Americans wanted to overthrow their government. In the Ukrainian parliament, MP Oleh Tsaryov had already exposed the American coup preparations on 20 November 2013 in a speech that was interrupted by many heckles. “In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people, I received clear evidence from activists of the Volya organisation that on our territory, with the support and direct participation of the American embassy in Kiev, a ‘TechCamp’ project is being carried out, within the framework of which a civil war is being prepared in Ukraine.” Under the project, he said, revolution is being fomented to overthrow the incumbent government. “The project has been overseen by the American ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and is running under his responsibility,” parliamentarian Tsarev revealed. “American instructors have explained how the internet and digital social networks can be used to manipulate public opinion … and provoke violent unrest.” These techniques have already been successfully used in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. But according to the UN Charter, “it is inadmissible to intervene in the internal affairs of a state”, Tsarev rightly protested. “We must investigate this!” But his demand did not find a majority. (…)

That Nuland had been concerned with regime change in Ukraine for months is clear from her public statements. “Since independence in 1991, the American people have supported Ukraine’s transition to democracy and a market economy to the tune of five billion US dollars, and in fiscal year 2013 our assistance exceeded 100 million US dollars,” Nuland said in a lecture on 14 November 2013 to the influential Atlantic Council in Washington.

The US empire sought to expand its influence over Ukraine. It sought to build an economic space “stretching from Lisbon to Donetsk, stimulated by market-oriented reforms”, Nuland enthused. “With this in mind, the EU and the United States are negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which promises growth, investment and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.” Of course, according to the UN Charter, it is illegal and a breach of international law to overthrow a government in a foreign country. The Americans also know this. “We have listened to all the recordings of State Department employees conspiring with the US ambassador to Ukraine to overthrow the government,” criticised former US Congressman Ron Paul. “We have heard US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US has spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?”

German constitutional law professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider has also rightly criticised the coup in Ukraine as contrary to international law. “The West encouraged, if not operated, the overthrow in Ukraine,” Schachtschneider said. “These were serious violations of Ukraine’s internal and external sovereignty. That the ‘Maidan’ did not come essentially from its own impetus and power from citizens of Ukraine is obvious,” Schachtschneider recognised two months after the coup. The West had “used the tried and tested method of overthrow, the supposedly somehow coloured revolution”. At its core, he said, was the expansion of NATO. “There is little doubt that the West intervened ‘subversively’, as international law calls it, in order to have a compliant government that is ready to lead Ukraine into the EU and eventually also into NATO,” the German legal scholar said.

(Source: Daniele Ganser, ‘Illegal Wars. How NATO countries sabotage the UN. A Chronicle from Cuba to Syria’, pp. 281-285, Orell Füssli Verlag AG 2016, Zurich).

On 2 May 2014, one of the bloodiest and most horrific massacres in post-war European history took place in Odessa, which was strangely little reported and discussed in the West, as if it was too uncomfortable and inconvenient for Western media (perhaps because it took place under a regime supported by the West?). Monitoring institutions have been set up by both the Council of Europe and the UN out of concern for poor investigations by national authorities and because of the historical significance of the bloody events in Odessa on 2 May 2014. However, those responsible for this bloodbath have not been prosecuted by the judiciary so far and have thus remained unpunished, as no official investigations as well as no criminal investigation of the massacre have been carried out by the authorities. Based on the investigations carried out by independent monitoring institutions and associations (including the 2 May Association), the sequence of events was as follows. On that day, on the occasion of a football match, a column of football ultras marched through the streets of the city on the Black Sea, among whom were also Maidan activists and members of right-wing extremist fighting groups who came from Kharkiv as well as other places and were equipped with shields, helmets, clubs and air and infantry weapons. They then came into contact with a group of demonstrators from the so-called ‘Odessa Self-Defence’, who were representatives of a federalist state reform to protect the rights of Russian-speaking and Russian-ethnic minorities and were considered ‘pro-Russian’. After the two groups came into contact with each other, violence broke out and then a street fight broke out as a result of which the activists of the ‘Odessa Self-Defence Group’ were pelted with stones, bottles and stun grenades. In order to flee from the violence, some of the ‘pro-Russian’ demonstrators barricaded themselves in a supermarket, while the far-right militants made Molotov cocktails to set fire to the department stores’. Police were initially present in extremely small numbers, but managed to save the vigilante activists, who were attacked by the right-wing extremists and whose lives were threatened, by blocking off the entrance to the supermarket with vehicles. The neo-fascists then immediately moved to the anti-government activists’ tent camp, where there were about 200 people, including many women and old human beings, and threw Molotov cocktails inside. The activists were therefore forced to make their way to the nearby trade union building in the hope that they could protect themselves there. Video footage shows that the far-right group then began to throw numerous Molotov cocktails at the union building, setting it on fire and causing the flames to spread rapidly, burning several persons alive or killing them through smoke inhalation, while others tried to save themselves by jumping from the windows of the upper floors. Many of them perished. The fire brigade, whose guard post is only a few hundred metres away, did not arrive until 43 minutes after the first emergency call (a spokesman later explained that his men were ‘not soldiers’ and therefore not obliged to ‘go into a war zone in danger of their lives’). Most of the survivors were those who had managed to climb onto the roof. The official casualty count speaks of 48 dead, but this is likely to be much higher because, based on various witnesses, some of those who had managed to escape from the building were brutally beaten to death, tortured and seriously injured on the spot by the far-right militants, with an estimated 120-130 dead and over 200 injured.

In 2014, the following questioning was made by an MEP regarding the official EU position on the Odessa massacre to the European Commission (Minute No. 008919-14): “On 2 May, a massacre took place in Odessa in front of and inside the Trade Union House, which officially caused 48 deaths. However, based on non-official estimates, the number of victims is said to be 150, to which should be added several hundreds of injured who escaped the massacre by a hair’s breadth. The dead are all of Ukrainian nationality and ethnically Russian. The official version of the Ukrainian authorities has been widely questioned. But the Kiev and Odessa authorities, as far as is known, have not conducted a thorough investigation into this and have not identified those responsible. Numerous lines of evidence suggest that the cause of death of those affected who had fled into the building to avoid being killed in the street was not the alleged building fire, but gunshots from firearms or weapons of some other kind. There is allegedly footage of police officers shooting at human beings as they desperately try to escape through the windows, and evidence is available to suggest that the besiegers had an intention to kill. In the light of such a reprehensible massacre, can the EU Commission make known whether it intends to express firm condemnation of what happened and to adopt positions in the field of foreign policy which may help to prevent possible repetitions of such dramatic events?”

The written reply of the then High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission on behalf of the EU Commission was: “In its conclusions of 12 May 2014, the Foreign Affairs Council stated the following: ‘The tragic events of 2 May in Odessa, which caused the death and injury of many persons, must be thoroughly investigated and all those responsible brought to justice. The Council encourages the Council of Europe’s international advisory body to pursue such an investigation, thereby ensuring its independence and transparency’. The decision taken in November 2014, following the Ukrainian government’s agreement in September 2014 to also include the investigation into the Odessa events in the mandate of the group of international experts, will help to conduct a thorough investigation and bring those responsible to justice.”

Eight years have passed since then and so far the exact causes of the massacre have never been clarified and those responsible have never been brought to justice. The disturbing question of the possible criminal responsibility of the local security forces and authorities and their involvement in what happened has been suppressed.

However, there is another version of this horrific story, according to which the massacre was planned. There are some journalistic reports and reconstructions that point to this, including the one published on the voltairenet.org web network under the title ‘Odessa massacre organised by the top of the Ukrainian state’, which will be summarised below. In the article mentioned, the following note can be read under the title: “The following revelations come from an informant from one of the repressive agencies of the Ukrainian state apparatus. For obvious reasons, he requested anonymity. There are certainly administrative officers in Kiev who condemn the violence that was perpetrated in Odessa and across the country on 2 May 2014.”

“Ten days before the tragedy, a secret meeting was held in Kiev under the chairmanship of the official president O. T. to organise a special operation in Odessa. Present were: A. B. A, Minister of Interior, V. N., Head of the Security Service and A. P., Secretary of the Council of Defence and National Security. The Ukrainian oligarch I. K., placed at the head of the Dnepropetrovsk regional administration by the Kiev authorities, was consulted for the organisation of this operation. During the meeting, A. A. proposed the use of thugs operating in the ranks of supporters of a football club, called ‘ultras’. Since the time he headed the Kharkiv (note: or Kharkiv in Ukrainian) regional administration, he had always worked closely with the leaders of the football club supporters, whom he continued to subsidise from his new residence in Italy. It was K. who raised the 1st Battalion of the Dnieper from his personal guard and placed it temporarily under the command of the Odessa police officers. He also allowed a cash bonus of $5000 for each pro-Russian separatist killed during the operation. A few days before the Odessa operation, A. P. delivered dozens of bullet-proof waistcoats to local nationalists. This video document shows the distribution of the waistcoats to Maidan activists in Odessa. Take a close look at the person making the delivery. It is M. V., a gangster of great banditry, whom you can find several times on the video tapes of the attack on the House of Trade Unions, when he used a firearm. He is then seen on the telephone making his report to the Kiev authorities. The extremist nationalist activists of the Ukrainian National ‘Parliament’ (UNA-UNSO), recognisable by their red armbands, were also used for this operation. They have been given a central role in organising the provocations. In the tent camp of the Kulikov district, they played comedy, posed with activists gathered there against the junta, and posed as defenders of the camp, only to push them the better into the House of Trade Unions where the killers were waiting for them. Fifteen roadblocks had been installed to block access to Odessa. The roadblocks were supervised by militants directly subordinated to the command of the 1st battalion of the Dnieper of K, as well as by the assassins of Pravý Sektor (note: Right Sector, i.e. an extreme right Ukrainian party) from Dnepropetrovsk and Galicia. In addition, two military units of the Self-Defence Forces from the Maidan had arrived in Odessa, supervised by S. P., Head of Services of the Presidency, the very same who was identified on the Maidan on 18 February 2014, and who was in possession of long-range rifle hidden in the boot of his car, discovered and ideal for sniping. P. claimed that he had not been fully briefed on the objectives of the operation and that when he sent his men on the ground, he did it ‘to protect the people of Odessa’. Therefore, there were more than 1400 fighters from other regions of Ukraine who were in Odessa on that day as part of the operation. These facts remove all credibility from the fairy tale according to which it was the inhabitants of Odessa who had reduced the House of Trade Unions to ashes. The head of the Odessa police, D. F., mysteriously disappeared from Odessa immediately after the tragic events. It is the head of the regional police force, P. L., and his local representative, D. F., who personally took charge of the operations. P. L. was charged with neutralising the regional governor of Odessa, V. N.. He was to prevent him from taking an independent security measure that could have thwarted the operation. F. accompanied the activists directly to Greece Square, where he was allegedly ‘accidentally injured’ (to escape further prosecution that would be linked to the following events).

The operation was planned from the beginning for 2 May. A football match was to take place on that day, which would easily justify the presence of many supporters of the football club (the ‘Ultras’) in the city centre. (…) On 2 May, the train from Kharkiv, with its legions of supporters of ‘Metallist Kharkiv’, their football club, arrived in Odessa at 8.00 hrs and some of the ‘Ultras’ were to take part in the operation. At the same time, the units of the 1st battalion of the Dnieper from K. and the Pravý Sektor set off in small groups across the city. From Kiev came the ‘Maidan Self-Defence Forces’, most of them travelling in buses. The police forces had strict instructions not to stop any buses from Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk and Lviv that day. In the afternoon, some militants went to Sobomaya Square, where those who wanted to march for ‘a Ukrainian unified state’ were to gather. They were to organise the crowd and lead them to the barricades of Greece Square. All members of a group of ‘special operations’ with the St George’s ribbon, put on their masks and walked down Alexandrovsky Avenue. These were the so-called ‘Prorussians’ seen on many videos. The provocateurs wore red armbands to distinguish themselves from the authentic Odessa pro-Russian activists. Likewise, the police forces, who were warned in advance of the following events, wore identical red armbands to recognise each other. Unfortunately, some genuine pro-Russian activists, who knew nothing of what was about to happen, fell for the trap of the provocateurs who spurred them on to attack the fascists in order to ‘stop’ them. Many eyewitnesses filmed the aftermath of the events. With the help of the police, the so-called ‘pro-Russian’ provocateurs lined up along the Afina shopping centre, located at the intersection of Greece Street and Vice-Admiral Zhukov Lane, where other provocateurs from the group of football club fans attacked them. These included in particular Pravý sector militants and those from UNA-UNSO. These facts were confirmed, also by pro-Maidan observers who were present. Firearms were used on both sides and casualties were reported in both camps. The mission to divert the fans’ interest from the match they had come for and channel them to the Koukikovo neighbourhood was well executed. The provocateurs, who had greatly agitated the crowd, then retreated to the Afina department stores’, where the police supported them. Some of them were injured. However, they had no casualties. While the clashes continued in Greece Square, a group of assassins from Pravý Sektor settled the final details of the most important part of the operation, code-named ‘Ha’ola’ (derived from the expression ‘Mizbeach Ha’ola’, which means ‘The Altar of Sacrifice’ in Hebrew). They sneaked into the unions’ house through a door at the back of the building. They then took up positions in the basements and attics. There were only proven militants in this group, and all of them were experienced killers. While the mass of people were walking through the Centre of the city and flowing from Greece Square to the Koukikovo neighbourhood, some provocateurs took cars and drove at full speed in front of most of the mass. They then rushed into the tent camp with the intention of creating a panic by shouting: “The ones from Pravý Sektor are coming!” and then: “They are coming to kill you!”, and so on. Instead of dispersing around the city, many fell into the trap of the provocateurs and took refuge in the House of Trade Unions. Some went down into the cellars, from which no one came out alive. They were tortured, killed and cut up with machetes. Others took refuge in the floors. A mixture of petrol and napalm had been prepared to make a pungent-smelling, deadly poison that produced carbon monoxide. Chemists had developed this deadly cocktail for Independence Square in Kiev, but it was not used there. This mixture was tested for the first time in Odessa. It was not an accident: a large-scale massacre had to be realised at any cost in order to terrorise the whole nation. The ‘battle’ in the House of Trade Unions lasted several hours. All the while, brutal people pretended to defend the building by throwing Molotov cocktails from the roof, while others methodically slaughtered, strangled and reduced their victims to ashes. The water supply to the building was cut off to prevent any attempts to extinguish the fire in advance. After the ‘Ha’ola’ phase of the operation was completed, the killers fled from Pravý Sektor via exits at the back and sides of the building and left. Police forces then entered the building. The number of victims was established, which then became the official death toll of the disaster, but it was in fact only the martyrs who were found on the upper floors of the building. Most of the persons were murdered in the basements and their deaths were not recorded. It is unlikely that one day the exact number of victims will be known. According to most sources, at least 120 to 130 people were massacred. The truth cannot be hidden!

The junta leaders privatised the police and intelligence services. To their own detriment, they forgot about the offices of the prosecutor. The Attorney General in office ruled as follows: “This criminal action was not prepared by intermediate levels. It was carefully planned, coordinated and representatives of the various authorities took part.” It is unlikely that he will be allowed to name the real culprits of this tragedy. However, it will be impossible for the junta to completely hide the truth about what really happened in Odessa. This tragedy deserves to be the subject of a detailed investigation. The guilty must be brought before a court of international justice and account for the crimes against humanity they committed. (…)

(Source: www.voltairenet.org/article183933.hhtml)

After the outbreak of the civil war, which raged mainly in the eastern Donbass region, atrocities and human rights violations were frequently committed – despite the signing of the second Minsk Agreements guaranteed by France and Germany in 2015. The Russian Foundation for the Study of Democracy sent the OSCE a report on the acts of violence committed by Ukrainian security forces and far-right paramilitaries in the Donbass, not only against separatist fighters, but also against Russian-speaking civilians who had been taken prisoner. The report described the use of torture methods such as electrocution, electric shocks, waterboarding (a torture practice consisting of pouring water into the detainee’s mouth until he is on the verge of drowning, used by Americans in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo), injury by iron batons and knives, suffocation by plastic bags, tearing out of fingernails and toenails, bone crushing, strangulation with the garrotte (also called the ‘Banderist garrotte’ in honour of the Ukrainian nationalist politician and collaborator Stepan Bandera), imprisonment in cold cells with food deprivation and administration of lethal psychotropic substances. In addition, prisoners were forced to walk on minefields, were crushed by tanks and branded by red-hot iron blades with swastikas and SEPR (which stands for separatist) writings on their chests and buttocks.

In the past eight years, the men of the notorious right-wing extremist fighters of the Azov battalions have been condemned several times by the UN, OSCE as well as the human rights organisation ‘Amnesty International’ for their actions. In an OSCE report, they are described as “responsible for the mass murder of prisoners in mass graves and the systematic use of torture methods of a physical and psychological nature”, whereby thousands of such criminal acts and human rights crimes were never prosecuted.

According to an article published in ‘Der Spiegel’ on 11.11.2017, “the Azov Regiment is recruiting new members with flyers at German neo-Nazi events, apparently successfully: more and more mercenaries are joining to ‘save Europe from extinction’.”

Yet throughout this time, the alarming reports of international institutions and the reports of human rights violations and atrocities in Ukraine were ignored by most Western media, opinion makers and politicians. After the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war, the fighters of the Azov Regiment were even often portrayed as courageous defenders of the country and not infrequently celebrated as heroes, and their far-right ideology was trivialised and interpreted differently than it actually is.

A still-active Ukrainian website called Center Myrotvoret or Mirotworez, which can be traced back to the Ukrainian secret service, has published a constantly updated register that acts like an official blacklist containing the names, photos and personal details of foreign and domestic journalists – who have reported on the civil war in the Donbass, the atrocities on Maidan Square in Kiev and in Odessa, as well as all those who the Ukrainian government considers to be political opponents, ‘enemies of the country’ and other critics. The list of those who have reported on the Maidan Square in Kyiv and Odessa, as well as all those who are considered by the Ukrainian government to be political opponents, ‘enemies of the country’ and other critics of Ukrainian government policy – are listed and pilloried, with ‘liquidated’ written next to the names of the reporters who died during the civil war and the deceased ‘enemies of the state’. It is to be remembered that an estimated 40 journalists were killed in the last eight years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with as many as 80 political murders to be counted in the said period. Among the listed names of Ukraine’s alleged enemies are also former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the famous musician Roger Waters.

A short time ago (19.6.2022), the Ukrainian parliament (Rada) even passed by a large majority two laws banning the import and distribution of books and musical works by Russian authors (whether they come from Russia or from other countries) because they are said to exert a destructive influence on the population. The following news has been denied by most of the Western media, which now seem to arrogate to themselves, as self-appointed judges of truth, the right to ultimately determine what they consider to be propaganda and fake news on the one hand and real information and reliable sources on the other. Now it often happens that real information and facts are declared by these media as fake news and propaganda and thus censored, while on the other hand a whole lot of propaganda reports and false information are published without any control and verification, i.e. i.e. without any fact-checking – which is always talked about in a pompous manner, whereby everything is always carried out in a one-sided manner, disseminated and proclaimed as true, only because this information comes from Western or pro-Western sources and has not been subjected to any fact-checking – is disseminated as real news.

On 19 May 2022, the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and Information Policy ordered the Book Institute to destroy all works published in Russia or in Russian, as well as translated from Russian.

According to the director of the Book Institute and former president of the Publishers Forum, O. K, the aim is to destroy at least 100 million books that allegedly convey evil. This is very reminiscent of the book burnings organised in Nazi Germany in 1933 ‘against the un-German spirit’, as the slogan went, whereby mainly book works by Jewish authors were consigned to the fire. Is this the reason why this news has been denied by most of the media of the self-proclaimed ‘free world’ and branded as fake news? According to a report by ‘Amnesty International’, published in a press release on 4 August 2022, the Ukrainian military is said to have violated international humanitarian law several times during the ongoing war by putting civilian persons in danger. Indeed, the German website of the human rights organisation reads the following:

According to investigations by Amnesty International, Ukrainian troops have endangered civilians by setting up bases in residential areas and carrying out attacks from there. In some cases, they took up positions in schools and hospitals. In subsequent Russian attacks on populated areas, civilians were killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed. In repelling the Russian war of aggression, which is contrary to international law, the Ukrainian military has repeatedly operated from residential areas, putting civilians at risk. This is a violation of international humanitarian law. The fact that the Ukrainian armed forces are in a defensive position does not release them from their obligation to comply with international law.

Excerpt from the translation of the English press release:

Ukrainian troops endanger civilians by setting up bases in populated residential areas, including schools and hospitals, and deploying weapons systems from there in the fight against the Russian invasion. This is the conclusion reached by ‘Amnesty International’ on the basis of extensive research. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger the lives of civilians, as they put civilian objects in the crosshairs as military targets. Subsequent Russian attacks on these residential areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure. “We see here a pattern of Ukrainian troops putting civilians at risk and violating the law of war in their operations from residential areas,” said Agnès Callamard, International Secretary General of ‘Amnesty Internationa’l. “The fact that Ukraine is in a defensive position does not absolve the Ukrainian military from the obligation to comply with international humanitarian law. (…) Between April and July, Amnesty International experts spent several weeks investigating Russian attacks in the Kharkiv and Mykolaiv regions and in the Donbass. They examined sites where attacks had taken place, spoke to survivors, witnesses and relatives of victims, and carried out remote sensing and weapons analysis. During these investigations, Amnesty staff found evidence of Ukrainian troops carrying out attacks from densely populated residential areas and establishing bases in civilian buildings in 19 towns and villages in these regions. Amnesty International’s Crisis Evidence Lab has additionally confirmed some of these events by analysing satellite imagery.

Most of the residential areas used as bases were located several kilometres behind the front line. Viable alternatives would have been available that would not have posed a threat to civilians – such as nearby military bases or wooded areas or other buildings further away. In the cases documented by ‘Amnesty International’, there is no evidence that the Ukrainian military asked or assisted civilians in residential areas to vacate buildings near the bases. This means that not all possible precautions were taken to protect civilians.

Attacks from populated civilian areas

Survivors and witnesses of Russian attacks in the Donbass and around Kharkiv and Mykolaiv told Amnesty representatives that the Ukrainian military was active near their homes at the time of the attacks, making these areas a target for Russian retaliatory strikes. Amnesty International experts observed this pattern in numerous locations.

International humanitarian law obliges all parties to a conflict to avoid, as far as practicable, placing military targets inside or near densely populated areas. There are also other obligations to protect civilians from the consequences of possible attacks, for example by evacuating the surrounding area or giving effective warning of attacks that could affect civilians. Amnesty International spoke to the mother of a 50-year-old man who was killed in a rocket attack in a village south of Mykolaiv on 10 June 2022: “The military had set up shop in a neighbouring house and my son often brought meals to the soldiers. I begged him several times to stay away from there because I was afraid for him. On the afternoon of the attack, my son was in the yard and I was in the house. He was killed immediately. His body was torn to pieces. Our house was partially destroyed.” Amnesty International investigators found military equipment and uniforms in the house next door. Mykola lives in a neighbourhood of Lysychansk (Donbass) in a high-rise building that was hit several times by Russian attacks. At least one elderly man was killed. Mykola told ‘Amnesty International’, “I don’t understand why our military is firing from the cities and not the fields.” A 50-year-old man who also lives in the high-rise said, “There is definitely military activity in the neighbourhood. When there is firing in the other direction, we hear gunshots in our direction afterwards.” Amnesty representatives saw soldiers using a house about 20 metres from the entrance to an underground bunker used by the residents, near which the elderly man was killed. On 6 May 2022, Russian troops in a town in the Donbass targeted a residential area from which Ukrainian forces were firing artillery with cluster munitions. Cluster munitions – as the name suggests – can indiscriminately hit both civilians and soldiers due to their dispersion and are therefore widely banned. Shell fragments damaged the house where 70-year-old Anna lives with her son and 95-year-old mother. Anna reported: “Shell fragments flew through the doors.

Military bases in hospitals

Amnesty International staff observed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In two cities, hospitals were used by dozens of soldiers to rest, stay and eat meals. In another town, the military fired projectiles from near the hospital. On 28 April, in a suburb of Kharkiv, two staff members of a medical laboratory were injured in a Russian air strike after Ukrainian forces set up a base on the premises. The use of hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

Military bases in schools

Schools are also regularly used as bases by Ukrainian forces in various towns and villages in the Donbass and around Mykolayiv. While the schools have been temporarily closed since the beginning of the conflict, in most cases the school buildings are located near inhabited civilian neighbourhoods. In 22 of the 29 schools visited by ‘Amnesty’ representatives, the premises were either currently being used by armed forces or there was evidence of current or past military activity, such as military clothing, spent ammunition, food rations and military vehicles. The Russian military attacked many of the schools used by Ukrainian forces. In at least three towns, Ukrainian soldiers moved to other nearby schools after Russian shelling, leaving the surrounding neighbourhoods at risk of similar attacks. In one town east of Odessa, ‘Amnesty International’ observed a pattern of Ukrainian forces using civilian areas as shelters and staging areas. For example, armoured vehicles were parked under trees in residential areas and two schools in densely populated residential areas were used for military purposes. Between April and the end of June, Russian shells struck several times near these schools, injuring or killing several civilians. These also included a child and an elderly woman who were killed on 28 June when their house was hit by a missile. In Bachmut, Ukrainian forces were using a university building as a base, which was hit by a Russian attack on 21 May 2022. Seven soldiers were reportedly killed. The university is adjacent to a block of flats that was damaged in the attack, and to other civilian homes about 50 metres away. Amnesty International found a destroyed military vehicle in the courtyard of the bombed university building. International humanitarian law does not explicitly prohibit parties to a conflict from sheltering in schools that are not in use. However, armed forces are obliged to avoid using schools that are close to civilian homes or residential buildings, if possible, unless there is a compelling military necessity. If this is the case, they are to warn the civilian population and assist the human beings to evacuate if necessary. This does not appear to have happened in the cases investigated by Amnesty International. In armed conflicts, children’s right to education is seriously affected. Military use of schools can lead to damage to schools that continues to affect the right to education even after the war has ended. Ukraine is among the 114 countries that have signed the Declaration on the Protection of Schools in Armed Conflict. This declaration allows parties to the conflict to use abandoned or evacuated schools only when there is no feasible alternative.”

(Source: www.amnesty.de/allgemein/pressemitteilung/ukraine-kampftaktik-der-ukrainischen-armee-gefaehrdetzivilpersonen)

This report was met with sharp criticism and anger from the Kiev government and the President of the Republic, who described it as a false document in which a perpetrator-victim reversal had been made. The human rights organisation responded to this in a statement with the following words (excerpt): “‘Amnesty International’ deeply regrets the pain and anger caused by our press release on the Ukrainian military’s combat tactics.” In response, the head of the Ukrainian branch of ‘Amnesty International’ resigned in protest, accusing the renowned international human rights organisation that its report had “become a tool of Russian propaganda”.

According to Plejaren observations and corresponding contact reports, it is also the case that Russian prisoners of war are often killed by Ukrainian military, which is also done by the Russian side and is a serious violation of the Geneva Convention, which stipulates that prisoners of war must not be tortured or killed. And with regard to the outrageous crimes committed in this war and concealed from the public, the following is to be read in the recent Plejaren contact reports:

Quinto:

Ptaah:

It should also be mentioned that according to a documentary by the American television channel CBS entitled ‘Arming Ukraine’, which was however removed from the channel’s website immediately after its release, only 30% of the weapons supplied by the USA reach the Ukrainian military. In the film, Amnesty International member and expert on human rights violations in the Ukraine war Donatella Rovera was interviewed, who claims that something similar happened in Ukraine to what happened in Iraq, when IS was able to seize large quantities of American weapons supplied to the then Iraqi government and thus expand its international terrorist work. What can happen is that most of the weapons supplied by the USA and other Western countries to Ukraine fall into the hands of unscrupulous arms dealers, terrorists, extremists, criminals and crime organisations.