Outline of Forum
|I. The Monroe Doctrine and Adolf Hitler|
|II. The "Cassette Against Saddam Hussein"|
|III. Let's Talk: Revolution|
|IV. Your Feedback|
Throughout our Meet the War Criminals series we have discussed the trail of US led crimes against humanity that exists within a well-defined geographical pattern involving N. America, S. America and many parts of Europe. These crimes against humanity are plotted within the San Francisco Gay Pride phenomenon basically consisting of homosexual men willfully getting sterile which creates not only an extinction crisis for humanity, but also a STD pandemic. Meanwhile, the shopping malls make huge profits on the US and European stock markets from the inevitable compulsive disorders. This obviously gives a boost to the US economy which makes US tourism a major factor for US economic forecasting. Thus, gay tourism will only drive a compulsive disorder pandemic derived from the fear of an extinction crisis!
This economic scheme can be easily traced from following the events that led up to World War II as Jews, prior to Nazi Germany rule, kept large amounts of gold deposits in Germany, N. America and S. America. A brief look into these events will help us better understand today’s situation in the Ukraine. Today, the Ukraine is in the middle of a major Separatist Movement and debt crisis since the release of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymonsheko’s from prison. Let’s take a close-up look.
As we look into this scheme, remember that we mentioned in our previous socio-economic forums how the US government's Monroe Doctrine provides the shelter for these crimes against humanity to be committed because it states: "that European powers ought not to have involvement with States in the Western Hemisphere".
In all actuality, the relationship between Adolf Hitler , Henry Ford and Wall Street unveils the truth behind the European political structure that has the Ukraine ensnared. Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford are not names you usually link together, but they both had a strange mutual understanding and admiration for each other.
It is common knowledge that Henry Ford revolutionized the world of transportation and mass production with his Ford automobile plants that started in the United States and expanded into other parts of the world. What is not as well-known is his fervent hatred towards Jewish people (a hatred shared by fellow super-financier J.P. Morgan ). Also not so well-known is Ford's flagrant financial and political backing of Adolf Hitler. This expressed hatred from the US towards Jewish people came from the top-level leaders of the US Industrial Revolution .
Henry Ford feared Jews as competition to his business because of their potential for major gains from the world markets. He peddled racism as a tool to exhaust the Jews because they were his business enemies. To show his appreciation for Ford's similar hatred toward Jews, Adolf Hitler awarded Henry Ford the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a Nazi citation reserved for foreign men of distinction. It was presented to Ford on his 75th birthday in his Dearborn office.
The award brought immediate concern from Jewish leaders, which in turn, forced Ford to say that his acceptance of the medal did not mean he had sympathy for Nazism, and that he was a person who was repulsed by anything that bred hate. The same kind of medal was given to the head of IBM (who returned it) and American aviation hero Charles Lindbergh , who was haunted all his life by his pre-war pro-Nazi statements. Henry Ford never returned the medal though Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes denounced its acceptance publicly.
This example of “hatred” (especially US racism) disguises a great behavioral cycle rooted in European mercantilism which is also the foundations of US capitalism. Mercantilism is an economic theory and practice common in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nation’s economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars and also motivated colonial expansion.
Again, the hatred of Jews thus was voiced because of the threat Jews posed to the US Industrial Revolution with their gold holdings . The strength of Jewish money is in its internationalism. It stretches a chain of banks and centers of financial control across the world. This center was, and for the moment is, in Germany, at Frankfort-on-the-Main. Feverish anxiety behind the current FOREX debt crisis now accompanies the fear that it may have to be moved.
Destiny is rapidly overtaking the western dominated Jewish World Power structure. Prior to World War II, gold was being brought overseas on every available ship and locked up in the vaults of Jewish bankers in North and South America, not to enrich this hemisphere but to mobilize Jewish financial power.
Realize that Jews are not straight out bankers. The Rothschilds , for example, were never bankers, but rather a “behind-the-scenes" primary lender in a proper sense. They were money-lenders to nations whose representatives were seeking loans such as the United States. Jewish loans to the US government actually blind-sided Adolf Hitler, thus allowing seizure and control of West Germany’s resources as capitalist advanced from his relationship with Henry Ford. This would enable the US government to offer loans as if they were Jewish gold holders themselves, yet with a different mission altogether as we will soon discuss.
Actually, the disguised hatred of the Jewish threat to the US Industrial Revolution was hidden within the United Kingdom’s Jewish mandate. The United Kingdom attempted to make the wealth and importance of the Jewish world financial chain stronger supposedly by mandating that Jews were entitled to their own land. Everyone understood that the Jewish banking system did not require that in each country a Jewish community be the most important thing.
Again, the US was able to undercut Henry Ford’s and Adolf Hitler’s relationship and seize control over West Germany resources. They were able to do this from a small firm named Kuhn, Loeb & Company . Kuhn, Loeb & Company is far from being the most important banking house in the United States, and yet it was an idea that came out of their office that now dominates the monetary system of the United States.
Paul Warburg , a German Jew, scion of the Jewish world banking group, was boosted into undue prominence and power through the pressure of banker-bought prestige throughout Western government circles. It is his connections—Jewish ones—that count which lured the German government to follow US politicians!
Today that plan is visible as the entire European Union are politically led astray by US financial advisors . These advisors want the US government to use their loaning power to advance same-sex marriage laws. This has created the before mentioned extinction crisis otherwise known as US led crimes against humanity that’s particularly well-known among women world-wide.
Realize that Western governments are bankrupt now. Only their power of confiscation and sanctions keeps them running. The United States, formerly considered as the richest country in the world, is just as poor as the government of Mozambique . It has nothing; it is in debt and borrowing. And its creditors are constantly discounting their obligations and are putting it into worse hands than ever. We shall soon hear in the US Congress pleas for special legislation on behalf of “the poor US and Euro bond-holders.”
When that day comes, we will be forced to have answers concerning the Ukraine which is being influenced by this western dilemma. In fact, the EU under US influence is doing everything to turn the Ukraine away from expansion with Russia and other former Soviet states in order to introduce more same-sex marriage laws. The IMF has just presented Ukraine with over $1 billion loan. Let’s take a closer look at this flee-or-burn situation.
Capitalist have found that control over the Jewish financial network makes them appear as the dominate force in the world. This is the reality behind today’s wars in Gaza, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. The gravest danger that we face today is that this so-called dominating force is pursuing crimes against humanity thus making the Ukraine a major concern.
As a little review, let’s take a brief moment to discuss sexual violence and US led crimes against humanity to get an up-close picture of "The Ukraine Factor". Sexual violence is defined as any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person's sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work. Anal sex is the most common sexual act targeted against a person's sexuality using coercion. Anal sex thus is a form of sexual violence in particular because of the well-known harm done to the human reproductive system. It leaves men unable to reproduce!
In Meet the War Criminals Part II - "I'm Wool" we mentioned several other physical and mental problems attributed to anal sex. The International Criminal Court (ICC) lists rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity as crimes against humanity. We have already mentioned how anal sex is comparable to rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution (etc.) as it generates the same and even greater mental, social, and physical disorders along with several disabilities.
Up to this point, there are two things that we must never forget:
The Cold War encompasses various war fronts that were fought for the dominant influence of Western Europe and the world at large by both military and civilians since World War II. It reveals key locations that US homosexuals have nestled in to have major influence in EU politics. The Ukraine sits at the helm of today's western led same-sex laws that have started cropping since the Global Financial Crisis.
The ideas that form todays US controlled European Union are very clear! They reveal the powerlessness of Westerners with their pursuit of same-sex marriages, a US led New World Order (or mass civil wars and uprisings) and of course the very controversial EU Missile Defense Shield that has already lost funding!
We all must learn the role the Ukraine plays in this overall scheme of US led crimes against humanity along with the Western quest for global dominance! To better understand how vital the Ukraine is we will discuss the following:
For the record, during this forum we will reveal the political blackmail the US has imposed upon the Ukrainian government since the end of the Cold War which also led to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. This forum has already demonstrated how Western expansionism actually started from the exploitation of Jewish financiers and the Holocaust .
Before we start, let's read the following text of an actual oral message from President George W. Bush delivered by Ambassador Carlos Pascual to Ukrainian President Leonid D. Kuchma at a February 27, 2001 meeting in Kiev.
Thank you for your letter of February 2. Please let me take this opportunity to assure you of the important place Ukraine holds in American foreign policy and express my conviction that Ukraine has an important role to play in building a stable and prosperous Europe.
You have often spoken of an independent, democratic and market-oriented Ukraine, committed to the rule of law and integrated with the *Euro-Atlantic community. I believe these goals are in the interests of both our countries. They will advance the prosperity of the Ukrainian people, while at the same time serving America's interest in a Europe whole, free and secure. (*Note: Euro-Atlantic community refers to NATO)
Our mutual success in pursuing these goals will depend in large part on the steps that Ukraine is willing to undertake in moving toward meaningful reform. Your decisions and actions on reform, will, in effect, define the very nature of the future Ukrainian state, and these decisions and actions can only be taken from within.
Ukraine did very well in 2000 in economic reform, especially in such areas as finance and energy. You know how critical continued progress is, and I urge you to continue the reforms now begun.
I know that the political atmosphere in Ukraine is strained at the moment. This is just one of many tests that Ukraine and its political leaders will face as to their commitment to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. I trust you will do your utmost to ensure that Ukraine passes this test.
I look forward to working with the people of Ukraine on the challenges our countries face together. If we proceed on the basis of common values and common goals, I am confident that our efforts will be successful.
~ George W. Bush
Let's look back further at the Chicken Kiev speech made by George W. Bush’s dad who also served as a US president. This speech was given on August 1, 1991, months before a December referendum in which Ukrainians voted to withdraw from the Soviet Union, in which Bush cautioned against " suicidal nationalism ".
The speech was written by Condoleeza Rice (who later served as Secretary of State under the son of President George H.W. Bush) while she was in charge of Soviet and east European affairs for him. It outraged Ukrainian nationalists and American conservatives, that the columnist gave this speech the nickname of "the Chicken Kiev speech" citing it to be his colossal misjudgment.
The speech was delivered in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, in Kiev. Bush endorsed an agreement reached the previous April between Gorbachev and nine of the republics, including Ukraine that committed to a new Union Treaty establishing a more decentralized Soviet Union.
Bush set out his policy towards reform in the Soviet Union: "I come here to tell you: We support the struggle in this great country for democracy and economic reform. In Moscow, I outlined our approach. We will support those in the center and the republics who pursue freedom democracy and economic liberty."
However, he warned against independence: "Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”
Remember we just discussed that Jewish hatred in the US was covered up by the US government’s acclaim of Paul Warburg, a German Jew not publicly hated in US from the idea of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. It was later reported that Bush himself had added the phrase suicidal nationalism to the speech which his staff had drafted, seeking to warn the Ukrainians about the need to avoid what had happened in Yugoslavia. This has already happened within the Separatist Movement.
This forum will help us to fully understand how the Ukraine is the centerpiece of the Cold War, the Dissolution of USSR, and the source of the current Global Financial Crisis through the use of political blackmail from the US. Wecan see now from history that the US has only anticipated capitalism expanding throughout the world from essentially robbing Jewish financiers while establishing a trail of crimes against humanity. Let's take a closer look beginning with the Cold War.
The Cold War, often dated from 1947 to 1991, was a sustained state of political and military tension between powers in the Western Bloc, dominated by the US with NATO among its allies, and powers in the Eastern Bloc, dominated by the Soviet Union along with the Warsaw Pact . This began after the success of their temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences. These political and economic differences forms the foundations of the political blackmail that led to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. We will follow the trail of this blackmail starting with a Cold War overview.
There is disagreement among historians regarding the starting point of the Cold War. Most historians trace its origins to the period immediately following World War II, others argue that it began towards the end of World War I, although tensions between the Russian Empire, other European countries and the US date back to the middle of the 19th century.
As a result of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (followed by its withdrawal from World War I),Soviet Russia found itself isolated in international diplomacy. Leader Vladimir Lenin stated that the Soviet Union was surrounded by a "hostile capitalist encirclement", and he viewed diplomacy as a weapon to keep Soviet enemies divided, beginning with the establishment of the Soviet Comintern , which called for revolutionary upheavals abroad.
Subsequent leader Joseph Stalin , who viewed the Soviet Union as a "socialist island", stated that the Soviet Union must see that "the present capitalist encirclement is replaced by a socialist encirclement." As early as 1925, Stalin stated that he viewed international politics as a bipolar world in which the Soviet Union would attract countries gravitating to socialism and capitalist countries would attract states gravitating toward capitalism, while the world was in a period of "temporary stabilization of capitalism" preceding its eventual collapse.
Various events before World War II demonstrated the mutual distrust and suspicion between the Western powers and the Soviet Union, apart from the general philosophical challenge the Bolsheviks made towards capitalism. The Soviet Union, therefore signed a non-aggression pact with Germany initially. However, after the German Army invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the Soviet Union and the Allied powers formed an alliance of convenience.
Britain signed a formal alliance and the US made an informal agreement. In wartime, the US supplied both Britain and the Soviets through its Lend-Lease Program . However, Stalin remained highly suspicious and believed that the British and the Americans had conspired to ensure the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany. According to Stalin, the Western Allies had deliberately delayed opening a second anti-German front in order to step in at the last moment andshape the peace settlement. Thus, Soviet perceptions of the West left a strong undercurrent of tension and hostility between the Allied powers.
In early 1947, Britain, France and the US successfully attempted to introduce an agreement with the Soviet Union for a plan envisioning an economically self-sufficient Germany, including a detailed accounting of the industrial plants, goods and infrastructure already removed by the Soviets. In June 1947, in accordance with the Truman Doctrine, the United States enacted the Marshall Plan , a pledge of economic assistance for all European countries willing to participate, including the Soviet Union.
The plan's aim was to rebuild the political and economic systems of Europe and to counter perceived threats to Europe's balance of power, such as communist parties seizing control. The plan also stated that European prosperity was contingent upon German economic recovery. In other words, the US needed time to prove that they could create global dominance from the control and influence over German Jewish financiers.
The Cold War demonstrates how the US is actually facing a collapse. It is clear that the US is involved solely with using capitalism for spreading homosexuality by not only exploiting the Industrial Revolution with overspending that homosexuality creates but also using politicians to deter those who pose a threat. All of this is heavily practiced throughout the Western counterculture known as Gay Pride! We can see now the path the US has taken for Germany's economic and political takeover from World War 2! Let’s look even closer.
One month after the Marshall Plan, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 , creating a unified Department of Defense , the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Security Council (NSC). These would becomethe main bureaucracies for US policy during the Cold War to fight communism.
Britain , France , the US, Canada and eight other Western European countries signed the North AtlanticTreaty of April 1949, establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). That August, the first Soviet atomic device was detonated in Semipalatinsk, Kazak SSR. Following Soviet refusals to participate in a German rebuilding effort set forth by Western European countries in 1948, the US, Britain and France spearheaded the establishment of West Germany from the three Western zones of occupation in April 1949. The Soviet Union proclaimed its zone of occupation in Germany the German Democratic Republic that October.
One hallmark of the 1950s was the beginning of European integration - a fundamental by-product of the Cold War that Truman and Eisenhower promoted politically, economically, and militarily. However, later administrations feared that a financially independent Europe would allow the Soviet Union to exacerbate the disunity and hatred found within US capitalist, thus making Europe forge with the Soviet Union! This fear was compounded by the Brezhnev Doctrine .
In September 1968, during a speech at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party one month after the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Army, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev outlined the Brezhnev Doctrine, in which he claimed the right to violate the sovereignty of any country attempting to replace Marxism-Leninism with capitalism. During the speech, Brezhnev stated:
When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries.
The doctrine created the arms race! Thus, Moscow built up a military that consumed as much as 25 percent of the Soviet Union's gross national product at the expense of consumer goods and investment in civilian sectors (the primary target for capitalist of course because of warranted overspending)! Soviet investment in the defense sector was not driven by military necessity, but in large part by the interests of massive party and state bureaucracies dependent on the sector for their own power and privileges. The Soviet Armed Forces became the largest in the world in terms of the numbers and types of weapons they possessed, in the number of troops in their ranks, and in the sheer size of their military-industrial base. By the early 1980s, the USSR had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the US. Meanwhile, the Vietnam War weakened America's economy, weakened its influence in the Third World, and cooled relations with Western Europe.
Tensions managed to continue intensifying in the early 1980s. US President Ronald Reagan revived the B-1 Lancer program that was cancelled by the Carter administration, produced LGM-118 Peacekeepers , installed US cruise missiles in Europe, and announced his experimental Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed "Star Wars" by the media, a defense program to shoot down missiles in mid-flight.
With the background of a buildup in tensions between the Soviet Union and the US, and the deployment of Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer ballistic missiles targeting Western Europe, NATO decided, under the impetus of the Carter presidency, to deploy MGM-31 Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 10 minutes striking distance from Moscow.
There are three things that we must remember here:
The Cold War was so named because the two major powers - each possessing nuclear weapons and thereby threatened with mutual assured destruction - never met in direct military combat. Instead, in their struggle for global influence they engaged in ongoing psychological warfare and in regular indirect confrontations through proxy wars. Cycles of relative calm would be followed by high tension, which could have led to world war. The tensest times were during the Berlin Blockade (1948-1949), the Korean War (1950-1953), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Vietnam War (1959-1975), the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-1989), the Soviet downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983), and the "Able Archer" NATO military exercises (1983).
The conflict was expressed through military coalitions , strategic conventional force deployments , extensive aid to client states, espionage , massive propaganda campaigns, conventional and nuclear arms races, appeals to neutral nations, rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions such as the Space Race . The US and USSR became involved in political and military conflicts in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. To alleviate the risk of a potential nuclear war, both sides sought relief of political tensions through detente in the 1970s.
Today, the Cold War retains its dark cloud and reveals ongoing US political blackmail in the Ukraine. The diminishing reputation of the US is rapidly accelerating because of this practice of political blackmailing. Political blackmail is a quick, low-cost form of political intervention and is evident in the Ukraine through the Cassette Scandal, the Orange Revolution, the 2011-2013 Russian protests, and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment!
This unique pattern of politics in the US of political blackmail and counter-insurgency (aiding terrorist networks behind-the-scenes) elevates the potential of Cold War 2 especially with a deepening US budget deficit and widening European Sovereign Debt Crisis. Let's take a closer look into this political blackmail starting with the Cassette Scandal.
The Cassette Scandal (also known as Tapegate and Kuchmagate) erupted in 2000. It was one of the main political events in Ukraine's post-independency history. It has dramatically affected the country's domestic and foreign policy, changing Ukraine's political orientation at the time to the West from Russia while damaging the career of Leonid Kuchma.
The scandal started on 28 November 2000, in Kiev, when Ukrainian politician Oleksandr Moroz publicly accused President Leonid Kuchma of involvement in the abduction of journalist Georgiy Gongadze and numerous other crimes. Moroz named Kuchma's former bodyguard, Major Mykola Melnychenko, as the source. He also played selected recordings of the President's secret conversations with journalists, supposedly confirming Kuchma's order to kidnap Gongadze.
Note: Voice recordings do not place a person at the scene which is why there is no criminal conviction. It's enough, however, to use as blackmail! Hundreds of other conversations were also later published worldwide by Melynchenko. Journalists nicknamed the case after the compact audio cassette used by Moroz. Melynchenko himself was supposedly using digital equipment, not cassettes, for recording in the President's office.
These events provoked a crisis, with mass protests in Kiev from 15 December 2000 to 9 March 2001. Opposition started a campaign of non-violent resistance called UBK (Ukraine without Kuchma), demanding Kuchma's resignation. Despite economic growth in the country, President Kuchma's public approval ratings fell below 9 percent.
Meantime, the US chose to cover-up this use of blackmail by focusing their foreign policy towards war efforts involving weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the Middle East and Central Asia. These attempts will prove futile as we examine the correlation between the Cassette Scandal and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). We will highlight the enormous snowball that has avalanched into Ukrainian politics culminating with Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. Let's follow the trail.
On December 14, 2001, while the Cassette Scandal lingered in the background, US president George W. Bush withdrew the US from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty , a bedrock of US-Soviet nuclear stability during the Cold War era. Bush stated, "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks.”
Thus, Bush supported the National Missile Defense project aimed at being able to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles and destroy them in flight. Critics doubted that the project could ever work and said that it would cost US $53 billion from 2004 to 2009, being the largest single line item in the Pentagon's funding.
Note:US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has forced NATO to carry the expense of US Missile Defense plans which are now feeble from the Sovereign Debt Crisis. Given the political blackmail found in the Ukraine with the Cassette Scandal, we now have all the ingredients for nuclear blackmail against either Russia or Iran... read on!
A year after President Bush withdrew the US from the ABM Treaty, his administration released its "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" in December 2002. The classified version of this strategy reportedly reserved the right to use overwhelming force, including potentially nuclear weapons, in response to a WMD attack against the US, its forces or allies. The Bush administration even called for full implementation of the act and removal of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, with a focus on building a military coalition, tougher sanctions, UN inspections, and support for a new Iraqi National Congress .
In November 2001, Bush asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to begin developing a plan for war. By early 2002 Bush began publicly pressing for regime change, indicating that the US government had reason to believe that the Iraqi government had ties to terrorist groups, was developing weapons of mass destruction and did not cooperate sufficiently withUnited Nations weapons inspectors. In January 2003, Bush was convinced that diplomacy was not working and started notifying allies such as Saudi Arabia that war was imminent.
All of this was made possible by the political blackmail of Ukraine President Leonid Kuchma. President George W. Bush used the Ukraine to pre-emptively invade Iraq. Here are the details. In 2002, the governments of the US and other countries began to become more deeply involved with the Cassette Scandal after one of the recordings leaked the alleged transfer of a sophisticated Ukrainian defense system Kolchuha to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Note: This was the so-called "smoking gun" for the US to go to war! President Leonid Kuchma was boycotted by Western governments for a time to pressure the Ukraine to conform to Bush's efforts to build a military coalition against Iraq.
In particular, president Kuchma experienced an offensive diplomatic demarche when visiting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit that took place on 21-22 November 2002 in Prague. Breaking the decades-lasting tradition, the list of participating countries was announced in French, not English. As a result Turkey was named after Ukraine, instead of the UK and US, thereby avoiding the appearance of Kuchma next to Tony Blair and George W. Bush.
Influenced by all above-mentioned, President Kuchma soon became disillusioned with European integration and started to loosen Ukraine's relations with the US and European Union. Instead, he boosted integration with Russia, considering the fact that its new leader, Vladimir Putin , was continuously supporting Kuchma and refusing to recognize the allegations. However, in September 2003, Ukrainian troops joined US-led stabilization forces in Iraq, which is widely perceived as Kuchma's effort to improve relations with the West. Since then, high-level (presidential) relations were partially restored.
Commenting on the scandal and Melnychenko's actions in particular, Leonid Kuchma persistently claims they were a result of foreign interference, but never accuses any specific country. However, some of his statements on the issue may be interpreted as cautious hints on the role of either the US or Russia. US president Bush's use of political blackmail pinpoints the US as the source of foreign interference. According to president Kuchma, his voice was indeed one of those on the tapes, but he claimed that the cassettes had been selectively edited to distort his meaning.
We must mention that even before the Iraq invasion it was clear to many that insufficient planning had been made for the stability of post-war Iraq. Criticism also came from the governments of many countries, notably from many on the UN Security Council, who argued that the war broke international law . The inability of the US to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq led to even greater domestic criticism of the administration's Iraq policy. Several of the statements that Bush and his administration made leading up to the war in Iraq, especially those involving claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, have been criticized as misleading or inaccurate. Particularly controversial was Bush's claim in the 2003 State of the Union Address that British Intelligence had discovered that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. Of course, we now know the source of the Iraq War. It's found in the political blackmail of former Ukraine president Leonid Kuchma in order for the US to gain post-Cold War political ground.
The political blackmail involved with the Cassette Scandal in the Ukraine soon led to the Orange Revolution. It reflects attempts by the US to reform Ukraine's Constitution. Many figures of the Cassette scandal remained influential in Ukrainian politics. The case was directly connected with the political career of Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine's Prime Minister at the time and also Ukraine's former president. If we take a moment, here we will recognize the familiar "divide and conquer" foreign policy of the US which we have learned is motivated by hatred. A scandal involving kidnap and murder would very likely set president Kuchma and vice-president (and former president) Viktor Yushchenko at odds! It then becomes clear how Oleksander Moroz (the source of the accusations that created the political blackmail which led the US war in Iraq) concluded an alliance with Yushchenko, resulting in the reformation of Ukraine's constitution (in favor of the parliament).
Let's take a brief glance at Oleksandr Moroz's career to see the reasons behind the US motives to cherry pick (or hand pick) him as their Ace! Oleksandr Moroz graduated from the Agricultural Academy of the Ukrainian SSR becoming a mechanical engineer. He joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) serving as:
Moroz's time with the CPSU was during the peak of the Cold War. The US feared the Soviets could further spread with communism off America's mishaps in Vietnam especially with China's strength. The Soviets could do so by increasing food aid to Vietnam while strengthening economic ties with China. This would make Oleksandr Moroz a key player! Instead, US president Richard Nixon visited China and met with Soviet leaders in Moscow. This move is particularly referred to as "damage control". Between 1972 and 1974, the US and Soviet Union agreed to strengthen their economic ties, including agreements for increased trade, thus making Oleksandr Moroz's position an asset for the US.
At this point we need to remember that we have uncovered a trail of post-Cold War political blackmail led by the US. Oleksandr Moroz appears to be the key person in the Ukraine that took certain actions to lead the Ukraine away from their own fight for independence and into a diminishing world of Western homosexuality today.
The Cassette Scandal definitely sparked the public's desire to create a social reform movement. It not only undermined the people's respect for Kuchma as a president, but also for the elite ruling class in general. Because of Kuchma's behavior, he lost many of his supporters with high ranking government positions. Many of the government officials who were on his side went on to fully support the election campaign of Yushchenko and his ideas in general, thus undermining the 2004 presidential election. The state of Ukraine preceding the 2004 presidential election was considered an "ideal condition" for an outburst from the public. During this time Ukrainians were impatient while waiting for economic and political transformation.
At this point, we need to closely observe Oleksandr Moroz's moves as he served as "the Ace" for US political influence prior to the Orange Revolution. Furthermore, we must identify the correlation this US political influence had on the 2011-2013 Russian protests. This also will help us understand the motives that led to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment.
In late 2002, Victor Yushchenko (Our Ukraine), Oleksandr Moroz (Socialist Party of Ukraine), Petro Symonenko (Communist Party of Ukraine) and Yulia Tymoshenko (Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc) issued a joint statement concerning "the beginning of a state revolution in Ukraine". Petro Symonenko stepped outof the alliance. He was against a single candidate from the alliance in the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, but the other three parties remained allies (until July 2006). In the Autumn of 2001 both Tymoshenko and Yushchenko had broached at creating such a coalition.
On 2 July 2004, Our Ukraine and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc established the Force of the People , a coalition which aimed to stop "the destructive process that has, as a result of the incumbent authorities, become a characteristic for Ukraine" since the 2002 Cassette Scandal. At the time President Leonid Kuchma and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych were the incumbent authorities in Ukraine. The pact included a promise by Viktor Yushchenko to nominate Tymoshenko as Prime Minister if Yushchenko won the October 2004 presidential election.
The 2004 presidential election in Ukraine eventually featured two candidates. One was the Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, largely supported by Leonid Kuchma (the outgoing president of Ukraine who already served two terms in the office and was precluded from running himself due to the constitutional term limits ), and the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko, leader of the Our Ukraine faction in the Ukrainian parliament and the former Prime Minister (1999-2001).
The two candidates were neck and neck in the first-round vote held on 31 October 2004, collecting 39.32% (Yanukovych) and 39.87% (Yushchenko) of the vote cast. The candidates that came third and fourth collected much less! Oleksandr Moroz of the Socialist Party of Ukraine and Petro Symonenko of the Communist Party of Ukraine received 5.82% and 4.97%, respectively. Since no candidate carried more than 50% of the cast ballots, a run-off was announced. Oleksandr Moroz (also longtime leader of anti-Kuchma forces), quickly announced his support for Viktor Yushchenko's presidential bid against Kuchma's prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych supposedly making Yushchenko the favorite to win in round two. The fact that Yushchenko did not win despite this endorsement was used to argue that there was election fraud in the run-off. Thus, Moroz supported the Orange Revolution, the mass protests that eventually led to the annulment of the vote results and to a revote won by Yushchenko.
Protests began on the eve of the second round of voting, as the official count differed markedly from exit poll results which gave Yushchenko up to an 11% lead, while official results gave the election win to Yanukovych by 3%. While Yanukovych supporters have claimed that Yushchenko's connections to the Ukrainian media explain this disparity, the Yushchenko team publicized evidence of many incidents of electoral fraud in favor of the government-backed Yanukovych, witnessed by many local and foreign observers. These accusations were reinforced by similar allegations, though at a lesser scale, during the first presidential run of 31 October.
The Yushchenko campaign publicly called for protest on the dawn of the Election Day’s 1st run-off on, 21 November 2004, when allegations of fraud began to spread. Beginning on 22 November 2004, massive protests started in cities across Ukraine: the largest, in Kiev's Maidan Nezalehnosti (Independence Square), attracted an estimated 500,000 participants, who on 23 November 2004, peacefully marched in front of the headquarters of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, many wearing orange or carrying orange flags, the color of Yushchenko's campaign coalition. One of the most prominent activists of that time was Paraska Korolyuk, subsequently bestowed with the Order of Princess Olga.
At the same time, local officials in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, the stronghold of Viktor Yanukovych, started a series of actions alluding to the possibility of the breakup of Ukraine or an extra-constitutional federalization of the country, should their candidate's claimed victory not be recognized. Basically, Viktor Yanukovych threatened to force a Separatist Movement similar to the current one in today’s aftermath of Yulia Tymoshenko’s release from prison.
Demonstrations of public support for Yanukovych were held throughout Eastern Ukraine and some of his supporters arrived in Kiev. In Kiev the pro-Yanukovych demonstrators were far outnumbered by Yushchenko supporters, whose ranks were continuously swelled by new arrivals from many regions of Ukraine. The scale of the demonstrations in Kiev was unprecedented. By many estimates, on some days they drew up to one million people to the streets, in freezing weather.
Although Yushchenko entered into negotiations with outgoing President Leonid Kuchma in an effort to peacefully resolve the situation, the negotiations broke up on 24 November 2004. Yanukovych was officially certified as the victor by the Central Election Commission , which itself was allegedly involved in falsification of electoral results by witholding the information it was receiving from local districts and running a parallel illegal computer server to manipulate the results. The next morning after the certification took place, Yushchenko spoke to supporters in Kiev, urging them to begin a series of mass protest, general strikes and sit-ins with the intent of crippling the government and forcing it to concede defeat.
In view of the threat of illegitimate government acceding to power, Yushchenko's camp announced the creation of the Committee of National Salvation which declared a nationwide political strike. On 1 December 2004, the Verkhovna Rada passed a resolution that strongly condemned pro-separatist and federalization actions, and passed a non-confidence vote in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, a decision Prime Minister Yanukovych refused to recognize. By the Constitution of Ukraine, the non-confidence vote mandated the government's resignation, but the parliament had no means to enforce a resignation without the co-operation of Prime Minister Yanukovych and outgoing President Kuchma.
On 3 December 2004, Ukraine's Supreme Court finally broke the political deadlock . The court decided that due to the scale of the electoral fraud it became impossible to establish the election results. Therefore, it invalidated the official results that would have given Yanukovych the presidency. As a resolution, the court ordered a revote of the run-off to be held on 26 December 2004. This decision was seen as a victory for the Yushchenko camp while Yanukovych and his supporters favored a rerun of the entire election rather than just the run-off, as a second-best option if Yanukovych was not awarded the presidency. On 8 December 2004 the parliament amended laws to provide a legal framework for the new round of elections. The parliament also approved the changes to the Constitution, implementing a political reform backed by outgoing President Kuchma as a part of a political compromise between the acting authorities and opposition.
The 26 December revote was held under intense scrutiny of local and international observers. The preliminary results, announced by the Central Election Commission on 28 December, gave Yushchenko and Yanukovych 51.99% and 44.20% of the total vote which represented a change in the vote by +5.39% to Yushchenko and -5.27% from Yanukovych respectively when compared to the November poll. The Yanukovych team attempted to mount a fierce legal challenge to the election results using both the Ukrainian courts and the Election Commission complaint procedures.
However, all their complaints were dismissed as without merit by both the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Central Election Commission. On 10 January 2005 the Election Commission officially declared Yushchenko as the winner of the presidential election with the final results falling within 0.01% of the preliminary ones. This Election Commission announcement cleared the way for Yushchenko's inauguration as the President at Maiden Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in front of hundreds of thousands of his supporters. This event brought the Ukrainian Orange Revolution to its peaceful conclusion. Viktor Yanukovych subsequently allowed this political defeat to personally motivate him to seek unjust abuse of power charges against Yulia Tymoshenko leading to her imprisonment!
As part of the Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian constitution was changed to shift powers from the presidency to the parliament. This amendment was heavily influenced by Oleksandr Moroz’s role as “The Ace” in US politics. He help demonstrate the need for guidance that all Ukrainian politicians would become subjected to with one word… a budget! Even Yanukovych's Party of Regions supported Moroz's new constitutional measures.
This is how also how Yanukovych moved forward to win the 2006 parliamentary election by forming a coalition government with Moroz's Socialist Party. As a result, President Viktor Yushchenko had to deal with a powerful Prime Minister - Viktor Yanukovych who had control of many important portfolios. This display of power shifting led by Oleksandr Moroz that created the Orange Revolution became dishonorable to Russia and other neighboring countries who have formed the
Russian president, Vladimir Putin, claims that the organizers of the Russian protests in December 2011 were former (Russian) advisers to Yushchenko during his presidency who were attempting to transfer the Orange Revolution to Russia. Reason being, constitutional amendments can be used to steal state revenues from Russia! Keep reading along.
Since 2011, Russia has experienced numerous political protest that take its roots from one main factor: US post-Cold War attempts to change Russia's constitution and steal control of its oil revenues through their observer status to the Energy Charter Treaty, the United Nations and other various political umbrellas.
The 2011-2013 Russian protests first began as a response to the 2011 Russian legislative election process, which many Russian and foreign journalists, political activists and members of the public considered to be flawed, and the protests continued despite the fact that the Central Election Commission later said that only 11.5% of official reports couldbe confirmed to be true. Similarly, the Russian Investigation Committee of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation reported that most of the videos available on the internet purporting to show vote manipulation "appeared to be edited" so these political activists appeared to have staged their own protests!
On 10 December 2011, after a week of small-scale demonstrations, Russia saw some of the biggest protests in Moscow since the 1990s. The focus of the protests have been the ruling party, United Russia , and its leader Vladimir Putin, the current President, previous Prime Minister, and previous two-term President, who announced his intention to run again for President in 2012. Another round of large protests took place on 24 December 2011. These protests were named "For Fair Elections" and their organizers set up the movement of the same name.
On 6 May 2012 protests involving about 20,000 people took place in Moscow the day before Putin's inauguration as President for his third term. Some called for the inauguration to be scrapped. The protests were marred by violence between the protesters and the police. About 400 protesters were arrested, including Alexei Navlny, Boris Nemtsov and Sergei Udaltsov and 80 were injured. On the day of the inauguration, 7 May 2012, at least 120 protesters were arrested in Moscow.
Note: Boris Nemtsov latter described in a phone conversation the main character of the protesters. He revealed that protesters demonstrated the exact same kinds of social disorders evident along the trail of US led crimes against humanity in particular, the well-known homosexual counterculture known as San Francisco Gay Pride! Keep reading!
In June 2012, laws were enacted which set strict boundaries on protests and imposed heavy penalties for out of bounds actions. As of January 2013 interviews by Ellen Barry of The New York Times which had supported the protests revealed an atmosphere of intimidation, discouragement, and alienation. Today these laws appear in the form of Russian anti-gay laws and the protests have since diminished!
According to the New York Times, the leading element of these protest has consisted of young urban professionals, the well-educated and successful working or middle class people such as workers in social media. These groups had benefited from substantial growth in the Russian economy until the 2008 economic crisis and subsequent US bond market bubble! These groups claim to have been alienated by increasing political corruption as well as recent stagnation in their income. The number of such individuals is large and growing in urban centers and is thought to represent a challenge to continuation of authoritarian rule .
According to Putin the legitimate grievances of this young and active element of Russian society are being exploited by opportunistic elements (or terrorists) seeking to destabilize Russia. These elements of young professionals are hiding their hopes that gay tourism will soon overtake government authority. This is being heavily rumored throughout the world from the San Francisco Gay Pride community. This is also the underlining truth behind the current US/EU/IMF bond market bubble.
US led same-sex law supporting governments are now actually depending on gay tourism to soon dominate and control their economies at large. This rumor is currently being challenged at the front-lines of the current war with N. Korea and communism. It is vital to mention this gay tourism boost rumor because it is the driving force behind US President Obama’s decision to concentrate its downsizing force in Asia. This US military focus in Asia is actually being designed to allow US troops and their current terrorist ring to hide behind my exceptional military service in S. Korea from 2002 – 2008! We will point these facts out in a later forum after we discuss the ISIS terror ring in our next forum!
Even more, there is evidence that some of the organizers of the Russian protests such as Vladimir Ryzhkov and the GOLOS Association , have been receiving funds for training from the US State Department funded National Endowment for Democracy.
The reason it's so important that we mention the 2011-2013 Russian protest now is because it also reveals how the US has attempted to dominate Western Europe and the world markets by seeking control of Russian companies since the Cold War. Therefore, we can conclude that Yulia Tymoshenko actually served a prison sentence because the US was unable to successfully seize control of Russian oil companies through Ukrainian Constitutional amendment pressures since the Cold War ended!
On 19 December 2010, Lifenews.ru news portal published a recording of phone conversation ascribed to Boris Nemtsov, the leader of PARNAS People's Freedom Party , and one of the main organizers of the demonstration on Bolotnaya square on 10 December. According to one of the recordings, which were called by Nemtsov himself "partially authentic, partially montaged and partially fake", he considers protesters "lemmings", "timid penguins" from Facebook and Vkontakte social networks, and claims he is "forced to represent" these people. In other recordings, he used profanities and referenced to the sexual life of some other leaders of the demonstration. He also called another prominent leader of protests, Alexey Navalny "a specialist of manipulating the internet mob". We mention the connection that social media has played in these protests because the social media frenzy started in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Nemtsov later apologized to several leaders he characterized in these conversations, but not to protesters, and claimed that people who made recordings available to the public committed a crime. Actually, they only self-incriminated themselves as they hoped that gay tourism would arrive on the scene and push constitutional changes on the government from both Europe and Asia! They also revealed the cold truth to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. Let's start with a look into the Energy Charter Treaty and the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute to guide us along this forum.
The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is an international agreement which establishes a multilateral framework for international co-operations in the energy industry . The treaty covers all aspects of commercial energy activities including dispute resolution procedures.
Originally, the Energy Charter process was based on integrating the energy sectors of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War into the broader European and world markets. Its role however extends beyond East-West cooperation and through legally binding instruments aimed to promote principles of openness for the global energy markets and non-discrimination while stimulating foreign direct investments and global cross-border trade.
The beginnings of the Energy Charter date back to a political initiative launched in Europe in the early 1990s. Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev had introduced glasnost , or openness of state institutions. This actually provided an unprecedented opportunity for the US to criticize the Eastern Bloc politically mainly from following their deeply rooted capitalist based hatred instincts. This was the premises of their attempt to seize control over Russian oil giants with hopes to gain an advantage through Yukos Oil Company and the Charter’s legally binding Energy Transit framework.
The Charter’s Energy Transit framework was again used in the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute leading to Yulia Tymoshenko's abuse of power charge! The Charter’s framework forms the clearest prospect for mutually co-dependent cooperation between Russia and the West within the energy sector. We must consider Europe's growing energy demand and vast resources available within the post-Soviet nations. Additionally, we must now ensure that a commonly accepted foundation is established for developing energy cooperation among the states of Eurasia in a time of escalating European sanctions against Russia. With these global macro-economic issues foreknown, the Energy Charter process was born.
The Treaty's provisions focuses on five broad areas: Energy Trade, Investment, Energy Efficiency, Dispute Settlement, and Energy Transit. The real aim of the 2011-2013 Russian protesters were to elect politicians who could weaken the legal system and undermine the Charter’s provisions as they witnessed the Constitutional amendments made during the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine.
Protesters in Russia united into five main points: freedom for political prisoners; annulment of the election results; the resignation of Vladimir Churov (head of the election commission) and the opening of an official investigation into vote fraud; registration of opposition parties and new democratic legislation on parties and elections, as well as new democratic and open elections. These points would provide protesters with ammunition as they sought political change rooting from their capitalist-based hatred. Thus, the 2011-2013 Russian protesters in fact, attempted to reignite a political storm in the region from the Orange Revolution.
They hoped to oust the ruling Russian party United Russia. They already had failed to do so from the Yukos oil company lawsuit. Protesters last hope for gaining constitutional changes in Russia thus became the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute noting Yulia Tymoshenko’s political imprisonment. These protests are all linked into the same scandalous San Francisco Gay Pride rumor of gay tourism soon erupting in Asia from the fall of communism in North Korea.
Note: The Energy Charter Treaty is responsible for the resolution of disputes between participating countries, and in the case of investments between investors and host countries. Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty provides express provisions for resolving disputes arising under the Treaty between an investor of a Contracting State and another Contracting State. For the record, the largest claims against Russia involves the Yukos oil company.
While the Energy Charter is based on the idea that international flows of investments and technologies in the energy sector are mutually beneficial, national sovereignty over energy resources is a core principle of the treaty. The treaty does not deal with the ownership issues of the energy companies - there is no obligation to privatize state-owned energy companies, or to break up vertically integrated energy companies.
The remainder of this forum will now focus on the two biggest actions that actually led up to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. They are both covered within the Energy Charter Treaty's framework which legally reviewed the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute. They are:
We will focus on the elimination of third-party access to Russia’s pipelines as the biggest factor causing Yulia Tymoshenko’s imprisonment besides the previously mentioned political eruption occurring in both Ukraine and Russia.
Remember, the Energy Charter Treaty was established in hopes of integrating the energy sectors of theformer Soviet Union into the broader European and world markets. The 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute clearly indicates that western integration has actually failed to occur because of the terms set behind the US/EU’s NATO Alliance. Thus, realize that this has led into today’s US bond bubble mainly because of Russia's unwillingness to ratify the Charter’s treaty due to the Energy Transit’s protocol of involving 3rd party access to their pipelines! Hence, Yulia Tymoshenko’s imprisonment becomes the tip of this iceberg... let's look closer.
Before the 2009 Russian-Ukraine gas dispute, RosUkrEnergo, a Swiss registered venture company, was the sole importer of natural gas from Russia's Gazprom reselling it to Naftogaz Ukrainy (Ukraine's state-owned oil company). The removal of RosUkrEnergo, as an intermediary destroyed all chances of any US or Western Europe control of Russian pipelines using an "integrated competitor" approach. This was the results of the new gas deal reached in 2008 between Russia and Ukraine.
This means that US and Western Europe oil companies could not manipulate control over Russian pipelines from a new price agreement struggle in the Ukraine. This was a move by Ukraine and Russia. Prime Ministers Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin designated state-owned Naftogaz as sole importer to maintain stronger Russia-Ukraine post-Soviet relations. This was actually a second chance to improve relations between the two nations as they both faced fierce opposition movements. Previously in 2005, Naftogaz was embroiled in a dispute over natural gas prices with Russian state company Gazprom, which ended on 4 January 2006. In January 2009, the state-owned company again was the center of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute. Here are the details!
On October 24, 2008, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin signed a deal that included provisions to raise import prices and transit tariffs to market with economically based and mutually agreed levels within three years, and that Naftogaz would buy gas directly from Gazprom and be the sole importer to Ukraine, removing intermediaries.
In November, Gazprom and Naftogaz signed a long-term contract with similar provisions; however, this document differed in that it referred to transit fess remaining at their 2008 level and didn't specify an import price. This November agreement suppressed volatility in the energy markets from the news of Naftogaz becoming the sole importer of Russian gas for SE Europe.
The biggest underlying question was how the US and Western Europe markets would respond to the removal of third party intermediaries while the Ukraine sought EU integration? The Gazprom and Naftogaz price agreement was delayed in the Ukraine parliament to create the abuse of power charges against Yulia Tymoshenko. Without a price agreement, Gazprom was forced to collect all of its 2008 debts from Naftogaz.
In the third week of November 2008, Gazprom CEO Miller announced that if no price agreement was reached by the end of the year, prices could rise significantly higher than what was currently being proposed. This gave Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko no time to consider plans for the EU's (and even worse, US political ace - Oleksandr Moroz's) response for a new deal that possibly would call for the reinstatement of third party intermediaries.
Note: By 2009, both Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych had built strong ties from Ukraine's Constitution amendments in hopes for Ukraine's integration in the EU. This means that Oleksandr Moroz's pro-western political influence in the Ukraine now overshadowed normal Russia-Ukraine relations.
A few days after Gazprom warned that a deal must be reached, Prime Minister Putin warned that if there was any interference with transit gas, supplies to Ukraine would be cut off. These warnings were repeated throughout December, with additional warnings that disruptions to European supplies could result. The European Commission did not attempt to intervene, but the Energy Charter Secretariat issued a statement on December 23 which recalled the principle of uninterrupted transit. This was seen as a reminder to Ukraine of its obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty, which it has signed and, unlike Russia, ratified.
Large amounts of debt remained outstanding by year's end. Naftogaz CEO Vladimir Trykolych said that Naftogaz owed $1.26 - $1.27 billion to RosUkrEnergo in total, but claimed that Naftogaz had no debt to Gazprom. However on December 2, Naftogaz acknowledged that it owed $1 billion to Gazprom, and said it was having trouble making payments on time due to unexpected losses in 2008. Later in mid-December, Gazprom stated that a debt of $2.195 billion had accumulated.
It is vital that we mention that the original deal signed on October 24, 2008 by Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin factored the price of debt Naftogaz owed to Gazprom while considering the potential for market expansion. In response, Naftogaz made a payment of $800 million, and promised to pay another $200 million soon. Gazprom proposed to make an upfront transit payment at the 2008 rate in order to provide funds for the debt to be cleared, but Naftogaz rejected the offer thus delaying an agreement.
On December 19, Gazprom released a statement saying that no supply contract could be signed for 2009 because Ukraine said it would not make any more payments in 2008. This was denied by a Naftogaz spokesman. On the same day, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's spokesman on international energy security stated that Ukraine had paid for its October and September supplies, and that although it still had to pay for November's supply before the end of 2008, no other payments would be due until the end of January. On December 23, President Yushchenko said that part of the debt was restructured for January-February 2009, but Gazprom denied that there was any such agreement and said that it remained committed to cut supplies to Ukraine on January 1 if Ukraine did not pay its remaining $1.67 billion debt for gas supplies and an additional $450 million in fines.
By December 30, Naftogaz made a payment of $1.522 billion to RosUkrEnergo for outstanding gas deliveries. RosUkrEnergo confirmed receiving this payment but said that Naftogaz still owed $614 million in fines, (although later on January 2, Naftogaz insisted that no further amounts of debt were outstanding, and said it was ready to go to international arbitration to resolve the issue). Along with the payment, the chief executive of Naftogaz, Oleh Dubyna, wrote a letter to Gazprom threatening that if it delivered gas for transit to Europe, Naftogaz would consider the gas to belong to an "unidentified owner" and could confiscate it under Ukrainian customs law. This reveals how Ukraine’s past due debts to the third party intermediary RosUkrEnergo was used as a threat to combat a new gas deal as Ukraine had done during the 2006 gas dispute.
On December 31, the eve in which gas supplies to Ukraine were to be cut off, the two parties failed to come to an agreement on import and transit prices, and obstacles still remained. Naftogaz promised to transit gas to Europe even if supplies to Ukraine were cut, however, it added that without a contract in place it would not supply technical gas and would instead take gas from Russia's volumes to keep the system functioning. Gazprom refused, arguing that this would be theft.
On January 2, a day after Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, Hungary, Romania and Poland were the first countries to report that pressure in their pipelines had fallen. Bulgaria reported that their supply was also falling and that transit to Turkey,
On January 18, after a day of talks, Putin and Tymoshenko reached a deal on restoring gas supplies toboth Europe and Ukraine. The parties agreed, among other things, that Ukraine would get a 20% discount for 2009 gas supplies on condition that the tariff for transporting Russian gas to European consumers through Ukraine remained at 2008 prices for the duration of the year, and that starting on January 1, 2010, all prices and tariffs would move to European standards, without any exemptions or discounts. The two sides also agreed to stop using intermediaries, referring to RosUkrEnergo, a company joint owned by Gazprom and two Ukrainian businessmen. The next day, the head of Gazprom, Alexei Miller, along with the head of Naftogaz, Oleh Dubyna, signed the agreement, and Putin announced that he had ordered Gazprom to start deliveries in full volume and through all necessary routes. Additionally, the claim of a $600 million debt owed to RosUkrEnergo by Naftogaz was dropped.
According to the agreement, Ukraine would pay $360/mcm (thousand cubic meter) for the first quarter of 2009, and each following quarter will be stipulated depending on the price formula. Additionally, Ukraine must pay for supplies for any given month by the seventh day of the following month. If payment is late, Ukraine has to pay in advance, which could be grounds to nullify the agreement. The agreement was altered on November 20, 2009 after a meeting between Tymoshenko and Putin in Yalta; Ukraine would not be fined for buying less gas than what the original agreement stipulated, this was done in view of the 2008-2009 Ukrainian financial crisis.
This agreement, after such a crisis, destroyed all integration dreams that US and Western Europe oil companies hoped for with Russia. The familiar "American Dream" and "addicted to oil" clichés are finally caught by the current US led bond bubble. In order to disguise this, both Oleksandr Moroz and President Yushchenko made allegations about Yulia Tymoshenko's political motives leading to her political imprisonment. However, all of their allegations (including those from ousted President Viktor Yanukovych) reveal a trail of aiding and abetting US led crimes against humanity. Read on.
The New York Times published an article alleging that the key aim of the Kremlin was to stifle the continued expansion of the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe by exposing Ukraine's foreign policy which has done nothing but aid and abet US led crimes against humanity. Gazprom deputy CEO Alexander Medvedev suggested that Ukraine's actions were being orchestrated by the US. Immediately, we can determine the following:
Let's now turn our attention, by taking a detailed look at how the US and EU are now depending solely on IMF loans to seal their future with the Ukraine. In other words, let's look into the details behind Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment that has now kept the US in its current printing frenzy with no escape!
The details are resting within the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA) . The important thing we must remember is that since the Cold War US integration into Russia's energy sector was and remains the US government’s highest priority. Due to the current nature and size of IMF loans favoring US and EU currencies, we can conclude that economic growth in the US and EU now also rely upon the rumors of gay tourism exploding from their announced US military build-up in Asia!
Remember, Oleksandr Moroz played a tremendous role in assisting the US, through political blackmail, with invading Iraq. He also provided the US with the political legroom to push for third-party legislation to access Russia's pipelines through various political upheavals. Viktor Yushchenko, Viktor Yanukovych and Oleksandr Moroz have all aided and abetted US crimes against humanity from the assistance Ukraine has provided the US since the 2003 Iraqi invasion with their constitutional reforms. Let's take a look at this situation using the International Criminal Court as clarification.
Note: The US does not participate in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a permanent international criminal court, founded in 2002 by the Rome Statute to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", especially when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. The current printing frenzy we are witnessing from the US today is culminated by their unwillingness to admit to these crimes against humanities.
The US conservative group the Heritage Foundation claims that "US participation in the ICC treaty regime would be unconstitutional because it would also allow the trial of American citizens for crimes committed on American soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the US. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the US, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses."
Renew America claim that ratification by the US of the Rome Statute would require a constitutional amendment. According to Renew America, "Because the ICC is inconsistent with fundamental constitutional protections, the federal government is without authority to ratify the treaty absent a constitutional amendment."
The US and many advocates for the International Criminal Court (ICC) have long been at odds over the court's statute, accountability, and jurisdiction. Today the radicals fighting in the Syrian Conflict, the ISIS Iraqi invasion and Afghanistan War are all allied with US led crimes against humanity. These wars force us to focus international attention on the US policy toward the ICC.
What does legalized same-sex marriage laws throughout N. America, S. America, and Europe say about an openly gay US military using a pre-emptive invasion war policy under US President George W. Bush? Bush enacted two laws to avoid this international scrutiny:
In 2002, the US Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the US in providing military aid to countries which had ratified the ICC treatythat established the court. However, there were a number of exceptions to this, including NATO members, major non-NATO allies, and countries which entered into an agreement with the US not to hand over US nationals to the ICCt. ASPA also excluded any military aid the US President certified to be in the US national interest.
In addition, ASPA contained provisions prohibiting US co-operation with the Court, and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any US military personnel held by the court, leading opponents to dub it "The Hague Invasion Act". The act was later modified to permit US cooperation with the ICC when dealing with US enemies. It has been argued that the act was a measure created to protect Americans from ICC jurisdiction or prosecution.
Article 98 of the Rome Statute prohibits the Court from requesting assistance or the surrender of a person to the Court if to do so would require the state to "act inconsistently" with its obligations under international law or international agreements unless the state or the third-party state waives the immunity or grants cooperation. The US has interpreted this article to mean that its citizens cannot be transferred to the ICC by any state that has signed a bilateral agreement with the US prohibiting such a transfer, even if the state is a member of the Rome Statute.
The US actively pressures governments to agree with the so-called Article 98 or bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs). By spring 2006, such agreements had been accepted by approximately one hundred governments and were under consideration by approximately eighteen more. The Bush Administration claimed that the BIAs were drafted out of concern that existing agreements - particularly the Status of Forces or Status of Mission Agreements (SOFAs or SOMAs) - did not sufficiently protect Americans from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). According to the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 54 countries "rejected US efforts to sign BIAs despite unrelenting US pressure and the threat and actual loss of military assistance under the ASPA".
In October 2002, the Council of European Union adopted a common position, permitting member states to enter into Article 98 Agreements with the US, but only concerning US military personnel, US diplomatic or consular officials, and persons extradited, sent to their territories by the US with their permission; not the general protection of US nationals that the US sought; furthermore the common position provided that any person protected from ICC prosecution by such agreements would have to be prosecuted by the US.
In 2002, the US passed a law cutting off military aid for 35 countries (among them nine European countries), under the terms of an amendment to the American Servicemember's Protection Act. The Economic Support Fund (ESF) funding entails a wide range of governance programs including international counter-terrorism efforts, peace process programs, anti-drug trafficking initiatives, truth and reconciliation commissions, wheelchair distribution and HIV/AIDS education, among others. As of May 2, 2005, Angola became the 100th country to sign a bilateral agreement with the US under Article 98. Since then, there have been no additional signing of these agreements.
The US's aim since the Cold War is clear! The US currently aims to create enough uprisings throughout the M. East so that they could exploit Article 98 Immunity Agreements with their crimes against humanity and same-sex laws. These bilateral agreements would turn nations into safe-havens for an openly gay US military seeking same-sex marriage laws, thus spreading crimes against humanity in the form of sexual violence!
The Ukraine has been a significant factor as the US and Europe desperately seek to control Russia's oil revenues. Currently, a gay tourism explosion is awaiting to become the icing on the cake as the US hopes to build an openly gay military presence in Asia. This US destructive socio-economic path is deeply rooted in its hatred against other nations. It is now time to take action. Together, we can utilize this forum as ammunition to bring these perpetrators to their end with the introduction of Cold War 2 and the announcement of a new arms race in Asia!