Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
2 April 2014
Ukraine is a former Soviet Republic which has often been divided between its immediate neighbours, particularly Russia to the east and Poland to the west. This pattern has been followed by Ukraine’s most recent rift caused by conflicting allegiances to Russia and the European Union. While retaining close trade links with the former, the country has been moving closer and closer to the latter.
Ukraine’s rapprochement to the ever-expanding EU had been watched with growing alarm both by Russia and by the ethnic Russian majority in Ukraine’s semi-autonomous region of Crimea. Understandably, while pro-EU street demonstrations were taking place on the Ukrainian mainland, Crimean Russians began to form self-defence groups.
On 22 February, when Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych backtracked on a pending agreement to forge closer ties with the EU, he was ousted by a wave of pro-EU protests, some of them violent. Russian gunmen responded by seizing the Crimean parliament six days later, while Russian troops began to surround (and later took over) military bases.
The Crimean parliament’s 6 March vote to secede from Ukraine and join Russia was backed by a regional referendum held ten days later and on 17 March Crimea declared itself independent from Ukraine. The following day, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksyonov signed a treaty for the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
As one might expect, there was no shortage of Western regimes which were strongly opposed to the annexation, notably, America, Britain and Canada. Sanctions like travel bans and asset freezes were imposed on Russian and Ukrainian officials and the United Nations declared Crimea’s referendum “invalid.” Parroting US President Obama and other left-wing world leaders, our very own, “Conservative” Foreign Secretary William Hague announced that “the international community has sent a strong message through the passing of this [UN] resolution that Russia cannot simply trample on international law.”
Invoking international law is something political leaders do when they try to lend credibility, respectability or justification to their fraudulent policies. It isn’t something we must take seriously, particularly when the politicians in question are officials of genocidal states like Britain and America that are hell-bent on replacing their own people with immigrants.
The international law invoked by our self-serving leaders infamously allowed America to drop atomic bombs on defenceless Japanese civilians and Allied Powers to starve millions of Germans to death. It has also allowed Pakistan to annex half of Kashmir, China to annex Tibet and Europe and America to forcibly detach Kosovo from Serbia, the latter feat being fully backed by the same UN Security Council members – America, Britain and France – who are now objecting to Crimea’s independence from Ukraine and beating the war drums against Russia.
International law is nothing but a tool in the hands of its inventors, the powerful and the wealthy who rule the world. International law was used by British imperialists to annex German colonies after the First World War. The instrument through which this daylight robbery was legalised was the infamous League of Nations, an international organisation ostensibly intended to “make the world safe for democracy” but really designed to supress all opposition to the imperialist schemes of its Anglo-American creators. It is not for nothing that colonial leaders described the League as a “club of dacoits.”
The same interests who created and bankrolled the League – the Milner Group and its American partners (the Rockefellers and associates) – spawned its successor, the United Nations, another outfit designed to stamp out opposition to world domination by Anglo-American interests. The same applies to the European Union (originally, European Coal and Steel Community), an organisation created to place Europe’s resources, finance and economic systems under Anglo-American control (Ratiu, 2012).
As painfully realised by rising numbers of those it has enslaved, the EU is an economic and political monster. Originally consisting of six continental countries, it soon incorporated Britain and has been expanding ever since. It is directly responsible for the fact that the collapse of Communism has failed to bring freedom and democracy to the region, with new forms of oppression, exploitation and slavery being devised and imposed.
The key to the correct understanding of the current situation is to be found in the privatisation programmes imposed on former Warsaw Pact/Eastern Bloc members in the 1990s. With their economies in tatters after decades of Communist rule, Central and Eastern European economies were left wide open to systematic take-over by Western European and American corporations. Among key players acting as official advisers to governments as well as operating behind the scenes were Rothschild, George Soros, Goldman Sachs and the Rockefellers. Apart from maximising wealth, power and influence for themselves, these interests are united by an irrepressible desire to build a one world government.
The Rothschilds’ involvement in Eastern Europe was a natural extension of their established position as government advisers in privatisation projects in Britain and other Western European countries. But US banking giant Goldman Sachs was also expanding in the region, playing a leading role in West Germany’s take-over of the former German Democratic Republic and establishing close ties with the political leadership, notably Chancellor Angela Merkel. On his part, Soros and his network of “philanthropic” foundations were particularly active in his native Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and Russia.
A long-time Rothschild associate, the billionaire and stock-market speculator Soros who is also a member of the powerful US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its European clone, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), is a disciple of left-wing philosopher Karl Popper who believed in a global “Open Society” controlled by a world government with an armed executive branch (Popper, 1945). It was after Popper’s “Open Society” that Soros named his philosophy and the foundations through which he bankrolls his international projects (Soros, 2000).
In pursuit of his “Open Society” fantasy, Soros began to meddle in the region’s economies on a massive scale in 1990, when he introduced a “shock therapy” programme to speed up Poland’s transition from planned to “free-market” economy. Operating through associates like Strobe Talbott of the Clinton administration’s Steering Committee on the former Soviet Union and Jeffrey Sachs of the Harvard Institute for International Development (which was overseeing Russia’s economic transformation on behalf of the US Agency for International Development), Soros and his team next descended on Russia where they acted as official advisers to the government.
By late 1990s, the US government was forced to investigate the illegal transfer of billions of dollars flowing out of the Russian economy into foreign accounts through the Bank of New York and other US financial institutions. The loss to the Russian economy was estimated at over $100 billion. Soros was personally involved, together with the Rockefeller-controlled Harvard Management Company, in the acquisition of large privatised Russian companies like Novolipetsk Kombinat and Sidanko Oil (US House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 15 Sept. 1998).
The Russian privatisation scandal, dubbed “Russiagate” by the press, was eventually hushed up and forgotten. But Soros carried on with the “democratisation” of former Soviet republics, orchestrating in particular the 2003 “Rose Revolution” in Georgia and the 2004 “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine. The techniques used in these “velvet revolutions” followed the tried and trusted template used in Serbia to oust President Slobodan Milosevic and involved Anglo-American intelligence agencies like CIA and MI6 as well as funding agencies like the IMF, the US Agency for International Development and Soros foundations from which funds were strategically denied or awarded to individuals and organisations, in combination with carefully choreographed and well-funded mass propaganda (spreading rumours of “rigged” elections), street demonstrations and attacks on government installations (Horowitz & Poe, 2006).
Soros’ machinations have coincided with the relentless expansion of the gargantuan and over-bloated EU. The latter began with the incorporation of East into West Germany in 1990 and has advanced at a breath-taking pace ever since: East Germany was followed by Austria, Finland and Sweden in1995 and no fewer than eight former Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including Ukraine’s neighbour Poland, in 2003.
In 2009, the European Union launched its Eastern Partnership (EaP) programme aiming to bring former Soviet republics Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan into the European fold. Soros and his associates have been involved in all countries targeted for EU incorporation, especially those that are rich in natural resources or are otherwise of strategic value to EU imperialism, where they have been busy imposing “democracy” and “free-market” economy (Ratiu, 2012).
Association with the EU and lethal doses of economic “shock therapy” involving currency devaluation, submission to IMF regimes and transfer of key industries and resources to Soros and his cronies have failed to produce the expected results as they have failed in Greece, Spain or Portugal. Certainly, what is happening in Ukraine – where the pro-EU interim government has appointed oligarchs as regional administrators and Petro Poroshenko, another billionaire oligarch who backed the anti-Yanukovych protests is the forerunner in the presidential elections with fellow oligarch and Soros-collaborator Julia Tymoshenko (a non-Ukrainian) as the only other candidate – has little to do with freedom, democracy and economic progress for ordinary people.
The puppeteer and the puppet with many faces: Soros and oligarch Tymoshenko transformed from member of non-Ukrainian minority group in 2001 (centre) to Prime Minister of Ukraine in 2007 (right). See also Westcott, 2007.
Established EU members have not done much better: while housing and living costs are spiralling out of control, incomes have stagnated for decades. Soros himself has admitted that established economic theory is in a crisis because its very foundations have proved to be inadequate, which is why he has founded the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at Oxford University which, he hopes, will “completely rethink economic theory” (Martin, 2012).
While Soros (who holds a philosophy degree from the Rothschild-Rockefeller sponsored London School of Economics where he studied under Popper) has embarked on his quest for the elusive philosophers’ stone of economics, what emerges is a clear strategy intended to bring about the systematic take-over of the world’s resources – such as steel, oil and gas – by an international clique operating through or in collaboration with national and international agencies from the US State Department to the UN, IMF and the European Union.
Referring to the ousting of Yanukovych, President Putin has correctly observed that “What happened in Ukraine reflects the situation that unfolds in the entire world.” Indeed, we find that the “Arab Spring” currently sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East is part of the world revolutionary programme imposed on Eastern Europe and Central Asia: opponents of Syrian President Assad have been trained and funded by the US State Department through Soros-associated outfits like the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) whose chairman David Bell has been a director of Rothschild co-owned The Economist Group and a trustee of Common Purpose International, a far-left outfit with close links to the same interests and working for “the development of future leaders” to be installed in societies “democratised” by Soros and associates (Ratiu, 2012).
The identity of the interests involved is confirmed by the J P Morgan International Council (part of the Rockefellers’ JPMorgan Chase banking giant) which consists of Rockefeller associates like Tony Blair (former member of the Rockefeller-controlled Global Leaders of Tomorrow group), Henry Kissinger, Kofi Annan, Khalid Al-Falih of Saudi Aramco (originally a Rockefeller-Saudi joint venture) and Gao Xi-Qing of Communist China’s state-controlled China Investment Corporation.
Like the EU, China, to which the Rockefellers established close relations in the 1970s, is an insatiable ogre with its paws in all of the world’s energy hotspots. While its economy is dominated by a monopolistic 5 per cent who control most of the country’s wealth, China has long been cunningly using its state-owned enterprises to dominate foreign markets and has become a key partner of the West’s own monopolistic interests, currently worming its way into a multi-billion “free-trade” deal with the EU.
The primacy of the above constellation of interests is clearly reflected in the domination of Iraq’s post-war oil industry by China (CNPC, PetroChina), the Rockefellers (Exxon, Chevron), the Rothschilds (Genel, Shell) and their European and Arab partners. With their Saudi Arabian associates dominating the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it is clear that we are dealing with a virtual monopoly by a close-knit international cartel.
This situation is replicated in Russia’s near-abroad from Eastern Europe all the way to Central Asia. A quick glance at events in the region, such as former Soviet republic Azerbaijan, where in 1993 British Petroleum (BP), American Oil Company (AMOCO) and MI6 staged a coup to install a front man for president (Leppard, Nuki & Walsh, 2000), clearly shows who the real aggressors are.
As pointed out by former Conservative chairman Norman Tebbit, the EU having annexed swathes of Central Europe is in no position to condemn Russia. Indeed, when taken in the right context, the staggering arrogance, hypocrisy and duplicity of European and US accusations of a Russian “land grab” in Crimea become only too apparent.
The truth of the matter is that the Anglo-American New World Order is based on relentless economic expansion, integration and interdependence, all of which inevitably leads to One World Government by economic interests. All organisations tasked with international governance – from the League of Nations to the UN, NATO and the EU – were created by Anglo-American interests for the express purpose of suppressing economic rivals (notably Germany) and controlling resources.
Now that economic powerhouses like Germany and Japan have been successfully subdued (after two world wars) and harnessed to the Anglo-American world system, and Communist China has been taken on board as an equal partner and fellow advocate of world government, it is Russia’s turn to be fully subordinated to the new international order.
Former British ambassador to Moscow Rodric Braithwaite commented that Russian leaders do not understand that the choice for Russia is “between irrelevance and incorporation into the civilised world” (Braithwaite, 1997). This has been echoed by President Obama who has crowed that the path forward for Russia’s leaders is “to move forward with integration with the world economy.”
Let us be clear about it. It is entirely natural for Mr Obama to call on Russia to surrender its national sovereignty and enter into a devil’s pact with those who are building a world economy controlled by a satanic world government represented by organisations like the UN and EU. He came to power with the backing of George Soros and Goldman Sachs. It is not for nothing that many Americans see Obama as a sort of Antichrist.
Forcing sovereign nations to integrate into a world economy is incompatible with the “freedom” and “democracy” ostensibly promoted by America and its EU partners in crime. What is more, EU-US economic expansion has been backed up by a military expansion which has seen the wholesale incorporation of EU-dominated nations into NATO and has brought NATO tanks and ballistic missiles to Russia’s doorstep. And when sovereign nations are threatened militarily, they have a right to respond by military means.
It is a democratic right for nation-states to resist incorporation into undemocratic international organisations. George Soros’ “Rose Revolution” in Georgia led to the breakaway of pro-Russian South Ossetia and Abkhazia and to a military conflict between Georgia and Russia. His “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine has led to the breakaway of pro-Russian Crimea and Russian military intervention – so far without bloodshed and only in Crimea, though Russia may yet invade Ukraine should the West continue to refuse to respect Russia’s legitimate strategic interests (Russia has important naval and air bases in Crimea which it cannot allow to fall into the rapacious hands of Europe, America or NATO).
Moreover, a concerted effort to destabilise Russia and install a puppet regime in order to control the country’s economy and resources has been mounted by Anglo-American interests with links to George Soros, MI6 and CIA.
Following the depredations of Soros and associates in the 1900s described above, the Russian government severed its links to these interests. However, the seeds of subversion they had sown soon began to take root. In 2000, oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the main beneficiaries of Russia’s privatisation programme instigated by Soros, set up his Open Russia Foundation, an organisation modelled on Soros’ Open Society Institute and aiming to make Russia open to investment and eventually control by foreign interests and their local collaborators (like Khodorkovsky himself). Before long, Soros-inspired street-protest organisations, including Oborna (“Defence”), began their anti-government operations (Bennett, 2014).
The above organisations’ activities have been carried on in conjunction with those of Anglo-American intelligence outfits CIA and MI6. For example, Russian “dissident” Alexander Litvinenko has been exposed as belonging to an extensive ring of MI6 operatives involved in subversive activities directed against President Putin, as well as working for UK-based Boris Berezovsky, another oligarch and media baron who became co-owner of one of Russia’s largest oil companies, Sibneft, thanks to the Soros-instigated privatisation programme and who publicly admitted that he was plotting the violent overthrow of Putin from his base in London (Cobain, Taylor & Harding, 2007).
Those who condemn Russia for defending the interests of its people should reflect on whom they are defending. Who is the greater evil, those who resist centrally-controlled world economy and world government or the satanic forces seeking to impose it either at gunpoint or through economic blackmail? What kind of government should we support? The Russian model that stands up for its people, or its American and European counterparts which, acting no better than foreign occupying powers, have made the replacement of their own populations with uninvited immigrants their first priority?
In their two-faced and cowardly condemnation of Russia and, above all, in their imperialist and expansionist actions, the UN and the EU have shown their true colours. They represent the forces of evil and the time has come for all nations to decide which side to take.
Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party, a vocal opponent of the European Union and admirer of President Putin has said “let’s topple the establishment who got us into this mess.” His words are the voice of the silent millions who want to free themselves from the satanic EU, UN, IMF and their national stooges. The Russian leadership must hear them and respond to foreign meddling in Russia’s internal affairs by joining forces with the growing resistance movements in Britain, Europe and America.
Bennetts, Marc, Kicking the Kremlin, London, 2014.
Braithwaite, Rodric, “Bringing Russia in,” Prospect, 20 Jun. 1997.
Cobain, Iain, Taylor, Matthew and Harding, Luke, “I am plotting a new Russian revolution,’”, Guardian, 13 Apr. 2007.
Horowitz, David and Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Leppard, David, Nuki Paul and Walsh, Gareth, “BP accused of backing ‘arms for oil’,” Sunday Times, 26 Mar. 2000.
Martin, James, director and producer, Revolution in Oxford, short propaganda film, June 2012 download MP4 (170 MB).
Popper, Karl R., The Open Society and Its Enemies, London, 1945.
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
Soros, George, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, London, 2000.
Westcott, Kathryn, “The queen of Ukraine’s image machine,” BBC News, 4 Oct. 2007.
Crimea, Ukraine and the Anglo-American New World Order
Ratiu, Ioan, The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy: How an international elite is taking over and destroying Europe, America and the World, Richmond, 2012.
Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.
Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.
Butler, Eric D., The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, Melbourne, 1964.
Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.
Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals seized control of the Democratic Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.
Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006.
Bawer, Bruce, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within, New York, NY, 2006.
Courtois, Stéphane et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Engl. translation, Cambridge, MA and London, 1999.
Williamson, Kevin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Washington, DC,
Hitchens, Peter, The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, London, 2008.
Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked, Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.
Docherty, Gerry & MacGregor, James, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, Edinburgh, 2013.