By Rachel Douglas

“If I were Michael Ledeen,” a European friend of mine said yesterday, “and I wanted to intensify a clash with Russia, I would use Ukraine.” He was talking about the U.S. neoconservative operative and the author of Universal Fascism, who has been flitting around the newly inaugurated Trump Administration. Ledeen is best known for his obsession with Iran as an enemy image. But my friend was right about the detonation danger in Ukraine, the nation of 42 million that sits on the north shore of the Black Sea, southwest of Russia and east of the area of NATO’s East-Central European (ECE) expansion over the past two decades.

Three years ago, on February 22, 2014, the prolonged, increasingly violent “Euromaidan” coup d’état was completed in Ukraine against the country’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych. His life in peril as commandos from the so-called Maidan Self-Defense Forces threatened to storm his residence at dawn if he didn’t quit, yet unwilling to use military force to crush the thousands of demonstrators still in the Maidan (Independence Square) in downtown Kiev, Yanukovych fled the capital. Unable to regroup in the north-eastern city of Kharkov or his native Donetsk, he ultimately sought asylum in Russia.

The coup of Nov. 2013-Feb. 2014 built on the precedent of Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, when Yanukovych’s first election had been challenged as fraudulent by a Maidan demonstration on the “color revolution” model of Anglo-American financier George Soros and the American professional organizer Gene Sharp. The demonstrators in Dec. 2004 forced a re-vote, which Yanukovych lost. Within months, the victorious Orange revolutionaries were squabbling over power, as the Ukrainian economy continued to dive under their deregulation and privatization policies and kowtowing to the austerity demands of the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych ran again in 2010 and won.

But the more than 2000 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Ukraine, funded by the U.S. government, the UK, the EU, and Soros’s private Open Society projects, continued to shape public opinion in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution. American Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland boasted that US$5 billion had gone into Ukraine through State Department channels alone—much of it, as the Ukrainian-born Russian economist Sergei Glazyev put it, “issued in the form of grants to develop an intellectual community of experts, oriented against the Russian Federation and directed toward shaping Russophobic attitudes in Ukrainian society.”

The new dimension in the Euromaidan, one that was pre-planned, was violent provocations and ultimately a violent overthrow of the government. Yanukovych’s November 2016 decision to delay signing an Association Agreement with the European Union, after he realized that it would damage Ukraine’s economy, was taken as the pretext for a full-scale coup. The Maidan organizers poured into central Kiev and announced they would not leave until the decision were rescinded and Yanukovych left office. While many people came to the Maidan waving EU flags and full of hope for a better life, the paramilitary groups, who repeatedly escalated the violence and sabotaged every interim agreement to resolve the standoff, marched under the red and black flag of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)—the mid-20th-century fascist movement of Stepan Bandera. The OUN had collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and carried out the “ethnic cleansing” mass murder of Poles and Jews on its own, as well. These neo-Nazi groups called themselves Right Sector; their formation and build-up during 1991-2013 stemmed directly out of funding to Bandera’s followers by MI6 and the Allen Dulles wing of the American CIA during the Cold War.

It was the coup-installed regime’s immediate move to demote Russian, spoken throughout much of Ukraine, from its status as a second official language, and a series of attacks by Right Sector in Crimea and the eastern industrial region called the Donbass, that set off a momentous cascade of events in 2014. By mid-March, Crimea had seceded from Ukraine and voted to join the Russian Federation. In the Donbass, the autonomous Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) were declared, rejecting the Kiev coup and laying claim to the major cities and much of the territory of those two districts. At least ten thousand people have died in the ensuing civil war, as Kiev sent army units and Right Sector-based battalions into the Donbass to attempt to quell the Donbass militias’ uprising.

Unfrozen conflict

In February 2015 negotiations held in the capital of Belarus and conducted by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine reached the “Minsk II” agreement between Kiev and the Donbass republics, for a ceasefire and prospective political settlement in that region. Heavy weaponry began to be pulled back from the “line of contact” between their respective military forces. The ceasefire has been overseen and monitored, since then, by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), an East-West club dating back to the 1970s.

Disagreements remained over the meaning of the Minsk II commitment to Constitutional changes in Ukraine, allowing extreme autonomy for the DPR and LPR. To date, the radical nationalists in the Ukrainian Parliament, with Right Sector figures among them, have refused to make such revisions. Nonetheless, the fighting and huge civilian loss of life had abated over the past two years, as if the Donbass were becoming one of ECE’s notorious “frozen conflicts.”

In December 2016, as President-elect Donald Trump continued to signal his wish for normalizing relations with Russia, the Donbass began to heat up again. The initiative came from the Kiev side. Even pro-Maidan analysts reported, as the Kyiv Post did on 26 January, that “Ukrainian forces have staged what has become known as a ‘creeping offensive’ to regain control over territory in the ‘gray zone’—the no-man’s land that divides separatist and government forces in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk [lugansk].”

On 28 January fighting exploded in and around the small industrial town of Avdeyevka, just north of the DPR’s capital, Donetsk. Analysts at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a U.S. Government-funded outlet, acknowledged that “pro-Kiev troops have sparked bloody clashes with their enemy.” Alexander Hug, deputy chief of the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission for Ukraine, reported that Kiev’s forces had positioned large-caliber artillery “including towed howitzers, main battle tanks, and multiple-launch rocket systems banned under the Minsk deal ‘in the open with impunity’.”

With Right Sector and its offshoot battalions, it is never easy to say exactly who has provided the impetus for their actions. But a look around both London and Washington quickly turns up who is cheering them.

U.S. war party Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham (Republicans), along with Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, spent New Year’s eve with Kiev troops near the front line with the DPR. They also toured the Baltic countries, where NATO’s latest build-up is under way. On February 2 McCain issued a letter to President Trump, blaming the Donbass escalation on “Russia and its proxy forces,” and demanding that the USA supply Kiev with weapons—“defensive lethal assistance.”

Poroshenko, on February 1, launched a round of grandstanding about his intention to hold a referendum in Ukraine on joining NATO. Prime Minister Volodymyr Hroysman visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels on 9 February, to meet with NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller, formerly an under secretary of state in the Obama Administration.

Atlanticist think tankers chimed in, with a barrage of publications warning that Trump will “make a deal” over Ukraine: James Sherr of Chatham House in the UK sounded an alarm against “preemptive compromise” over Ukraine; Russian anti-Putin analyst Pavel Felgengauer, writing for the neoconservative Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, wailed, “If Trump hands over Ukraine, he will make Russia great again”; Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council preemptively accused Trump of preparing to sell out Ukraine by lifting sanctions on Russia while, so he claimed, “Russian-backed forces started a brutal offensive” at Avdeyevka.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov devoted nearly half of his 12 February Sunday prime time interview on Russia’s NTV channel to a careful, measured discussion of Ukraine. Speaking of the recent escalation, Lavrov said, “The only advantage I see in this situation, which we arrived at with much bloodshed and after many months, even years of experiments, is that the West is finally beginning to understand what the Ukrainian government is all about and what its assurances of being willing to comply with the Minsk agreements are worth.” Lavrov pointed out that the U.S. officials who will deal with Ukraine have not even been appointed yet. In the meantime, he said, he would be discussing Ukraine, along with other major international issues, with the new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson when they meet. That may happen on the sidelines of the February 15-17 G-20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Germany.

Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, the Ukrainian economist who has battled the Maidan regime from its outset, wrote in an open letter to Trump immediately after his election, “I greatly hope that you will abandon, as undemocratic and intolerable, the planning and implementation of coups d’état through color revolutions, such as has been done by U.S. agencies twice in Ukraine. I would like to see you build relations with Russia and China not as enemies or rivals, but as partners and allies in the name of peace, justice and prosperity for the entirety of our planet Earth. I hope very much, that you will also make a positive influence on what is happening in Ukraine. Our people are suffering badly from war, extreme poverty, corruption, political repressions, and the rampaging of neo-Nazis. The outgoing U.S. Administration kept stirring up the people of Ukraine against Russia, thereby inciting a war between our fraternal peoples—one that unquestionably threatens to trigger a Third World War. The whole world awaits with hope, for you to carry out your promises with specific actions to ensure the welfare of every American and promote peace and prosperity for all mankind.”

The financial system is about to blow up. If President Trump goes with Glass-Steagall, that will be the end of the British system of finance, of speculation and looting. Aware of this, Soros and Obama are doing what they have done in other countries, creating a color revolution in the U.S. as a coup d’état. This is the context to think of Trump’s National Security advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, being driven out of the new Administration.

The reinstatement of Glass-Steagall and the restoration of relations with Russia would sound the death knell for the British Empire. In fact, high level representatives of the British establishment have said that the restoration of Glass-Steagall would be considered a {casus belli} against the Crown and the City of London. And U.S.-Russian collaboration can finally bring to an end what President Kennedy referred to as the nuclear “sword of Damocles,” hanging over the heads of humanity.

As Vladimir Putin said on January 16th, concerning the role of the then-outgoing Obama Administration, “There are those who leave without saying goodbye, while others say goodbye, but never leave… the outgoing administration, in my opinion, belongs to the second category.” Furthermore, Putin elaborated, “I have an impression that they practiced in Kiev (Ukraine) and are ready to organize a Maidan in Washington, just to not let Trump take office.” However, as Lyndon LaRouche made clear, it is the British Empire’s war party that is running the color revolution—Obama is only dutifully doing his part. LaRouche has also emphasized the role of George Soros as a crucial player and founder in orchestrating the “color revolution” now in play against Trump.

With Donald Trump’s potential appearance at the upcoming “Belt and Road Initiative” meeting in Beijing May 14-15—a meeting that may be remembered as the time when the British Empire was formally buried—the potential for a new economic paradigm, consistent with the intent of F.D.R.’s post-war vision, and today based on the advanced scientific ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, is imminently possible.

The Queen and Her Nazis: First Ukraine, Now the U.S.

What provoked the “color revolution” regime change operation in Ukraine, known as the “Euro-Maidan?” The Economist, the London bankers’ weekly imperial mouthpiece, provided the answer to that question years before “Maidan” and “Obama” became household words. In their March, 2007 publication, entitled “Fit at 50?,” they forecast world developments looking back from the vantage point of 2057. Here is what they said:

“The other cause for quiet satisfaction has been the EU’s foreign policy. In the dangerous second decade of the century, when Vladimir Putin returned for a third term as Russian president and stood poised to invade Ukraine, it was the EU that pushed the Obama administration to threaten massive nuclear retaliation. The Ukraine crisis became a triumph for the EU foreign minister, Carl Bildt, prompting the decision to go for a further big round of enlargement. It was ironic that, less than a decade later, Russia itself lodged its first formal application for membership.”

So, in March, 2007, only a month after Barack Obama announced his Presidential campaign , and nearly six years before the Ukraine tensions around EU membership began, {The Economist} published this so-called forecast. So, what did {The Economist} know that the rest of the world did not?

The emergence of the “New Paradigm” outlined by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche—with China’s New Silk Road creating a global platform for the common aims of mankind—would be the end of British imperial “geopolitics.” In the 1990s, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Lyndon and Helga LaRouche sought the collaboration between nations both east and west, especially between the U.S and Europe, with Russia, China and India. In fact, former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov’s concept of the “strategic triangle” of Russia, China and India, is the forerunner of the BRICS system today, a system intrinsically dedicated to the full scientific development of every nation.

These three nations comprise the core of LaRouche’s “Four Powers” concept that would end the domination of the transatlantic financial oligarchy. It is the multi-polar worldview, expressed by the BRICS, that the neo-conservatives/neo-liberals targeted with their “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC), which included the nations of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen to be destabilized along the borders of Russia, China and India. These nations were targeted with wars or regime change, or if possible, with the cheaper version of a coup, the color revolution. It should come as no surprise that the nations targeted, especially Russia and China, have formally identified “color revolutions” as an act of aggressive war.

Thus, instead of Ukraine potentially becoming a bridge between Europe and Russia/Eurasia, as part of the New Silk Road orientation, the coup was run as a provocation against Russia—part of the continued expansion of the European Union and NATO into the territory of the former Soviet Union. As Victoria Nuland, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, admitted, the US State Department spent nearly $5 billion in building “democracy and good governance” in Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union to ensure that it did not orient to the Eurasian/New Silk Road concept. George Soros’ various “NGO” and related organizations which had been active for years earlier in Ukraine, went into high gear. Nuland, prior to personally overseeing the coup in Ukraine, even visiting the Maidan, was Cheney’s foreign policy aide, and then U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the Bush-Cheney administrations of 2001-09. She is also the wife of Robert Kagan, the neo-con co-founder of PNAC.

In November of 2013, when Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the European Union Association Agreement to begin Ukraine’s formal entry into the European Union, the trigger was pulled to launch the “Euro-Maidan.” The coup was “ready made,” and the hard core of the “protest” was formed by the Nazi “stay behind” operation, i.e. followers of Hitler-collaborator Stepan Bandera who were organized by MI-6 and the CIA after World War II. Assets like the Right Sector were deployed as a paramilitary force during the coup—openly identifying with Bandera while wearing Nazi insignia.

The Right Sector was founded by Dmytro Yarosh. Yarosh fought against Russia in Chechnya, alongside terrorists who would later go on to form the hardcore of ISIS. Now-former Prime Minister Yatsenyuk (who Nuland famously identified as “our man Yats” during a phone call where she also said, “F*** the E.U.!”) also fought alongside the Chechen terrorists. It should come as no surprise that the Chechen Wars against Russia, intending to Balkanize Russia into pieces, were also supported by the neo-cons at PNAC.

The Ukraine “Maidan Coup” had various stages of escalation through December 2013 and January 2014, but it was on February 18 that the “peaceful marchers” of the Right Sector and other paramilitary groups marched on the Parliament and then overthrew the democratically elected government.

The international media—which plays critical role in any color revolution—showed only the police reaction, hoping to win favor and international support for the illegitimate overthrow of the Ukraine government. A few days later, on February 20, after a truce broke down, snipers unleashed on the Maidan crowds firing both on the protesters (which were used as shields by the paramilitary groups) as well as the police forces, with somewhere near 70 people killed by unidentified sniper fire.

Needless to say, the sniper fire in the Maidan was blamed on the government, and led to the paramilitary groups calling for the ouster of Yanukovich, who left Ukraine on February 22, completing the coup.

Do You Know Someone Who is an Un-willing Dupe?

While the hardcore of the Euro-Maidan was made up of paramilitary forces from the Nazi “stay behind” units, many of the other protesters in Ukraine were simply unaware of the darker forces at play. Many of them, students with a romantic view of the European Union, thought they were protesting corruption in government, and to share in democratic ideals, etc. Instead, they were easily manipulated by foreign interests for the total destruction of their own country, while threatening nuclear world war and destroying relations with both the E.U. and Russia.

They had no idea of the much larger geopolitical games designed to prevent Ukraine from joining the New Silk Road paradigm—a system which has now consolidated the Eurasian Economic Union with all of South and East Asia to become the largest area of economic growth in human history.

The question before Americans today is, will we fall into the same trap? The street protests in the United States today are no different in authorship and funding than those run in Ukraine by Victoria Nuland and George Soros—no matter what the intentions of the various sheep marching to the beat of Soros’s drum.

Will Americans be manipulated into a Color Revolution for regime change against President Trump—a President who is targeted because he has signaled his willingness to work with Russia and China? Or, will they join with Lyndon LaRouche, reinstate Glass-Steagall to wipe out Wall St. and London, eliminate the drug-pushing British Crown, and launch a new world economic paradigm by joining the New Silk Road?

The question is ours to answer, now, in the days and weeks ahead.

The financial system is about to blow up. If President Trump goes with Glass-Steagall, that will be the end of the British system of finance, of speculation and looting. Aware of this, Soros and Obama are doing what they have done in other countries, creating a color revolution in the U.S. as a coup d’état. This is the context to think of Trump’s National Security advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, being driven out of the new Administration.

The reinstatement of Glass-Steagall and the restoration of relations with Russia would sound the death knell for the British Empire. In fact, high level representatives of the British establishment have said that the restoration of Glass-Steagall would be considered a {casus belli} against the Crown and the City of London. And U.S.-Russian collaboration can finally bring to an end what President Kennedy referred to as the nuclear “sword of Damocles,” hanging over the heads of humanity.

As Vladimir Putin said on January 16th, concerning the role of the then-outgoing Obama Administration, “There are those who leave without saying goodbye, while others say goodbye, but never leave… the outgoing administration, in my opinion, belongs to the second category.” Furthermore, Putin elaborated, “I have an impression that they practiced in Kiev (Ukraine) and are ready to organize a Maidan in Washington, just to not let Trump take office.” However, as Lyndon LaRouche made clear, it is the British Empire’s war party that is running the color revolution—Obama is only dutifully doing his part. LaRouche has also emphasized the role of George Soros as a crucial player and founder in orchestrating the “color revolution” now in play against Trump.

With Donald Trump’s potential appearance at the upcoming “Belt and Road Initiative” meeting in Beijing May 14-15—a meeting that may be remembered as the time when the British Empire was formally buried—the potential for a new economic paradigm, consistent with the intent of F.D.R.’s post-war vision, and today based on the advanced scientific ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, is imminently possible.

The Queen and Her Nazis: First Ukraine, Now the U.S.

What provoked the “color revolution” regime change operation in Ukraine, known as the “Euro-Maidan?” The Economist, the London bankers’ weekly imperial mouthpiece, provided the answer to that question years before “Maidan” and “Obama” became household words. In their March, 2007 publication, entitled “Fit at 50?,” they forecast world developments looking back from the vantage point of 2057. Here is what they said:

“The other cause for quiet satisfaction has been the EU’s foreign policy. In the dangerous second decade of the century, when Vladimir Putin returned for a third term as Russian president and stood poised to invade Ukraine, it was the EU that pushed the Obama administration to threaten massive nuclear retaliation. The Ukraine crisis became a triumph for the EU foreign minister, Carl Bildt, prompting the decision to go for a further big round of enlargement. It was ironic that, less than a decade later, Russia itself lodged its first formal application for membership.”

So, in March, 2007, only a month after Barack Obama announced his Presidential campaign , and nearly six years before the Ukraine tensions around EU membership began, {The Economist} published this so-called forecast. So, what did {The Economist} know that the rest of the world did not?

The emergence of the “New Paradigm” outlined by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche—with China’s New Silk Road creating a global platform for the common aims of mankind—would be the end of British imperial “geopolitics.” In the 1990s, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Lyndon and Helga LaRouche sought the collaboration between nations both east and west, especially between the U.S and Europe, with Russia, China and India. In fact, former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov’s concept of the “strategic triangle” of Russia, China and India, is the forerunner of the BRICS system today, a system intrinsically dedicated to the full scientific development of every nation.

These three nations comprise the core of LaRouche’s “Four Powers” concept that would end the domination of the transatlantic financial oligarchy. It is the multi-polar worldview, expressed by the BRICS, that the neo-conservatives/neo-liberals targeted with their “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC), which included the nations of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen to be destabilized along the borders of Russia, China and India. These nations were targeted with wars or regime change, or if possible, with the cheaper version of a coup, the color revolution. It should come as no surprise that the nations targeted, especially Russia and China, have formally identified “color revolutions” as an act of aggressive war.

Thus, instead of Ukraine potentially becoming a bridge between Europe and Russia/Eurasia, as part of the New Silk Road orientation, the coup was run as a provocation against Russia—part of the continued expansion of the European Union and NATO into the territory of the former Soviet Union. As Victoria Nuland, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, admitted, the US State Department spent nearly $5 billion in building “democracy and good governance” in Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union to ensure that it did not orient to the Eurasian/New Silk Road concept. George Soros’ various “NGO” and related organizations which had been active for years earlier in Ukraine, went into high gear. Nuland, prior to personally overseeing the coup in Ukraine, even visiting the Maidan, was Cheney’s foreign policy aide, and then U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the Bush-Cheney administrations of 2001-09. She is also the wife of Robert Kagan, the neo-con co-founder of PNAC.

In November of 2013, when Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the European Union Association Agreement to begin Ukraine’s formal entry into the European Union, the trigger was pulled to launch the “Euro-Maidan.” The coup was “ready made,” and the hard core of the “protest” was formed by the Nazi “stay behind” operation, i.e. followers of Hitler-collaborator Stepan Bandera who were organized by MI-6 and the CIA after World War II. Assets like the Right Sector were deployed as a paramilitary force during the coup—openly identifying with Bandera while wearing Nazi insignia.

The Right Sector was founded by Dmytro Yarosh. Yarosh fought against Russia in Chechnya, alongside terrorists who would later go on to form the hardcore of ISIS. Now-former Prime Minister Yatsenyuk (who Nuland famously identified as “our man Yats” during a phone call where she also said, “F*** the E.U.!”) also fought alongside the Chechen terrorists. It should come as no surprise that the Chechen Wars against Russia, intending to Balkanize Russia into pieces, were also supported by the neo-cons at PNAC.

The Ukraine “Maidan Coup” had various stages of escalation through December 2013 and January 2014, but it was on February 18 that the “peaceful marchers” of the Right Sector and other paramilitary groups marched on the Parliament and then overthrew the democratically elected government.

The international media—which plays critical role in any color revolution—showed only the police reaction, hoping to win favor and international support for the illegitimate overthrow of the Ukraine government. A few days later, on February 20, after a truce broke down, snipers unleashed on the Maidan crowds firing both on the protesters (which were used as shields by the paramilitary groups) as well as the police forces, with somewhere near 70 people killed by unidentified sniper fire.

Needless to say, the sniper fire in the Maidan was blamed on the government, and led to the paramilitary groups calling for the ouster of Yanukovich, who left Ukraine on February 22, completing the coup.

Do You Know Someone Who is an Un-willing Dupe?

While the hardcore of the Euro-Maidan was made up of paramilitary forces from the Nazi “stay behind” units, many of the other protesters in Ukraine were simply unaware of the darker forces at play. Many of them, students with a romantic view of the European Union, thought they were protesting corruption in government, and to share in democratic ideals, etc. Instead, they were easily manipulated by foreign interests for the total destruction of their own country, while threatening nuclear world war and destroying relations with both the E.U. and Russia.

They had no idea of the much larger geopolitical games designed to prevent Ukraine from joining the New Silk Road paradigm—a system which has now consolidated the Eurasian Economic Union with all of South and East Asia to become the largest area of economic growth in human history.

The question before Americans today is, will we fall into the same trap? The street protests in the United States today are no different in authorship and funding than those run in Ukraine by Victoria Nuland and George Soros—no matter what the intentions of the various sheep marching to the beat of Soros’s drum.

Will Americans be manipulated into a Color Revolution for regime change against President Trump—a President who is targeted because he has signaled his willingness to work with Russia and China? Or, will they join with Lyndon LaRouche, reinstate Glass-Steagall to wipe out Wall St. and London, eliminate the drug-pushing British Crown, and launch a new world economic paradigm by joining the New Silk Road?

The question is ours to answer, now, in the days and weeks ahead.