Czech President Says ‘Only Poorly Informed People’ Don’t Know About Ukraine Coup

3
2206

Eric Zuesse

The Czech Republic’s President Milos Zeman said, in an interview, in the January 3rd edition of Prague’s daily newspaper Pravo, that Czechs who think of the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych, on 22 February 2014, as having been like Czechoslovakia’s authentically democratic “Velvet Revolution” are seeing it in a profoundly false light, because, (as Russian Television translated his statement into English) “Maidan was not a democratic revolution.” He said that this is the reason why Ukraine now is in a condition of “civil war,” in which the residents of the Donbass region in Ukraine’s southeast have broken away from the Ukrainian Government.

He furthermore said that, “Judging by some of the statements of [Ukrainian] Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, I think that he is rather a prime minister of war because he does not want a peaceful solution, as recommended by the European Union (EU), but instead prefers to use force.” (By contrast, George Soros, who has invested in Ukrainian bonds, and whose International Renaissance Foundation – also called The International Renaissance Fund – helped finance the overthrow of Yanukovych, as well as the hate-mongering Hromadske TV in Ukraine, is proud of it, and has repeatedly said that the EU must invest whatever is necessary for Ukraine to win its war against the residents of Donbass, and carry the war to victory against Russia. His alleged passion for ‘democracy’ has evidently been actually a hatred of Russians; it wasn’t an opposition to communism, after all; he hates Russians even after they have abandoned communism. Today’s Czech President is instead committed to democracy, not to hatred and bigotry of any sort. He’s a real democrat.)

Zeman added, by way of contrast to Yatsenyuk, the possibility that Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko “might be a man of peace.” So: though Zeman held out no such hope regarding Yatsenyuk (who was Obama’s choice to lead Ukraine), he did for Poroshenko (who wasn’t Obama’s choice, but who became Ukraine’s President despite Obama’s having wanted Yatsenyuk’s sponsor, the hyper-aggressive Yulia Tymoshenko, to win the May 25th Presidential election, which was held only in Ukraine’s pro-coup northwest, but claimed to possess authority over the entire country).

What this statement from Zeman indicates is that the European Union is trying to deal with Poroshenko, as the “good cop” in a “good cop, bad cop” routine, with Yatsenyuk playing the bad cop; and, so, the EU’s policies regarding Ukraine will depend upon what comes forth from Poroshenko, not at all upon what comes from the more clearly pro-war, anti-peace, Yatsenyuk.

Furthermore, Zeman’s now publicly asserting that the overthrow of Yanukovych was a coup instead of having merely expressed the democratic intentions of most of the Maidan demonstrators, constitutes a sharp break away from U.S. President Barack Obama, who was behind that Ukrainian coup and who endorses its current leaders.

Zeman isn’t yet going as far as Hungary’s President Viktor Orban did in his siding with Russia’s President Putin against America’s President Obama, but Zeman is indicating that, unless Obama will get Poroshenko to separate himself more clearly from Yatsenyuk (whom the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland actually selected on February 4th to become Ukraine’s Prime Minister in the coup just 18 days later, and so there can be no reasonable question that he is an Obama stooge), Czech policy regarding Ukraine will separate away from Obama’s war against Putin, and will join instead with Putin’s defense against Obama’s Ukrainian assault.

Zeman is thus now in very much the same position that Orban had been prior to Orban’s clear decision recently to side with Putin: each is a head-of-state of a former Soviet satellite nation, which had waged a democratic revolution (in 1956 in Hungary, and in 1968 in Czechoslovakia) against the Soviet communist tyranny. He is saying to his own countrymen, that the tyrant now is the United States, under its President Barack Obama, and is not Russia, under its President Vladimir Putin. That’s a seismic shift, away from the U.S., because of the Ukrainian coup.

Zeman was careful in his selection of which Czech news-medium would hold this interview with him. As wikipedia has noted, Pravo “is the only Czech national daily that is not owned by a foreign company.” The message that this fact sends to Czechs is that Zeman wanted to make clear that foreign influences, and any currying of favor with aristocrats (who own the ‘news’ media) in foreign countries, will not dictate his policies; only the Czech Republic’s own democratic values, and the behavior of Poroshenko, will. Zeman is indirectly telling Obama: Back off from me – you’re trying to get too close, and I won’t tolerate this. When Victoria Nuland said “F–k the EU,” she expressed Obama’s view, and all of them recognized the fact; some, like Orban and Zeman, don’t like to be treated this way; others, such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, seem not to mind.

It’s also interesting that the first two EU nations to indicate that they might leave the EU for an alliance with Russia are both former Soviet satellite countries that revolted against the Soviet dictatorship; both are Eastern European, not Western European. Perhaps these leaders are more loathe to be controlled by tyrants than are the ones for whom the very idea of being subordinate to a tyrant is just a mere abstraction. (Merkel, however, seems simply to love whatever is conservative, even if it might happen to be nazi, as in Ukraine.)

In any case, Ukraine’s coup has already produced one earthquake of historical magnitude, in Hungary, with Orban, and might soon do the same in the Czech Republic, with Zeman (which will depend upon Poroshenko reducing his war against Ukraine’s former east – which, in turn, will depend upon what instructions Obama provides to Poroshenko).

The European Union could actually be in the process of breaking up; and not only because of the Ukrainian civil war, but also because Obama’s forcing each and every one of the EU nations to choose up sides in Obama’s Ukrainian war against Putin will have very different economic effects upon the various individual EU member-nations, some of which will lose far more business with Russia, from adhering to Obama’s sanctions against Russia, than will others that go along with those sanctions.

U.S. President Obama is thus now pressing his pedal to the metal in order to achieve maximum destructive force against Russia, regardless of how many or what nations will follow him – perhaps even over the cliff, into a nuclear war. Obama is, in effect, now saying to each and every European head-of-state: Either you’re with us, or you’re against us. He’s George W. Bush II, only with regard to Russia, instead of to Iraq.

It’s “choosing up sides” time, yet again; and, this time, Obama and Putin are both waiting, no doubt each somewhat nervously, to see what his team will consist of, and what the opposing team will turn out to be.

However, there can be no reasonable doubt that Obama was the aggressor here. A coup followed by an ethnic cleansing is nazi, not at all democratic. That’s not opinion; it’s fact; and so it warrants to be noted in a news report, even though (if not especially because) others don’t report this fact, so that it’s still news, for long after it should have been reported as being “news.” Unfortunately, it remains as news, even today.

And, so, Zeman now clearly knows that the United States is no longer on the side of democracy. Excerpts from his speech were elsewhere translated and published as “Zeman Hits Out at Ukraine,” in which he was quoted as saying:

“I was browsing the internet yesterday evening and discovered a video showing the demonstration on Kiev’s Maidan on January 1. … These demonstrators carried portraits of Stepan Bandera, which reminded me of Reinhard Heydrich [Nazi administrator of Czechoslovakia]. … The parade itself was organised similar to nazi torchlight parades, where participants shouted the slogan: ‘Death to the Poles, Jews and communists without mercy’.”

He obviously now recognized the type of person that Barack Obama actually is. Americans generally didn’t, but he did. Keeping it a secret in Europe would be much more difficult than keeping it a secret in America. Many Europeans had had personal experience of nazis. They knew that nazis are bottom-of-the-barrel. The American aristocracy had kept the focus only against communists; but, in Europe, blinding the public regarding the barbarism of nazis wasn’t quite so easy.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Hp B

    Pay no attention to dancing Israelis on Kiev roof tops sniping both sides.
    (how they roll)

  • whatsacomeanago

    Nice/good to know. Bravo for persevering with this ‘groundhog-day’ news item. It was plain as day a coup, BBC etc are Zionist whores.

  • cnwiener

    The map is interesting and shows the heterogeneity of Ukraine.
    The blue pro-Russian territories are those neighboring Russia, but also ex-Bessarabia on the Danube (left of Odessa), taken from Bessarabia and given to Ukraine so justify two seats in the Danube Commission.
    The Odessa region which was settled by ethnic Russians after Catherine the Great founded Odessa, and Crimea, which was Russian after won over from the Turks and given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in February 1954, settled by ethnic Russians after original population, the Crimea Tatars, were expelled by Stalin behind the Ural Mountains.
    The reddish are ex- Austrian, before WW1, and ex-Polish (Galicia) and Romanian (Bukovina), between the wars.
    The ex-Czechoslovak Ruthenia is only orange.

    When we visited Ukraine over 2 years ago (High Holidays 5773 – Sep.2012), we visited Odessa and Kiev. In Odessa somebody told us that two Ukraines exist, the Eastern, colonized over centuries by Russia and pro-Russian, and the Western, formerly part of Central-European countries and thus pro-European. These two have little to share. The Eastern is Orthodox, the Western Unitarian, Greek or Roman Catholic.

    Trying to reduce the complexity of Ukraine to the pro-Russian thief Yanukovych, the nationalistic chocolate businessman Poroshenko, the bad guy Yatsenyuk and the Hungarian Jew Soros, who by definition must hate Russians and therefore pays the bill, is typically a simplistic vision I was used to see In Rude Pravo (Prague Communist daily) of the 50ties.

    The elections were held only on territories controlled by the Kiev government because the pro-Russian separatists refused to take part in them. It’s only normal, that Kiev claims its authority over the entire country. If it wouldn’t, it would accept the East-Ukrainian separatism, resp. the theft of Crimea. Zeman forgot that Czechoslovak government during the war also refused to acknowledge the occupation of Sudetenland.

    Overthrow of Yanukovych was and wasn’t a coup. Wasn’t, because he ran away to seek Russian protection, was, because his mandate didn’t expire. But in Ukrainian and Russian histories it was not the first case of such a change of the ruler. On the contrary; it was one of the rare cases when the loser was not
    eliminated.

    The author of the article ascertains that Zeman might slide more openly to Putin’s side probably ignoring that Zeman is a president of a country with parliamentary democracy where governs the government and not the president. Not that Zeman wouldn’t like to see himself as an US president with a Congress, but for the time being it’s not the case so Zeman rhetoric is more his opinion than the official policy of the Czech Republic.

    I loved the “democratic revolution (in 1956 in Hungary, and in 1968 in Czechoslovakia) against the Soviet communist tyranny.” If the Hungarians staged in 1956 an uprising, the 1968 events in Czechoslovakia were all but a revolution. The Soviets like to portrait it this way to justify their military intervention. 1968 was an evolution when the forces within the governing Communist Party have shifted. But it still a Communist regime and the
    Communist had no desire to relinquish their control. The difference with 1989
    was that then the Soviets refused to intervene. The speed with which the
    Communist block disintegrated shows how independent these countries were. They were just Soviet colonies, governed by local Quislings on behalf of their
    masters.

    Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia) and Hungary are not East European countries, again a Soviet jargon, but Central European countries. Author again shows ignorance. Historically West and Central was Catholic, East Orthodox …

    “Merkel, however, seems simply to love whatever is conservative, even if it might happen to be nazi, as in Ukraine.” is just bullshit. Merkel knows very well where’s democracy and where totalities as she grew up in the Communist East Germany.

    Claiming that Kiev’s government is a Nazi one is an old trick Soviets used to govern; those with us are democrats, those against us Nazis. While Soviets with their non-aggression pact with Hitler enabled the later to attack West European democracies. The Soviets switched sides only once attacked by Hitler.

    Ukrainian nationalism existed before the birth of Nazism. Bandera was twice in prison. In Poland and Nazi Germany. He was a nationalist, anti-Semite, but not a Nazi. He collaborated with anyone who promised him Ukrainian statehood. Cooperation of Ukrainian nationalists with Hitler was similar to cooperation of Stalin with Hitler. Both disliked him but both believed they can use him. Here again the author shows his ignorance.

    An idea that EU would break up because of different attitudes of their member
    countries toward Ukraine is a wishful thinking. Would EU really disintegrate,
    Czech Republic would again become a Soviet (Russian) colony. I doubt that the
    Czechs want that.

    I am wondering if the author realizes what his “an ethnic cleansing is nazi, not
    at all democratic.” means in the context of Central and East European
    history. After WW2 the ethnic cleansing was effective exclusively in the zones
    controlled by Soviet Union and their satellites. No transfer of population was
    done on the territories liberated by Western Allies. Mass transfer of Crimea
    Tatars, Poles, and Germans of Sudetenland, just to name few, was what? Ethnic cleansing! Ukrainians did not expel ethnic Russians the way the ethnic Germans were after WW2!

    Zeman’s “These demonstrators carried portraits of Stepan Bandera, which reminded me of Reinhard Heydrich [Nazi administrator of Czechoslovakia].” Shows he is an idiot. He knows well that Bandera was a Ukrainian, same as the demonstrators, while Heydrich was a German, Nazi administrator of the occupied Czech lands.

    Whoever added there that comment shows ignorance; during WW2 ceased to exist – Slovakia was an independent puppet state, huge territories were annexed by Germany and Hungary, and only a reminder of Czech (Bohemia and Moravia) lands were Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren of which Heydrich was a Protektor.

    I agree that “blinding the public regarding the barbarism of nazis wasn’t quite so easy.” But blinding the public with the barbarism of Communism is not easy either as the Communism lasted in Central and Eastern Europe for over 40 years while Nazism only 12 in Germany and 6 elsewhere. And the number of victims Soviet Communism produced honorably compares with those of Hitler’s Nazism.

    The politics is a science of achieving the maximum of possible, not of wanted. If Ukraine has legitimate right to want to be independent and join EU and NATO, it must take into account legitimate rights of Russia which can never join these two organizations because of its geographical situation and own interests. NATO is a military pact and Russia has good reason not to want to have it too close to
    its borders. Which would be the case would Ukraine join it. The membership in
    EU would be trickier. The Russians would at their border be confronted with an economic development they can’t sustain. It would be a mirror showing their own underdevelopment. For the time being it would be preferable not to encourage Ukraine to join these two organizations while helping economically to develop. It’s without saying that such a development would help Russia to develop, too, but Russia’s aggressiveness is also a result of its incapacity to solve problems others seem to be on way of solving. Miserable Russia is not in interest of the world either ….

    I can understand that Eric Zuesse, author of the article, dislikes President Obama. I don’t like him either. But he disserves his case by being ignorant of the realities he is writing about and taking partisan attitude toward the events.