„The West“ and it´s arrogance in promoting and deriding elections elsewhere

„The West“, a phrase by which mainly The US and its western European NATO allies are meant considers itself and only itself entitled and qualified to determine who deserves to be voted, boycotted and overthrown in any country.

The rules of the game are quite easy:
If the ruler is pro-Russian or his country predominantly in the Russian geopolitical hemisphere he is almost by definition illegitimate. So, if any political, religious or ethnic group raises in opposition to such a country’s government, the oppositions autonomy and separatism oriented demands are legitimate. The ruler has to give in to the alleged will of „the people“ and relinquish power. If a part of such a pro-Russian state holds a referendum and demands autonomy, western politicians will be the first to support secessionist ideas and apply pressure to the central government.
Examples are ex-Yugoslavia and Syria.

If absolutely democratic elections are held and the outcome – thus the majority will of the people – does not please „the West“, the elected government will be shunned at best and isolated and sanctioned at worst. The voters will be punished for making the „wrong“ decision. So democracy and free elections do not protect anyone from the wrath of the West, and at the same time the West does not see any violation of its otherwise proudly propagated values such as freedom of choice.
Examples are the elections of Hamas in Palestine and Mohammad Morsi in Egypt.

If you are the man of the West or at least the enemy of the West´s enemy you can forcefully remove a democratically elected government, e.g. through a military coup, and win dubious elections, sometimes with 93% of the votes and afterwards be praised by the West as legitimate winner.
Examples are the Egyptian and Ukrainian elections

So, while Assads 88% are brushed off as „farce“ or „parody of the democracy“, Sisis 93% are supposed to be regarded as serious and respectable outcome.

When the US´ favorite gets 93% of the votes, the west won´t call elections a farce

Look at this BBC article about Egypts Sisis landslide (93%) win of the presidential elections:

Though the article mentions that turnout was low and the powerful Muslim Brotherhood was banned, it does not quote a single western (almost always an american president or foreign secretary or their british-french counterparts) calling the elections a farce, or a fraud or a „parody of democracy“ as UKs William Hague already did with regards to the upcoming Syrian elections.

Imagine Assad would get 93%. Western press and politicians would tear apart the event and ridicule the Syrian regime.
Not however in Egypt where the darling of the US  (and Saudi Arabia) has won.

Watch out for the reports coming after Assads electoral victory in a couple of days:
You will read about „irregularities“ and manipulation, reported by „activists“. You will read that each and every Syrian was bullied and observed by a Mukhabarat thug or the notorious „Shabiha“ to intimidate him towards voting for Assad. Local „activists“ will report about having witnessed how the same Alawites travelled from one village to the neighbouring one to vote for Assad multiple times while Sunnis were prevented from voting (against Assad) by pro-Assad militiamen. You will read about Assad having allegedly received 100% of votes even from rebel strongholds. All these „facts“ that will rain down on you from various – of course – totally reliable sources inside Syria will be intended to prove to you that – unlike the elections in Ukraine or Egypt – the Syrian election was a „joke“, an insult to „millions of Syrians“ who hate Assad and love the rebels and and and…


Shamirs brilliant sarcasm exposes the US´ policy in Ukraine

„The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists, apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.“

It is sad but true that in fact it is that cheap and easy to make populist politics in the US and „Nato“/central Europe by simply antagonizing, polemizing and, yes, insulting Russia and Putin.
The cheapest newspapers in Germany, usually only bought by the lowest and most voyeurist elements of the society because of the naked front page girl, and at the same time many, if not most of the allegedly better upper class dailies play to the same unified, remote controlled, unsceptic tune of Putin bashing.
Nowadays, you are an intellectual human rights activist by merely stating that Putin is the „new Hitler“, no matter how faulty, misleading and free of any facts the comparison is.

Ukraine: Das Krimreferendum in Nachbetrachtung

Wie viel Prozent der Krimbewohner stimmten für einen Anschluss an Russland: 95%, 85% oder 77,37%
Die meisten europäischen und amerikanischen Medien und Regierungen werden nicht müde, das Referendum als völkerrechtswidrig oder schlichtweg „fehlerhaft“ darzustellen, so als ob ein (vermeintlich) einwandfreies Referendum ein gänzlich anderes, antirussisches Resultat hervorgebracht hätte.

Zu dumm nur dass „Nach einer Umfrage der US-Stiftung Pew“ „fast 90 Prozent der Krimbewohner das Ergebnis des Referendums“ bekräftigen:


Palestinian „terrorist“ vs. Ukrainian „freedom fighter“

The brazen double speak of most western politicians and media „experts“ knows no limits.
In order to justify Israeli violence and maintain the constant portrayal of Israel as innocent victim of the very people it occupies and suppresses since decades, every uniformed Palestinian had to be defamed as „terrorist“ or at least „with terrorist links“. This would apply to almost every member of a Palestinian security organization including traffic policemen of the Hamas rulers of Gaza.

At the same time when it comes to the worst violent, militant and at times even antisemitic mob those people are romanticized and hyped as „freedom fighters“ or „activists“ as long as they oppose pro-Russian people, be the latter a democratically elected government or citizens not sharing their anti-Russian views.

Whenever any ethnic or religious group in a pro-Russian country demanded secession or separatism US and most western European governments were the first to praise such „freedom movements“ and expect the ruling governments to immediately cede power or allow „reforms“. So, in a new climax of shamelessly biased coverage of events the removal of Ukraines elected government was cheered as a victory of democracy. So, it is legitimate to forcefully remove the regular government, but it is not legitimate for vast portions of the (East) Ukrainian population to oppose the non-elected and thus illegitimate new „government“ in Kiev?

Read this:

The West´s dishonesty and double standard regarding Russia and Ukraine

Honestly, is it not blatantly brazen and ridiculous with which one-sidedness and selfrighteousness almost the entire western media and political „elite“ is commenting on the Ukraine crisis?

Here are some alternative and more credible analyses for discerning readers:

„The Crimean affair led to barely any loss of life, and the population clearly wanted to be part of Russia. The White House’s reaction has been the opposite of its reaction to Chechnya. Why? Because Putin, unlike Yeltsin, is refusing to play ball any more on the things that matter such as Nato expansion, sanctions on Iran, Syria etc. As a result, he has become evil incarnate. And all this because he has decided to contest US hegemony by using the methods often deployed by the west. (France’s repeated incursions in Africa are but one example.)“

We started the Ukraine problem by meddling with a democratically elected Ukrainian government which was admittedly corrupt and autocratic, but legal nonetheless. We openly provided the type of support that enabled a diverse group of demonstrators to bring President Viktor Yanukovich down and US diplomats spoke on a phone about who might head an alternative government that would be to Washington’s taste.

And the seeds of the conflict, one of a series that have roiled Eastern Europe for the past twenty years, were actually planted earlier when the United States violated an understanding with Moscow not to take advantage of the fall of the Soviet empire by advancing its zone of influence… If Moscow is alarmed, it has a right to be so.

Ukraine, once referred to as „little Russia“ because of its cultural similarity to its larger neighbor is the birthplace of the Russian Orthodox faith, and sits squarely on Russia’s border. Putin, a Russian nationalist, could not ignore a threat to Moscow’s national security, just as the United States would never look the other way in the event of a takeover in Mexico by a mob aligned with either Russia or China, so how this crisis has been playing out should not surprise anyone.“

„The 2004 Orange Revolution led to the election of U.S. favorite Viktor Yushchenko, who exhibited unparalleled incompetence and inconstancy.  He broke with his ally Tymoshenko, the legendary “gas princess,” and eventually appointed Yanukovich, whom he had accused of attempted assassination during the presidential campaign, as prime minister.  Yushchenko received just 5.4 percent of the vote in his reelection bid, while Yanukovich defeated Tymoshenko in a poll considered to be fair if not entirely clean…Protestors filled Maidan Square in Kiev over Yanukovich’s rejection of a trade agreement with the European Union, but it was not Washington’s business.  If the democratically elected government Ukraine desired to look east rather than west economically, so be it. “

„While most of the Western media describes the current crisis in the Ukraine as a confrontation between authoritarianism and democracy, many of the shock troops who have manned barricades in Kiev and the western city of Lviv these past months represent a dark page in the country’s history and have little interest in either democracy or the liberalism of Western Europe and the United States.

“You’d never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings,” reports Seumas Milne of the British Guardian. The most prominent of the groups has been the ultra-rightwing Svoboda or “Freedom” Party.“

The true nature of the now ruling far-right Svoboda (Freedom) Party:
This the result of hyping and romanticizing the „Maidan“ movement as an oversimplified and naive good vs evil ploy. Notice that the very active „star“ in the video clip above is one of the supposedly „good“ guys who stood up against Yanukowitch.

Regarding violence:

„Putin has been portrayed as a tyrannical aggressor, while the Obama administration and its European allies have attempted to stake out the moral high ground, declaring that peace, respect for sovereignty and international law should be the guiding principles. Naturally, such rhetoric warrants closer analysis…Because of the majority Russian population of Crimea, the seizure of power by vehemently anti-Russian Nazis and their Western-friendly neoliberal collaborators has sent a chill throughout Crimea and eastern Ukraine more broadly, leading to massive protests in a number of major cities in the region, and calls for support and protection from Moscow…

As I, and many others, have documented throughout the conflict in Ukraine, Nazi elements played, and continue to play, a key role in the overthrow of the democratically elected, though utterly corrupt and incompetent, Ukrainian President Yanukovich.

Avowed Nazi groups such as Right Sector, Trizub, Svoboda and others constituted the muscle of the putsch in Maidan and around the country. It was they who attacked riot police, stormed government buildings, threw petrol bombs and Molotov cocktails, and generally instigated the violence and unrest. Consequently, the so called “interim government” led by Victoria Nuland’s handpicked neoliberal puppet Arseniy Yatsenyuk, has been forced to cede control of the national security forces to the openly Nazi leaders of these organizations.“

„There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovich but it was somebody from the new coalition.“

„In an eight minute, 46 second speech at the National Press Club sponsored by the US-Ukraine Foundation, Chevron, and Ukraine-in-Washington Lobby Group, Nuland boasted that Washington has spent $5 billion to foment agitation to bring Ukraine into the EU…

In her short speech the neoconservative agitator Nuland alleged that the protesters whom Washington has spent $5 billion cultivating were protesting “peacefully with enormous restraint” against a brutal government.

According to RT, which has much more credibility than the US State Department …Ukrainian rioters have seized 1,500 guns, 100,000 rounds of ammunition, 3 machine guns, and grenades from military armories.

…A number of police have been burned by Molotov cocktails. The latest report is that 108 police have been shot.  A number are dead and 63 are in critical condition. http://rt.com/news/ukraine-kiev-firearms-weapons-police-934/   These casualties are the products of Nuland’s “peacefully protesting protesters acting with enormous restraint.“