Conditional Condition Alert (CCA)

Heimatland Sicherheits Deinst Secretary Jeh Johnson Wednesday activated the National Terrorism Advisory System, warning the public of "self-radicalized actors who could strike with little or no notice."   Johnson said there was no specific information about a pending attack but that the Department was concerned that "terrorist-inspired individuals and homegrown violent extremists may be encouraged or inspired to target public events or places."

So.... the government issues an alert on the basis that there is no impending danger to be alert to? 

Are they really that stupid or do they just want us to suck cop dick?

©

Black, Gold & Green

President Barack Obama praised a landmark climate change agreement approved Saturday in Paris, saying it could be "a turning point for the world."  Obama , called the agreement "the best chance we have to save the one planet that we've got.  (CNN)

The agreement sets out a global action plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well  by limiting global warming to well below 2°C.  The agreement is due to enter into force in 2020.   (EU-GOV)

In other words, the (non-binding) agreement locks in six more years of delay before setting a goal that is insufficient to reverse global warming.    The agreement does nothing to stop deforestation, ocean pollution or species extinction.  Unbelievably this is hailed by the corpstream media as an environmental victory. 

Equally as unbelievable, the Reformed Liberal media in the U.S. hails its iconic Obama for his ecological leadership in “producing” (i.e. conducing to) an agreement — you know as if it were a commodity.

Needless to say, a lot of ink and bytes are spent on dissecting the technicalities of the non-agreement — of the so called “framework” which sets us “on a course” for dealing with global warming.    But it occurs to us that there is a very simple why the United States will never really get behind an agreement to detox the world from oil:  petrodollars.

We are no expert in economy, but everything we have been able to research agrees on one point: without petrodollars the United States would go bankrupt. 

I shall leave the technicalities to others, but the general agreement seems to be that the life blood for the U.S. monetary system (and hence its economy) is the fact that everyone in the world buys and sells oil in dollars.

This is very important to the United States.  So important in fact that the U.S. is evidently willing to invade, overthrow and/or kill anyone who refuses to sell oil in petrodollars, as was recently the case in Libya.  (This was widely reported, right?)

If this is true — that the solvency of the U.S. government and of the economy it bankrolls — is dependent on the sale of oil then isn’t it equally obvious that the U.S. cannot really get behind any program that calls for independence from oil.  After all,  no sale no petrodollar.

This is not to say that capitalism as such is not inherently destructive to the world’s ecology on which depend for life itself.  It is, for all the reasons explained by others and here.

It is to say that the world’s largest and most important economy cannot move away from oil-dependence within any timeline likely to avoid ecostrophy.

©

Trumpify

Trumpify v. engl. 1. to render loud, aggressive, ignorant 2. to dumb down & stir up

Screwed Up Priorities

The New York Slimes ran its first front page editorial ever since 1920, calling for a ban on assault weapons and ammunition in the name of reasonableness against outrage.   The reasoning of the rag's editorial board seems to be that these weapons put people at risk of their being misused and "enough is enough." 

It is not worth the pecking to disabuse gun control advocates of their illogic.   Because they are illogical no amount of reasoning will make a dent into the rock-like matter of their crania.    But it is worth pointing out that if the Slimes is going to fulminate broadside on its front page it really ought to fulminate against a risk -- actually a known and certain eventuality -- that will affect all of humanity and every living thing.

The Men in Black

Who would have thought that the European Council would make l’Ancien Regime look like a neighbourhood block party. There is a subtext to the Grexit Crisis which betrays, all too vividly, the European Union’s democratic facade.

First the visuals.  Young, earnest provincials in their Sunday best walking up steps to meet men in black at some central place.  The hauteur is palpable.  This is not a question of nose-in-air.  The men in black are very ostensibly very friendly, as if, it were all an engagement among equals.  No.  The hauteur all but drips from the fact that the men in black are pleased to show that they have no need to be unfriendly.  Why should they be?  They are in control.  They will get what they want.   No need to belabour that Tsirpas is Le President de Patatras

Yes, they will welcome Le President de Patatras as if he were always one of us, and we would never be so gauche as to wonder where you might have been all these years. 

We shall assume you are one of us and, as such, will be expected to behave like one of us.

And being expected to behave like one of us, the Eurocentrals from La Cour d’ Europe, you will be expected to sell your people into penury in the name of economic stability and growth, just as we have done.

Let’s be clear: there is not a leader of the Eurogroup or of the European Council or any other ministerial menage  — whether of the left, center or right,  who has not sold his or her country to the Mandates of Haute Finance.

Moloch will not be denied.

Christine Lagard is very sweet about it.  She affects a persona that is a cross between Florence Nightingale and a concerned school teacher.  She might even be called the “Nun from the Fund”  Smiling gently and sweetly, she stands ready, always, even now, to help the Greeks achieve discipline on the path to sustainable economic growth.

Ah but oh... toujours cherchez the missing prepositional phrase:  “economic growth” for whom?  What Lagarde calls “sustainable” most normal people, people of flesh and blood, call “unbearable.”

The men and women in black are all from les grand ecoles, as the French call them or “school boys” as they are known in England. They are, for the most part, blood of the upper middle class who have been place on the road toward sustainable advancement and for whom the world is an vast “entre nous.”

When the president, whom we should at least have expected would have behave as one of us, does not, the smiles drop and we hear words like: “betrayal,”  “amateur,”  “cowboy,” “a mere academic,”  en fin, Le President de Patatras.  But worst of all: populist.

There is no democracy in Europe.  There is a parliamentary facade worthy of Potemkin for rule by the bloodless. 

The Crucifixion of Greece

When, at the end of January, Syriza won the Greek elections, all the leftish zines and blogs were a-flutter with yap about empowerment and a new red dawn.  Ding Dong Austerity is over; the Wicked Witch is Dead!

The establishment press, reformist rags like the Guardian included, were all a-jitter with the potential looming consequences to the Eurozone.   Faxit?  Quixit?  Grexit?

Ignored in the hubbub and froo-lala   was the head of the Greek Communist Party who explained that he would not be entering into a coalition with Syriza because he did not think that palliatives within the system would be fruitful or even possible.

It did not take long for Europe's Albrechtian Ogre to emerge from his cave to squash Syriza under the flesh part of his palm, like a fly.   To say that the humiliation was total is not the half of it.   The hope for economic reform in Greece has been executed; and, not just killed, but killed in away that is cruel and humiliating.   Greece has been crucified, as a abject lesson to those who would question the power of Euro-capitalism.

Gotha Socialism is a mirage.  There is no alternative within the capitalist system.  The system does what it does because of what it is.   It is not a question of excesses within a system but rather of an economic mode of being which is inherently excessive.   Capitalism -- a system of commodification which debases the nature and uses of everything into mere quantifiable exchange for its own sake-- will destroy everything under the sun until people have the courage to opt-out from its grasp. 

#

The Awful Spectre of Victory

Once again, the memory of an appalling holocaust is perverted by an obscene and repugnant revisionism by the guilty perpetrators and self-serving interests groups, not the least of which are the snivellers in Masoch-Staat Deutschland.

Typical of the obscenity was BBC report on the 70th anniversary of the Dresden bombing which, under a cascade of crocodile-tears for the terrible destruction of a beautiful city, repeats the canard that only 25,000 people were killed in the raids.  Perpetrating that falsehood is the real purpose of all the tear-jerking and the falsehood is perpetuated in order minimize guilt and clear the way for enshrining that other “holocaust” as the solely important crime of the war.

Minimizing the casualties is only the piece de resistance of a polemic which begins with an attempt to justify the bombing as an of course regrettable military necessity.  It is alleged that Dresden was the site of industrial factories and rail-hub which were essential to the German war effort.

The claims are bullshit.  In modern warfare any factory has some potential military use.  On the outskirts of Dresden there existed a chemical plant as well as a lens-grinding and small ammunitions factory.  Dresden was also a rail hub for east-north railway traffic.  Given the all out rout that had become the Eastern Front in February 1945 the notion that any of these installations were of value to the German war effort is risible.  If anything, the railway junction would have been used for and by the millions fleeing westward from the murderous Soviet advance.

But let’s not nit-pick.  Let is be assumed that Dresden was the site of militarily useful installations, the indisputable fact is that the aim, thrust, and impact of the bombing was directed at the historic city centre — site of residences, churches, museums, concert halls, city and parks.  Look at the map, with open eyes.

There were no factories next the Frauenkirche.  And while precision bombing was always subject to error, an attack on the rail hub to the north-west of the city did not entail 2,500 tons of “stray” and “unintended” collateral damage of the entire city centre.

Moreover, the attack came in two waves, the first of which dropped almost 1,000 tons of incendiary bombs which are useless against rail-lines but which are excellent at destroying houses and buildings with wooden structures and roofs.  

This first wave, lasting for half an hour at 10 p.m. and consisting of incendiaries followed by explosive bombs, hit the Old City (Altmarkt)  The second wave, three hours later, targetted the “NewCity” (Neustadt) across the river and the “South City” (Sudvorstadt).  It was this second wave that set off the firestorm that turned asphalt into molten liquid and exploded people like so much human popcorn.

All that to hit a rail station to the northwest and factories on the outskirts?  Anyone who believes this “justification” is a criminal moron and anyone who polemicizes it is criminal scum.

Moreoever, area or “carpet” bombing was the explicit policy of British and American air warfare. The express purpose of area bombing was simply to terrorize the civilian population into submission.  This policy, based on the strategic theories of Giulio Drouhet’s Command of the Air, (1921) was adopted by the British and the Americans before the Nazis even came to power. 

As stated by Douhet, “a complete breakdown of the social structure cannot but take place in a country subjected to this kind of merciless pounding from the air. "

Again, open your eyes and look at the pictures of the devastation of German cities.  That kind of bombing had nothing to do with targeting military infrastructure. 

This is not to say that the Allies did not target military installations; it is rather to say that they knew how to do so when they wanted.  The destruction of Dresden was not an accident.  It was a planned and intentional act of sado-terror against civilians.  Period.

To minimize the monstrosity, Allied and interested parties fall back on minimizing the effect of the intended crime. The notion that only 25,000 people were killed is that kind of obscenity that merits a kick in the teeth to the spewer of the sewage.

It is certainly true that, due to the influx of wartime refugees, exact population estimates for Dresden in February 1945 are hard to come by.  But that difficulty is only used as preliminary smoke-screen for making difficult something which is not actually hard to estimate.

The pre-war population of Dresden stood at somewhat over 600,000.  Let it be very generously assumed that 100,000 were away in armed forces.  To the remainder add an estimated 150,000 to 250,000 influxing refugees, for a net result of approximately 700,000 in February 1945.

These figures are consistent with the known number of residences in Dresden.  An RAF assessment completed in 1945 estimated that  around 78,000 dwellings had been completely destroyed; 27,700 were uninhabitable, and 64,500 damaged, but readily repairable.   The total of these figures is 170,200 which is somewhat under the figure of 220,000 homes in all of Dresden.

Assuming 200,000 residences in the city occupied by an average of three persons yields a residential population of 600,000 which is consistent with official population figures. 

If 78,000 dwellings were completely destroyed in a fire-bombing, it is a safe assumption that the contents thereof, including humans were also destroyed.  At one person per dwelling unit, the figure of bombing deaths is 78,000; at 3 per unit, 234,000.

This is a lower estimate given that the city inhabitants had been ordered to accomodate influxing refugees.  A figure of 5 persons per unit would not be out of line with the demographic circumstances in February 1945.

It is of course true that not everyone who inhabits a dwelling is necessarily killed.  The people might have fled in time.  Those that did may have been killed by falling structures or may have survived in city parks.  On the other hand, they may have suffocated in bomb shelters or exploded, like human popcorn, in the heat. 

There really were not many places to run and casualty estimates of 78,000 to 234,000 are not unreasonable.  What is criminally unreasonable is the assertion that notwithstanding that 78,000 dwelling units were demolished  only 25,000 people died.

Some other figures we have come across, list the “houses” in Dresden at 24,000.  This lower figure is not inconsistent given that dwelling units include apartments whereas “houses” designate the apartment building itself.

Kurt Vonnegut, the American novelist and playwrite, who was present in Dresden as a prisoner of war, estimated the deaths at 130,000.  Until the revisionist ilk went to work corroding the truth, accepted estimates in the 1960’s and 1990’s hovered around 180,000 to 200,000.

The precise figure will never be known.  But the substance of the crime is evident and palpable.  Mass murder of civilians in Germany was the genocidal aim of the Allied war machine.  Dresden is the awful spectre of “victory.”

©Barfo 2015

Blowback

All night negotiations in Minsk between Russia, Germany, France and the Ukraine have resulted in a diplomatic victory for Russia.  As Putin told the press, “It was a rough night but it’s a good morning.”

First, the big picture.  Russia’s primary geo-political concern was the blatant attempt by the United States to use the Ukrainian “zone of democratic freedom” as a “forward base of operations” for U.S. hegemony.  The neocon gambit of incorporating the Ukraine into N.A.T.O. was as anathema to Russia as the neocon wet dream of controlling the naval base at Sevastopol. Although the Minsk-II agreement is silent on the matter, Ukrainian participation in N.A.T.O. is simply inconsistent with its terms, which call for the withdrawal of “all foreign troops” from Ukrainian soil.

This withdrawal provision is a diplomatic joke inasmuch as Russia denies having any troops in the Ukraine in the first place. Since both N.A.T.O. and Russian troops are not there, the reference to “withdrawal” arguably means that “there shall be” no foreign troops on Ukrainian soil.

In all events, the notion that Russia should not be militarily engaged in the Ukraine so that N.A.T.O. can be, is one of those hypotheses not likely to lift off the ground.

Russia’s next concern was the threat of economic sanctions. From the Russian perspective, sanctions were costly and humiliating.  The arrogance of the United States is so overweening that President Obama felt no constraint in saying, only yesterday, that his country reserved the right of “twisting the arms” of countries who “don’t do what we need them to do.”  Such a bully-boy attitude may be self-gratifying in Washington but it tends not to play well elsewhere.  It will apparently not be played again against Russia; according to BBC News, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said European leaders would be discussing ways to "help and sustain the agreement", but she ruled out the threat of fresh sanctions on Russia.

As for the Ukraine itself, the matter can be broken down into two facets: the economic and the political.  Here, Russian diplomacy has effected a marvelous tromp d’oeil in as much as the agreement preserves Ukrainian political unity just enough to make it responsible for paying debts while its economic integrity is broken just enough to allow the eastern part of the country to maintain its own economic ties with Russia.

This, more than anything else, is Putin’s kick in the teeth to Virginia “Fuck Europe” Nuland.

Obviously a country’s economic balance sheet runs only so far as its political writ.  Preserving Ukraine’s political integrity was not only a point of national honor for Poroshenko, it was also a question loans.  After all, a country’s size, resources and industrial assets are collateral.  IMF  “investment” in the Ukraine was directly proportional to the extent of Ukraine’s political sovereignty.  Keeping the eastern part of the country “within” the Ukraine was a key aim of the Kiev government which did its level best to ethnically cleanse and/or terrorize the Russophile population in the East.

The diplomatic buzz words here are “federalization” and “decentralization”  — the former meaning the de facto break up of the Ukraine and the latter meaning the nominal preservation of Ukrainian territorial integrity.

Having been fairly trounced militarily (a fact seldom reported in the servile U.S. media), Poroshenko went into the talk hoping he would at least be able to keep the shirt of his territorial integrity.  Just look at the man’s worried face in the halls of Minsk.  Putin let him keep his shirt, but only of the thinest cotton.

Poroshenko won the battle of labels.  The Minsk-II agreement speaks only of “decentralization.”  There will be no break up of the Ukraine, as such.  Oh, but what integrity!

According to RT News, “Kiev and the rebels will negotiate the terms for future local elections in the rebel-held areas, which would bring them back into Ukraine’s legal framework. Kiev would adopt legislation on self-governance that would be acceptable for the self-proclaimed republics.” 

In other words, whatever “decentralization” means exactly, it will mean what the rebels want it to mean.  Not only is the Ukrainian government reduced to “negotiating” with rebels, the rebels hold the ultimate veto.

Not only that, but whatever decentralization means, Kiev’s control over its eastern borders is made contingent on reaching an agreement with the rebels.  Again, according to RT news, “after the local elections are held in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Kiev is to restore control over their borders with Russia. The transition may take time, which would be needed for a comprehensive constitutional reform in Ukraine.”

  
In the “fuck you” language of which Victoria Nuland is so fond, Ukraine gets its borders back if and when it behaves.

  
And, as if good behaviour needed spelling out, the agreement provides “Kiev will implement comprehensive constitutional reform by the end of the year, which would decentralize the Ukrainian political system and give privileges to Donetsk and Lugansk. The privileges include language self-determination, the freedom to appoint prosecutors and judges, and to establish economic ties with Russia.”

It could not be more plain.  “Not federalization” means that Russian will become the official language of Donetsk and Lugansk which are allowed to establish their own economic ties with Russia, regardless of what Kiev wants. 

But here is the real deep kick.  Since Ukraine’s sovereign integrity is so very important to Poroshenko, he will certainly agree that, as a national government, “Kiev will restore economic ties, social payments and banking services in the dissenting areas.”  If he wants to play the part, let him pay the part.

Oh sweet revenge!  The eastern provinces get to trade with Russia as they want, but the government in Kiev has to go on paying for pensions, education and health care and for maintaining that banking system which is being and will be directly funded by the I.M.F. whose loan repayments will be the responsibility of the national government in Kiev.

So much for Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard and the hyena snarling of Washington’s neocons.  During the night Virginia Nuland got fucked hard. It was a rough night, but a good morning. 

©Barfo 2015

A Demonstration of Shambles

President Obama has all but admitted defeat in the gambit to wrench Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence.   His joint press-conference after meeting with German Chancellor Merkel was a Demonstration of Shambles.

While not ruling anything out, Obama acknowledged that “Russia obviously has an extraordinarily powerful military” and, given historical ties and geographical proximity, expecting a Ukrainian military “rebuff” is “unlikely."  

Just as unlikely were American troops doing the rebuffing.  And so,   “We continue to encourage a diplomatic resolution.”   

Of course Obama does not want borders “redrawn at the barrel of the gun” but the implication is that they can be drawn on the green felt of a table. ... just so long as the “ core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity” are respected.   A name! A name! A kingdom for a name!

Once again, another costly humiliation has been brought to us by Washington’s  neocon network.    Where is Viriginia  ( “Fuck Europe” ) Nuland now?    Unfortunately she’s still at her post.   Obama should fire her. Until neocons are run out of town on a rail they will continue to mislead the U.S. into one disaster after another.

Was the United States so overweening in its arrogance as to think that Russia would allow military and economic penetration on its border?  For a moment of undistilled lunacy there was even talk in Washington about Russia "loosing" its historic and crucial naval base in Sevastopol.   The Russian response was swift and unmistakable.   The reaction in the United States was hysterical frothing at the mouth about Russian aggression.  The ranting might play in Peoria but not in Berlin. 

This is not to say that Paris - Berlin Axis is all sweetness and light.  They wanted to cherry pick the Ukrainian bush, and the US engineered putsch in Kiev allowed them to unleash their I.M.F. dogs on the hapless Ukrainians.   The "Europeans" got their free-meal but they are unwilling to pick up the full tab. 

The price was stiff enough.   The U.S. had no chestnuts in the fire, but the Germans certainly did and, as Putin correctly pointed out, this is going to hurt you as much as it does us.  Perhaps not exactly "as much" but enough to hurt the punisher.    

The U.S. may have mastered the art of Twitter Subversion, but the Russians are no strangers to the fifth column.    They know how to disguise their operations and, in the case of a neighboring country with large numbers of ethnic Russians and all sharing the same alphabet, this was easy enough.  The U.S. could cavil all it wanted, but given its own support for frank and forthright neo-nazis, its shrieks of tu quoque!! did not carry much moral weight.

Post Soviet Russia has no interest in lording over ethnic Ukrainians.  It simply is not necessary in the present global economy.  But neither are they about to let Ukrainian nationalists lord it over ethnic Russians just so the IMF can lay its paws on industrial assets in the east.  With the lunatics in Washington screaming for military intervention, Paris and Berlin had enough and went hat in hand to Moscow.

Ah the sweet schadenfreude!

The fact is that the Ukraine is more of a cross-roads than a country.  Its viability depends on a kind of looseness, or laissez aller between its various ethnic factions.  Even the Ukrainians don't have much stomach for the hard-line being pushed by the aggro-cons in Washington.   Not reported by the presstitutes in the West is the  fact that the Ukrainian army has spent most of its time showing its back to the Separatists.  Things have got so bad that the Kiev government announced the other day the employment of "barrier brigades" to prevent ordinary soldiers from fleeing. 

So who is doing the fighting on behalf of a rump government doing Washington's bidding? The answer is: units like Pravi Sektor and the Azov Brigade (now "regiment') -- ultra nationalists who hate Russians, Communists and Jews.     That kind of nationalism doesn't command as much as it claims even in the west of the country but it certainly doesn't play at all in the east. 

Because the Ukraine is  a cross-roads, there never was an all-or-nothing solution to its problems.  Even Yanukovich's supposed rejection of affiliation with the EU in favor of a customs union with Russia was not the bright line decision it was made out to be in the imbecile western press.  The Ukraine was already in debt to the IMF.  Trade with Russia did not exclude monetary flows to Europeans banks.  Putin was not being polite when he repeatedly made reference to "our partners in the West."   But the maniacs in Washington were not interested in sharing.  They are appalled by the notion that anyone else might have a sphere of influence.  They wanted all of the Ukraine in order to minimize Russia. 

The result has been that instead of a nominally sovereign Ukraine, loosely integrated and economically tied to Russia we have a nominally united Ukraine half of which is owned by the IMF and the other half of which remains tied to Russia. 

A Demonstration of Shambles

President Obama has all but admitted defeat in the gambit to wrench Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence.   His joint press-conference after meeting with German Chancellor Merkel was a Demonstration of Shambles.

While not ruling anything out, Obama acknowledged that “Russia obviously has an extraordinarily powerful military” and, given historical ties and geographical proximity, expecting a Ukrainian military “rebuff” is “unlikely."  

Just as unlikely were American troops doing the rebuffing.  And so,   “We continue to encourage a diplomatic resolution.”   

Of course Obama does not want borders “redrawn at the barrel of the gun” but the implication is that they can be drawn on the green felt of a table. ... just so long as the “ core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity” are respected.   A name! A name! A kingdom for a name!

Once again, another costly humiliation has been brought to us by Washington’s  neocon network.    Where is Viriginia  ( “Fuck Europe” ) Nuland now?    Unfortunately she’s still at her post.   Obama should fire her. Until neocons are run out of town on a rail they will continue to mislead the U.S. into one disaster after another.

Was the United States so overweening in its arrogance as to think that Russia would allow military and economic penetration on its border?  For a moment of undistilled lunacy there was even talk in Washington about Russia "loosing" its historic and crucial naval base in Sevastopol.   The Russian response was swift and unmistakable.   The reaction in the United States was hysterical frothing at the mouth about Russian aggression.  The ranting might play in Peoria but not in Berlin. 

This is not to say that Paris - Berlin Axis is all sweetness and light.  They wanted to cherry pick the Ukrainian bush, and the US engineered putsch in Kiev allowed them to unleash their I.M.F. dogs on the hapless Ukrainians.   The "Europeans" got their free-meal but they are unwilling to pick up the full tab. 

The price was stiff enough.   The U.S. had no chestnuts in the fire, but the Germans certainly did and, as Putin correctly pointed out, this is going to hurt you as much as it does us.  Perhaps not exactly "as much" but enough to hurt the punisher.    

The U.S. may have mastered the art of Twitter Subversion, but the Russians are no strangers to the fifth column.    They know how to disguise their operations and, in the case of a neighboring country with large numbers of ethnic Russians and all sharing the same alphabet, this was easy enough.  The U.S. could cavil all it wanted, but given its own support for frank and forthright neo-nazis, its shrieks of tu quoque!! did not carry much moral weight.

Post Soviet Russia has no interest in lording over ethnic Ukrainians.  It simply is not necessary in the present global economy.  But neither are they about to let Ukrainian nationalists lord it over ethnic Russians just so the IMF can lay its paws on industrial assets in the east.  With the lunatics in Washington screaming for military intervention, Paris and Berlin had enough and went hat in hand to Moscow.

Ah the sweet schadenfreude!

The fact is that the Ukraine is more of a cross-roads than a country.  Its viability depends on a kind of looseness, or laissez aller between its various ethnic factions.  Even the Ukrainians don't have much stomach for the hard-line being pushed by the aggro-cons in Washington.   Not reported by the presstitutes in the West is the  fact that the Ukrainian army has spent most of its time showing its back to the Separatists.  Things have got so bad that the Kiev government announced the other day the employment of "barrier brigades" to prevent ordinary soldiers from fleeing. 

So who is doing the fighting on behalf of a rump government doing Washington's bidding? The answer is: units like Pravi Sektor and the Azov Brigade (now "regiment') -- ultra nationalists who hate Russians, Communists and Jews.     That kind of nationalism doesn't command as much as it claims even in the west of the country but it certainly doesn't play at all in the east. 

Because the Ukraine is  a cross-roads, there never was an all-or-nothing solution to its problems.  Even Yanukovich's supposed rejection of affiliation with the EU in favor of a customs union with Russia was not the bright line decision it was made out to be in the imbecile western press.  The Ukraine was already in debt to the IMF.  Trade with Russia did not exclude monetary flows to Europeans banks.  Putin was not being polite when he repeatedly made reference to "our partners in the West."   But the maniacs in Washington were not interested in sharing.  They are appalled by the notion that anyone else might have a sphere of influence.  They wanted all of the Ukraine in order to minimize Russia. 

The result has been that instead of a nominally sovereign Ukraine, loosely integrated and economically tied to Russia we have a nominally united Ukraine half of which is owned by the IMF and the other half of which remains tied to Russia.