The recent tragedy in Odessa has proven to be more than a mere massacre. Both Washington and the MSM have truly outdone themselves this time. History apparently can’t help but repeat itself, as the U.S. backed Ukrainian fascists over 70 years ago. It should come as no surprise that the one and only Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his infamous book “The Grand Chessboard,” urged the U.S. to take control of Ukraine:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.
Naturally, the vulture-like IMF grows impatient. Al Jazeera sums it up nicely:
Consider German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble’s comments to the press last month that Greece could serve as a model for Ukraine. This is like saying that the United States’ Great Depression could serve as a model for Ukraine.
Wasting no time, the IMF has now approved a $17 billion loan to Ukraine. From RT:
It’s essential to identify the conditions attached to this Mafia-style “loan.” Nothing remotely similar to reviving the Ukrainian economy is in play. The scheme is inextricably linked to the IMF’s notorious, one-size-fits-all “structural adjustment” policy, known to hundreds of millions from Latin America and Southeast Asia to Southern Europe.
In 2001, BBC reporter Greg Palast wrote an incredible article called “The Globalizer Who Came in from the Cold.” The revelations concerned former chief economist of the World Bank and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz. From jaysanalysis.com:
Amazingly, this “aid” is simply the same plan of IMF shock doctrine we have seen over and over, as Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz revealed back in 2001…The documents summarized there outline the multi-layered plan the IMF takes to attack, destabilize and reorganize (ie, loot) through “aid” packages that result in extensive debt slavery and privatization.
With this in mind, it becomes easier to understand why we’re seeing a nearly unprecedented level of bias when it comes to Western coverage of Ukraine. That’s not to excuse Russia’s coverage or PR machine, but it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the West isn’t enlightened with impartiality as Washington and the MSM would have us believe. What happened in Odessa was horrific. From the World Socialist Web Site:
As the building was engulfed in flames, photos posted on Twitter showed people hanging out of windows and sitting on windowsills on several floors, possibly preparing to jump. Other images showed pro-regime elements celebrating the inferno.
U.S. State Department press spokeswoman Marie Harf defended the government in Kiev, claiming that “the onus really is on the Russian government.” Not surprisingly, Harf got her start with the CIA as a Middle East analyst, later becoming a spokeswoman for the agency. She also served as foreign policy spokesperson for Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. The MSM in the U.S. has been relentlessly echoing Washington’s rhetoric. From consortiumnews.com:
The mainstream U.S. media likes to talk about Ukraine as an “information war,” meaning that the Russians are making stuff up. But the false narratives are actually being hatched more on the U.S. side. The New York Times, which has asserted for weeks that the Russian government is behind the unrest in Ukraine’s east, finally sent some reporters to the region to dig up the proof, but all they found were eastern Ukrainians upset by the coup regime in Kiev that replaced President Viktor Yanukovych.
From the New Eastern Outlook:
Unable to spin the massacre carried out by the very ultra-right Neo-Nazi mobs that propelled the current unelected regime into power, both the West’s media machine and its politicians have attempted to remain as ambiguous as possible regarding the recent brutality resulting from what Kiev calls “anti-terror” operations. The U.S. condemned the violence in Odessa, but failed to identify the provocateurs or assign blame and instead called for an “investigation” into the deaths – the diplomatic equivalent of shrugging one’s shoulders. This response comes in sharp contrast to the West’s politically motivated responses to alleged government-sanctioned violence elsewhere in the world, most notably in Libya in 2011, and currently in Syria.
Counterpunch offers a more damning interpretation:
None of the victims of the tragedy were armed. None of them were Russian nationals. All of the people who were killed were identified as locals. There is no factual basis for Obama’s allegation that the “protestors… are heavily armed militants who are receiving significant support from Russia.” Obama’s claims are uncorroborated nonsense, fabrications and outright lies. What prompted Right Sector goons to stage the massacre when they had never done so before? Doesn’t that suggest that they must have gotten the green light from Kiev, which means, the attack must have been approved by Washington as well? Is that where the bloody footprints lead; to the Oval Office?
This extreme scenario aside, it goes without saying that if the roles in the Odessa massacre had been reversed, we would’ve been inundated with nonstop coverage of the “atrocity” and the rhetoric in Washington would’ve been anything but ambiguous.