By Eric Zuesse
“Today’s massacre is Mariupol. They are just shooting people. They shot 12 cops that would not take part and about 18 (number on the fly right now). They are using rpgs, tanks and mounted guns. It’s still going on. In Slavyansk they just shot a 12-year-old twice for wearing a St George ribbon [marking support for Russian-speaking Ukrainians].” message from an eastern Ukrainian, to me on May 9th
The conservative newspaper Kyiv Post headlines, also on 9 May 2014, “Ten People Injured Brought to Mariupol Hospital,” and reports that, “Ten people with gunshot wounds have been hospitalized in Mariupol, where shooting continues since morning, local mass media outlet reported. … According to the information of the media outlet, ‘representatives of the Donetsk People’s Republic have seized a tank at the crossing of Lenin and Torhova [Streets].'”
The same day, the same newspaper banners, “Avakov Says 21 dead in Mariupol After Clashes Between Police and Separatists,” and reports: “At least 21 people died in clashes between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol in Donetsk Oblast, according to Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. He said that some 60 ‘terrorists’ with automatic weapons attacked the city police headquarters earlier today and attempted to take over the building ‘without any preliminary demands.’
‘There was a fight in the building, which turned into a full-scale military clash after reinforcements arrived from the police and Omega unit of the National Guard,’ Avakov wrote on his Facebook page. He said 20 separatists died and four were arrested on the separatist side, and only one dead on the government side.” So, according to the central government official Avakov, some “60 ‘terrorists’ with automatic weapons” who were “separatists” had fought against Avakov’s forces, and “20 separatists died,” while there was “only one dead on the government side,” even though they had been fighting “some 60 ‘terrorists’ with automatic weapons.” Who, then, were really the ‘terrorists’ here? The Ukrainian central government is having trouble lying: they’re not as skilled at it as their sponsors inside the U.S. White House and State Department are: they need lots of professional training.
Radio Liberty headlines, also on May 9th, “Heavy Clashes In Mariupol As Ukrainian Security Forces Target Separatists,” and reports not just Mariupol, but that:
“In separatist-controlled Luhansk, veterans rallied beneath flags of the self-declared Luhansk People’s Republic.” Moreover, “In Odesa, a crowd of some 70 pro-Russian separatists marched to the trade union building to lay wreaths at a makeshift memorial to the dozens of people who were killed in a fire there during clashes with government supporters last week.”
On May 7th, Kyiv Post bannered, “Donetsk: Eastern Ukraine descends into chaos, lawlessness,” and reported that men in the east were secretly forming self-defense forces and “are armed with everything from wooden clubs and daggers to double-barreled hunting rifles and Kalashnikovs.” Another story in the same paper bannered “Ukrainians form militias to defend nation against chaos,” and reported that, at the same time, “Andriy Tarasenko, a high-ranking member of nationalist group Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), told the Kyiv Post that its military wing is cooperating with authorities on forming partisan units.” In other words: this is going to be a war between, on the one side, Russian-speaking Ukrainians armed with hunting rifles; and, on the other side, Ukrainian Nazis armed by the U.S. Then, a third story in that same day’s edition of that same paper was headlined, “Odessa: Who is to blame for 46 Odessa deaths?” It reported that, “Despite rumors [which were being spread by Kiev’s central government] that there were Russian citizens among the dead, all the identified victims turned out to be from Odessa.” (The central government pretends that their enemy is Russia, not the majority of residents in the eastern half of Ukraine, even though that’s what they’re actually attacking.)
On May 5th, Reuters had bannered “Ukraine Moves Forces to Odessa, Helicopter Downed in East,” and reported that, “The violence in Odessa marked a watershed for Ukraine.” It certainly did. The myth that the Obama Administration is on the side of democrats in Ukraine is now ended forever.
That “violence in Odessa” had occurred on May 2nd. That’s when neo-Nazis, called “Right Sector” or “Pravy Sektor,” were sent in by the Kiev central government (the government that the U.S. installed to run Ukraine), to do what the local government officials in Odessa had refused to do, which was to kill all of the people who were occupying that city’s Trade Unions Building, where the workers were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the people who opposed Ukraine’s central government and thus didn’t resist this occupation of their building. The building’s occupiers also set up tents in front of the building, from which they distributed political literature that was unfavorable to the central government in Kiev.
The central government ordered the local Odessa police to assist the Pravy Sektor people in this killing operation. At the start of that operation, a large number of the local police force publicly threw down their shields and walked off, very publicly resigning from the police force.
All of this — the invasion of the Trade Unions Building, the throwing-down of shields, and the massacre of the people inside the building — is shown in cellphone videos that were posted to the Internet and youtube on May 2nd, as these events were unfolding. Those videos are shown here. The entire massacre is shown there, from start to finish. That report opens with an introduction describing it:
“For the first time in history, an organized massacre of civilians has been filmed by many people from many different angles and perspectives while it was happening, and is documented in extraordinary detail in ‘real time,’ the perpetrators having no fear of any negative consequences from their endeavor, and even cheering and celebrating the tortures and deaths as they were being imposed upon the helpless victims. The perpetrators were unconcerned, because what they were doing was what the government (which the U.S. had imposed upon their country and which U.S. taxpayers had spent more than 5 billion dollars to bring about there) had wanted them to do, and had helped to organize them to carry out. These people were just having fun, like a party to them, nothing really serious at all. Sort of like Stanley Kubrick’s movie A Clockwork Orange, more than, say Auschwitz (such a bore!). But, if so, a hundredfold more. And none of these people (tragically including the victims) were actors!”
I wrote that, as the introduction to my news-report on that massacre, because after watching all of those videos, I was crying, and I wanted people to be prepared for a documentary experience that I had found, while preparing it, to be, in a way, even more gruesome than the documentaries on the anti-Semitic Holocaust were, because, this time, the perpetrators weren’t grim at all: they didn’t need to be paid to do this; it was play not work for them; you look at what they are doing and you see that it’s just one huge party for them; so many times their voices burst collectively into cheers as someone jumps from a window of the burning Trade Unions Building and isn’t even allowed to die in peace but is instead immediately attacked and beaten to death and the corpse is promptly just dragged off to who-knows-what, who-knows-where. (According to one account presented there, it was to someplace “six kilometers from Odessa,” but nobody other than the authorities and their perpetrators can really know for sure.
Also included there is the still-photo of the first published list of the identities of the first 36 of the corpses that remained on the premises and were able to be identified.
So many roasted corpses strewn around so many rooms of that building are hard to take, but the ones with gouged-out eyes are even harder to take; and the still photo of the young very pregnant woman who was lying on her back, half-draped over what was perhaps her work-desk there, after having been strangled to death by use of an electrical cord — a two-for-one killing occurring so late in a pregnancy — has a poignancy about it that is simply classic: this photo-image should be pinned to Barack Obama’s desk, perhaps near his Nobel Peace Prize.
Will Mr. Obama now return his Nobel Peace Prize? Will the Nobel Committee demand it back? After all, he installed this central government (see here and here), and he spent more than five billion dollars from U.S. taxpayers on the effort to install it (according to Victoria Nuland, his agent who had selected the people to lead the Ukrainian central government after having booted Viktor Yanukovych and installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his fascist team in their stead). (Nuland was especially famous for her “F–k the EU” remark, but Obama now is seeking the support of EU leaders.)
Just as there is resistance to Obama’s people on the part of the local policemen in eastern Ukraine, there also is resistance to Obama’s people on the part of some European Union officials and heads-of-state. On May 9th, Reuters headlined “EU’s Barroso Says Europe Divided Over Ukraine Crisis,” and reported that, “He said settling on a united response was ‘still a work in progress’ given different views by EU member states. ‘And this, let’s be honest, this is the issue,’ he said. EU countries have moved slowly towards agreeing a tougher line on applying sanctions against Russian companies but Barroso’s comments underline how difficult it will be to reach any more far-reaching agreement. Differences within the 28-member bloc, much of which depends on Russian gas supplies, have stood in the way of agreement on toughening the limited sanctions against members of the Russian elite. Germany, Europe’s most powerful economy, is urging more room for diplomacy while others, including Britain and France [are] pushing for tougher action. German growth could be reduced by up to 0.9 percentage points this year if the EU imposes tougher sanctions, a German magazine reported, citing a European Commission study.”
Barroso said that he personally favors the EU’s participating in Obama’s operation on this, because he wants the U.S. aristocracy to continue controlling the world: “Barroso, who said he had met Russian President Vladimir Putin more than 20 times during his time in office and had spoken frequently with him during the crisis, said Putin’s ambition to strengthen ties with some of the former Soviet Union states to create a new Eurasian Union was behind the crisis. ‘He wants to build on that and enlarge it to become a Eurasian Union, a kind of a pole of power opposed to the European Union, unfortunately,’ he said.” Barroso equated “the European Union” with Obama; and “a Eurasian Union” with an anti-European union, both positions being at least very questionable, and probably outright false. (After all, Nuland had said “F–k the EU.”) Yet, he acknowledged that perhaps Germany, and some other EU nations, might not agree with his dubious assumptions on this.
In a remarkable lapse, by reporting with a significant modicum of honesty, The New York Times headlined on May 4th, “Ukraine’s Reins Weaken as Chaos Spread,” (even the headline there was honest) and Andrew E. Kramer reported, with some accuracy, on the immediate sequel to the world’s best-documented massacre, which had so transparently been carried out on behalf of the Government that we had installed in Ukraine. He opened by transmitting the Obama Administration’s line, as represented here by the man whom Obama (through Nuland) had chosen to run Ukraine for the time being, Arseniy Yatsenyuk: “Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine spun further out of the central government’s control on Sunday [May 4th] as a mob [on the Russian side, the NYT calls them ‘a mob,’ though it was actually our own side here, which was that: they operated like a ‘mob’] stormed a police station in this Black Sea port [Odessa] and freed from detention 67 pro-Russian militants [that’s the NYT’s term, ‘militants,’ for people who simply wanted protection from our actual mob, of not ‘militants,’ but straight-out Ukrainian fascists], on the same day that Ukraine’s prime minister was visiting the city. It was intended to be a chance for the prime minister, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, to express condolences for the dozens of people who died here on Friday in street fighting [the NYT’s euphemism for the massacre inside the Trade Unions Building] and in a horrific fire at a trade union building, and to reinforce the government’s narrative that Russia and inept or disloyal local police were to blame. Speaking at a news conference, Mr. Yatsenyuk cast aspersion on the police, suggesting that if they had done their jobs instead of concentrating on soliciting bribes at an outdoor market, ‘these terrorist organizations would have been foiled.'” Thus far, Mr. Kramer has done the usual NYT thing of serving as the U.S. President’s stenographer, not a journalist at all, though this time through the President’s agent, “Yats” as Nuland had so famously and endearingly referred to the man she selected to run Ukraine. Thus far, Kramer’s “reporting” is no different from what the NYT’s star reporter on Iraq, Judith Miller, had done during the build-up to our 2003 invasion of Iraq in order to eliminate equally fictitious “Saddam’s WMD.” And there is much more in Kramer’s story that comes straight out of the same playbook. However, there also was this morsel of almost straightforward truth in the story:
“As the building burned, Ukrainian activists [a euphemism intended to confuse the reader which side was which, because these people were on our side, against the Ukrainians who were being massacred] sang the Ukrainian national anthem [because they were fascist Ukrainians, which the NYT also doesn’t want you to recognize], witnesses on both sides said. They also hurled a new taunt: ‘Colorado’ for the Colorado potato beetle, striped red and black like the pro-Russian ribbons [worn by the people who were being massacred]. Those [fascists who were] outside chanted ‘burn Colorado, burn,” witnesses said. Swastikalike symbols were spray painted on the building, along with graffiti reading ‘Galician SS’ [Hitler’s Ukrainian Waffen SS division], though it was unclear when it had appeared, or who had painted it. [That statement by Kramer is a pro-U.S.-Administration lie.] ‘The biggest thing they ever did to make me hate this country was sing the anthem,’ Mr. Milteynus [‘Yanus Milteynus, a 42-year-old construction worker and pro-Russian activist’ who survived the massacre] said. ‘I was going to die, and they sang the anthem. [He did it to save his life.] I hate them deeply.'”
Kramer closed by quoting the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, the man whom Nuland had instructed to appoint “Yats” to run the country, and our Ambassador used here the same line that his chosen stooge, Yatsenyuk, used at the start of Kramer’s story: “Geoffrey R. Pyatt, in a telephone interview with CNN, called for an investigation into the violence here and suggested that local police [who refused to participate in it] were complicit [in it].”
Then came Kramer’s capstone lie: “The causes of the fire at the trade union building and [of] its terrible toll in lives is [are] sure to be carefully parsed.” If he really cared about such things, he could have just looked at those videos and seen the answer to that question — and reported on that matter — but it’s too hard to lie when the evidence is so blatant, so his newspaper wouldn’t do such a foolish thing. Even Judith Miller wouldn’t have done it. So, instead, Kramer just issued here the question, as if (and pretending that) it didn’t already have an awesomely documented answer, which he’s essentially not being permitted to report.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.