This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Everyone Agrees that Ukraine Sniper Attacks Were a False Flag … They Only Argue About WHO's Behind Them
We pointed out Wednesday that the Estonian foreign minister claims that the new Ukrainian coalition deployed snipers to discredit the former government of Ukraine.
We documented Thursday that snipers are a common form of false flag terrorism.
Interestingly, while the new Ukranian coalition denies that it deployed snipers, it is now accusing someone else – Russia – of deploying the snipers as a false flag event to create chaos.
AP reports today:
One of the biggest mysteries hanging over the protest mayhem that drove Ukraine’s president from power: Who was behind the snipers who sowed death and terror in Kiev?
That riddle has become the latest flashpoint of feuding over Ukraine — with the nation’s fledgling government and the Kremlin giving starkly different interpretations of events that could either undermine or bolster the legitimacy of the new rulers.
Ukrainian authorities are investigating the Feb. 18-20 bloodbath, and they have shifted their focus from ousted President Viktor Yanukovych’s government to Vladimir Putin’s Russia — pursuing the theory that the Kremlin was intent on sowing mayhem as a pretext for military incursion. Russia suggests that the snipers were organized by opposition leaders trying to whip up local and international outrage against the government.
The government’s new health minister — a doctor who helped oversee medical treatment for casualties during the protests — told The Associated Press that the similarity of bullet wounds suffered by opposition victims and police indicates the shooters were trying to stoke tensions on both sides and spark even greater violence, with the goal of toppling Yanukovych.
“I think it wasn’t just a part of the old regime that (plotted the provocation), but it was also the work of Russian special forces who served and maintained the ideology of the (old) regime,” Health Minister Oleh Musiy said.
***
On Tuesday, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov signaled that investigators may be turning their attention away from Ukrainian responsibility.
“I can say only one thing: the key factor in this uprising, that spilled blood in Kiev and that turned the country upside down and shocked it, was a third force,” Avakov was quoted as saying by Interfax. “And this force was not Ukrainian.”
***
Musiy, who spent more than two months organizing medical units on Maidan, said that on Feb. 20 roughly 40 civilians and protesters were brought with fatal bullet wounds to the makeshift hospital set up near the square. But he said medics also treated three police officers whose wounds were identical.
Forensic evidence, in particular the similarity of the bullet wounds, led him and others to conclude that snipers were targeting both sides of the standoff at Maidan — and that the shootings were intended to generate a wave of revulsion so strong that it would topple Yanukovych and also justify a Russian invasion.
Since Russia supported Yanukovych, it makes no sense that the people who ordered the sniper attacks would want to topple Yanukovych and launch a Russian invasion. Specifically, they would either want to overthrow the Russia-friendly Yanukovych or launch a Russian invasion to support a Russia-friendly Ukrainian government.
In any event, AP continues:
Russia has used the uncertainty surrounding the bloodshed to discredit Ukraine’s current government. During a news conference Tuesday, Putin addressed the issue in response to a reporter’s question, suggesting that the snipers in fact “may have been provocateurs from opposition parties.”
***
A former top security official with Ukraine’s main security agency, the SBU, waded into the confusion, in an interview published Thursday with the respected newspaper Dzerkalo Tizhnya. Hennady Moskal, who was deputy head of the agency, told the newspaper that snipers from the Interior Ministry and SBU were responsible for the shootings, not foreign agents.
“In addition to this, snipers received orders to shoot not only protesters, but also police forces. This was all done in order to escalate the conflict, in order to justify the police operation to clear Maidan,” he was quoted as saying.
In other words, everyone agrees that the snipers were false flag terrorists sewing chaos and confusion … they only disagree about who the responsible party is.
In related news ...
Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose US Intervention in Ukraine, Syria, Iran … Or Anywhere Else
Polls show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. military involvement in:
- Or anywhere else
Indeed, a poll from Pew in December found that a majority of Americans – more than ever before in Pew’s 50-year history of polling this question – think the U.S. “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own.”
We’re sick of war …
(And we’ve been so for years.)
- advertisements -
I stand/sit corrected. I am a Constitutionalist/Libertarian, not a Republican or a Democrat. My focus on ZH is to look at the sources of info. GW is a busy contributor but I question his sources and get called names. Waaa.... The problem is people believing everything they read or hear because it fits their belef system and gives them suport in their beliefs. To me, the fraud is that GW uses sources that fit the conspiracy fnatics belief systems and ignores other sources that do not fit the systems. Much like the MSM ie. Hufpost. I am unfamiliar with Antiwar but I will check it out.
GW, not that it matters to you, but I appologize for calling you a fraud.
A Liberals perspective of an event, using his own perspective and other liberal sources. Doesn't anyone else see how GW is a fraud?
As if the HufPost or AntiWar would report that more Americans are for war? WGAF! For war or against war is not the issue. Credibility in posting is!
Xavi, you represent part of what is wrong with this country. You believe in 2choices. Left wing statism or right wing statism. There is a third choice. Freedom and Libertarianism.
Antiwar is a LIBERTARIAN - not liberal - site.
Can you guys keep it down, please? Justin Biebers is on the tvs.
Problem is USA is a big supporter and enabler of same and more atrocities all in the name of suring up its power and resources
Who benefited? Who would lose? The snipers were one part of the agent provocateurs. What's legitimate about any coup government? Putin isn't stupid, but Obama is.
Obama is a deceiver. He started pretending to be black a few decades ago, in order to take advantage of the political Teflon coating and affirmative action that provided him, as a means to an end. To fundamentally transform the USA, to take it down as fast as he plausibly could, within the system. Same as his fellow travellers.
Mystery solved I know who did it and I have the Pictures to Prove it! .. its was Sniper Kitty!
No, It was George Soros
The use of snipers - is an main element of the American technology of color revolutions.
Time to send in the sniper drones.
Old school.
Sarin gas is the new go-to for USA. WMD's grab hearts and minds of Congressional dupes.
Go big or go (stay) home.
GW has gotten soft lately or someone else is writing under the name. An earlier GW would have pinned this on the Mossad already.
Perhaps it is so evident. Dont forget who got the top jobs now in Ukraine. Jews
Mossad. Academi. Doesn't matter. Ultimately, they serve the same masters.
For a place where commentors are so skeptical of what leaders say, why does what an Estonian minister think is taken as absolute fact here? Bugged phone call or not, it's just one guys opinion of who did it?
To be fair, the Eastlander got his opinion from first responders and physicians. He didn't just pull the opinion out of his ass like a lot of folks are inclined to do, and facts be damned, they'll hold to that opinion.
1.FACT well he pulled his opionion according to testimony of a medic on the square, exatly saying the shots fired on both sides were of similar origin...FACT
2.SUGGESTION in her opinion maybe someone from new government...SUGGESTION
so, so much mentioned taped phone call, proves nothing, it hints at the possibility, that shooters may be a third party
The duplicity is on the side of Ukrainian Junta Citizenism citizens, who want to keep believing their tale is facts.
"Interestingly, while the new Ukranian coalition denies that it deployed snipers, it is now accusing someone else – Russia – of deploying the snipers as a false flag event to create chaos. "
I saw Santa Claus firing from a chimney pot.
The Crimeea invasion looks very much as a careful written scenario. There is no chaos in the military takeover, no wrong step - all the steps to the "union" are very well studied, even when we talk about tens of thousands of people and many actors.
It looks like somebody studied a lot of the possible flows and actively manages the total takeover. So this is contrary to any peace mission Russia claims - there is too perfect synchronization.
If the ponzi sheme of subprime in 2008 with trillions of dollar lost led to nobody responsable for the crimes, so it could be truth what you said.
All that you've been describing, I put in three words:
People of Crimea meets Russian army as liberators.
Because the people of Crimea, not want to live like slaves under the rule of the Nazis, in the face of Kiev puppets of Washington.
So, Putin has a history of invading or keeping military forces in at least 4 countries (Cecenia, Georgia, Transnistria and Ukraine), of supporting etnical cleansing (in the occupied territories), of assassinating opponents, of using death squads (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-uses-death-squads-...) etc. But, off course, Ukraine is full of nazi. Looks like the Russian propaganda is extremely effective.
For your information, the WW2 was started by Hitler and <strong>Stalin</strong> working together following the Ribentrop-Molotov non-aggression pakt. Poland territory was split by Germany and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland). So when Putin claims that somebody is "nazi", he would better look in a mirror.
What you see a logical connection between Putin and Soviet invasion of Poland, which took place before the birth of Putin? You feel good? LOL
you forgot to mention, that russians were actualy planning to attack west to spread their totalitarism but hitler made his move first.
russian propaganda is only effective this time as US discredited themself almost as if they were following some sacred book. so a lot of people are choosing evil they dont know, even here.
believe it or not, if this site was in russia, it would last hours, then all of us would be prosecuted for tax evasions
what a bunch of usefull idiots here
We may be useful idiots. Or we may have carefully considered that Russia is easily the lesser of 2 known evils. They also happen to be the last credible redoubt opposing nearly total neocon world wide hegemony. If Russia hadn't acted, they would have been doomed in a few years. Snowden would be rotting in a dungeon or dead right now, if not for Russia. Because they have the power to protect him.We should all be grateful that there is still a place for a Constitution loving patriot to run to. A balance of power can be a very good thing. See Syria. I'll take Putin's authoritarianism over unimpeded globalists running rampant, every time.
Made me laugh. Quite a delusional appraisal.
This Ukrainian Junta Citizenism citizen comment is based on a fabled past.
As to the example, it is simply dressing.
Dont forget the Ribentrop-Molotov pact was the direct effect of Munich Accord. If Chamberlain stoop for the czechs in Munich just as the frenchies and the commies did, and not trying the dirty trick of diverting Hitler conquest to USSR, perhaps the outcome of History would be different. Chamberlain sold others interests to avoid a war just as Stalin did with Ribentrop-Molotov pact. Both are hypocrits but at least they put their national interests in first place. Now, our politicans are diferents, they put 1% interests about the nation.
Our press and academics and entertainers, including entertainer FDR, pushed the meme that nazis are infinitely worse than communists, and we still have this hangover. Sympathy for the overt good intentions of socialists and communists. Watch what they do and take what they say with a giant grain of salt. Also, ask yourself, cui bono? In the case of Russia, the answer is always kleptocrats. Kleptocracy is the intermediate temporary stage of socialism that never seems to end until the host is dead meat. It killed the Russian people and a lot of their neighbors, destroying traditional culture, family values, and birth rates. These are disappearing peoples we are talking about. Let's not follow them. One thing that will help is rejecting with a sickened scowl on our faces politiicians like "inordinate fear of communism" Jimmy Carter or "spread the wealth around" Obama and his Chicago style kleptocrats. Private property and rule of law, bitchez.
It's not as if that the US has a democratic government as it purports to have. The real power in America lies elsewhere:
Over the past several days, it has emerged that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been illegally spying on the US Senate Intelligence Committee—the very legislative body that is charged with overseeing and regulating the agency—in flagrant violation of legality and the constitutional separation of powers.
Among the basic conceptions of the revolutionaries who created the American system of government was the conviction that the natural trajectory of government, left unchecked, was toward executive tyranny. To combat this tendency, the Founders designed a system in which state power was divided among separate branches of government. The separate branches, under a system of “checks and balances,” were meant to limit the powers of the other branches. Legislative oversight of federal agencies, including intelligence agencies, is one historical outgrowth of this conception.
The revelations of CIA spying on Congress underscore the fact that America is run by an unelected, unaccountable military/intelligence apparatus. It is this apparatus, in conjunction with the corporate-financial elite, that dictates official policy in Washington, irrespective of which political party is in power.
The outlook of those who run this apparatus is one of utter impunity and contempt for basic democratic principles. In the day-to-day activities of the intelligence agencies—spying, conspiracy, infiltration, subversion, torture, assassination—the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and existing law are seen merely as impediments to be evaded or overridden. This contempt for democratic rights is consistent with a political system that as a whole carries out its reactionary foreign and domestic policies over the heads of the population, which overwhelmingly opposes them.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/10/pers-m10.html
CNN, NYT, WP jornalists adore to publish this article
Another great piece. Thanks for all you do George!
"Since Russia supported Yanukovych, it makes no sense that the people who ordered the sniper attacks would want to topple Yanukovych and launch a Russian invasion. Specifically, they would either want to overthrow the Russia-friendly Yanukovych or launch a Russian invasion to support a Russia-friendly Ukrainian government."
Or...not everyone thinks the same.
Simply having the "loss of order" (that is to say, creating chaos) whether one gets a Russia friendly government or not, is the only pretext needed to move into the Crimea to secure it from the chaos.
so Victoria Nulland was fucked
Defective reasoning. Russia seemed content with the status quo. They didn't instigate the disorder and chaos. The protests would have been little more significant than OWS in the US, if agents provocateurs, and then snipers, hadn't escalated the conflict. Putin and the Russians may be a nasty bunch, but not as nasty as the fiends who hired the snipers.
"Defective reasoning."
Really?
"Russia seemed content with the status quo."
The status quo was, an increasingly belligerent government going against a portion of its own people and passing laws that first, said clear the streets or else, then passed laws making demonstrations "illegal" (made it a crime to demonstrate) and threatened AND FINALLY DID use force against the demonstrators.
Have you not been keeping up on this or did your experience begin when the pro-Putin douchebag fled the capital?
"They didn't instigate the disorder and chaos."
And you know this...how?
I agree with you 99% of the time. I have been lurking a long time and you are one of the posters that I read the most. I disagree with you this time.
I don't deny that Putin has been clamping down. He has to. NATO has been pushing to the east. It is all over for Russia if they can't keep NATO out of the east Ukraine. The EU, US, and others have been pushing for color revolutions in many countries. The high western life is attractive to many in emerging nations. Young people especially, believe that they can have that life if they throw off the authoritarian yoke. They will only gain debt servitude and their countries will be looted by banksters and oligarchs. China is a weak sister and Russia is the only real impediment to total control by the banksters and oligarchs.
I like a balance of power. It reins in the banksters and neocons' wildest tendencies. Power corrupts. I don't care to imagine a bankster controlled world with no checks and balances. Besides, without Russia, there really wouldn't be a safe place for people like Snowden to go to. We are better off with the status quo. That is all Putin is trying to preserve. It is the west that is pushing.
The Russians are not yet ready for the greater freedoms of the west. I am certain that they will be in the near future. Let it be on their timeline and terms and not in a looted and carved up homeland.
I want to return to this, this evening (eastern time zone) you're touching on some interesting points...
60 Minutes did an America good-Russia bad puff piece last night. They dissed the palace that Yanukovych lived in but deliberately avoided the homes of the Ukainian Oligarchs.
Putin is a thug, but we could really use a little investigative journalism. Singing from the same hymn book gets a little tedious.
How long ago was it that we were justifying and glorifying the invasion of Iraq. "Yer either with us or yeer agin us..."
You mean an obama-good, Putin-bad piece, right? 60 minutes is not known to be pro American, just as obama is not known to be pro American. OTH 60 minutes likes big strong government, and what says big strong central government better than "Russia".
You need to try to forgive Russia for the Soviet era. I wish things had turned out differently, myself. And what a wonderful world it would be if the Kaiser Reich had prevailed, or better, no Great War at all! The EU is a clusterfuck and will never be the Greater Pax Germanica that you wish for. They are nearly as much in the clutches of the neocons as the USA.
Wild guess. EU benefits the most along with the IMF.
60 minutes is a media elite that has a very open and notorious agenda.
hilary interview was the height of bullshit, not to mention bernanke interview.
the sheep are coraled, just back up the transport vehicle...
who benefits the most from the false flag? who is the happiest guy now? I don't think it is Russia.
But war is so....bullish!
Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: “War Is Widely Thought To Be Linked To Economic Good Times … NONSENSE”
"Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy."
I am not impressed with Nobel Prize winners. Obama got one.
The founders of Long Term Capital Management got one.
In 1998, they nearly crashed the financial system because they ignored the law of cycles. Funny thing about math, 1+1 ALWAYS = 2. ALL cycles have an up phase and a down phase. In 1998, the stock market had a down phase- which destroyed LTCM. Math beats a Nobel Prize any day of the week.
In response to the above quote, the Great Depression happened in peace time. So much for the idea that peace time is better for the economy. Once again, the law of cycles proves someone wrong.
World War 2 destroyed the economies of Europe and Japan, while benefitting the economy of the U.S., which kept its factories in tact, leaving it to become producer to the world, after the war.
The 1920's and 1990's booms happened during peace time, after WW1 and the Cold War, but 100% of booms end in a bust.
The Vietnam era did boost the economy, as the government spent loads of money, but after the war, that spending stopped, which resulted in the 1973-74 bear market and 1974-75 recession.
Booms end in busts, whether during war or peace.
"The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy."
The Gulf War had no effect on the economy. The business cycle runs 7-8 years on average. In 1990, it was about 8 years after the 1981-82 recession.
" The recession of the early 1990s lasted from July 1990 to March 1991." Note that the recession began the month before Saddam invaded Kuait. Thus the recession would have occurred whether or not there was a war with Iraq. In fact, the stock market took off and never looked back, the day the war started.