Interviewed Viktor Yanukovych 4 hours in Moscow for new English language documentary

Oliver Stone added 5 new photos.

22 hrs · 

Excuse my absence these past weeks. A combination of overwork, prepping the Snowden movie in Germany & England, a side trip to Moscow, and a devastating head cold have laid me low. Recovering over Christmas in California; winter sun helps.

Interviewed Viktor Yanukovych 4 hours in Moscow for new English language documentary produced by Ukrainians. He was the legitimate President of Ukraine until he suddenly wasn’t on February 22 of this year. Details to follow in the documentary, but it seems clear that the so-called ‘shooters’ who killed 14 police men, wounded some 85, and killed 45 protesting civilians, were outside third party agitators. Many witnesses, including Yanukovych and police officials, believe these foreign elements were introduced by pro-Western factions-- with CIA fingerprints on it.

Remember the Chavez ‘regime change’/coup of 2002 when he was temporarily ousted after pro and anti-Chavez demonstrators were fired upon by mysterious shooters in office buildings. Also resembles similar technique early this year in Venezuela when Maduro’s legally elected Government was almost toppled by violence aimed at anti-Maduro protestors. Create enough chaos, as the CIA did in Iran ‘53, Chile ‘73, and countless other coups, and the legitimate Government can be toppled. It’s America’s soft power technique called ‘Regime Change 101.’

In this case the “Maidan Massacre” was featured in Western media as the result of an unstable, brutal pro-Russian Yanukovych Government. You may recall Yanukovych went along with the February 21 deal with opposition parties and 3 EU foreign minsters to get rid of him by calling for early elections. The next day that deal was meaningless when well-armed, neo-Nazi radicals forced Yanukovych to flee the country with repeated assassination attempts. By the next day, a new pro-Western government was established and immediately recognized by the US (as in the Chavez 2002 coup).

A dirty story through and through, but in the tragic aftermath of this coup, the West has maintained the dominant narrative of “Russia in Crimea” whereas the true narrative is “USA in Ukraine.” The truth is not being aired in the West. It’s a surreal perversion of history that’s going on once again, as in Bush pre-Iraq ‘WMD’ campaign. But I believe the truth will finally come out in the West, I hope, in time to stop further insanity.

For a broader understanding, see Pepe Escobar’s analysis “The new European ‘arc of instability,’” which indicates growing turbulence in 2015, as the US cannot tolerate the idea of any rival economic entityhttp://bit.ly/1yBmpHa. You might also see “Untold History” Chapter 10 where we discuss the dangers of past Empires which did not allow for the emergence of competing economic countries.

Vasiliy S. Znamenskiy

Ukraine analysis: Russia may prefer an extended 'frozen conflict' but freezing conditions loom for all

Some assume that a frozen conflict – to be switched on and off at Moscow’s behest – is the Kremlin’s preferred outcome for the region

MARY DEJEVSKY 
When talks on Ukraine were convened in Minsk last September, they seemed to have come out of nowhere and the ceasefire agreement they produced was greeted with widespread scepticism.
The same could be said of talks designed to breathe new life into that agreement that could start in the Belarus capital as early as Tuesday of this week – or not. The negotiator for the anti-Kiev rebels in eastern Ukraine, Denis Pushilin, said he could not countenance any meeting before Friday, but the Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko, suggested talks could begin almost at once. 
Whether any serious meeting will actually take place is one doubt. The other is whether any renegotiated ceasefire will hold any better than the last one. The widespread assumption has been that the conflict in eastern Ukraine is fast becoming a so-called “frozen conflict”, on the lines of other post-Soviet disputes. It is also assumed that a frozen conflict – to be switched on and off at Moscow’s behest, so making the east of Ukraine ungovernable from Kiev – is the Kremlin’s preferred outcome.
But there are also reasons why these assumptions could be wrong. One, supported by sections of Western intelligence, is that another frozen conflict is not what Russia is aiming for. According to this view, Russia has neither the inclination nor the means to maintain even that degree of involvement in eastern Ukraine: what it would settle for is what rebel leaders in eastern Ukraine have long said they want: a federal Ukraine in which the region would enjoy sufficient autonomy to retain its eastward orientation. If they want to keep the country together, Mr Poroshenko and the Kiev government have to cede more autonomy than they have so far offered.
Ukraine crisis: A timeline of the conflict

Another reason is that, although the September ceasefire has been deficient, it has probably been better than having no ceasefire. The violence affects a smaller region than it did before the autumn, and at least some of the continued fighting is explained by divisions among the rebels. A key element of the September agreement concerned Donetsk airport, which Kiev forces were supposed to hand to the rebels. This did not happen, it is said, because some rebels refused to hand over certain villages to Kiev forces.

READ MORE: UKRAINIANS GO UNDERGROUND TO HIDE FROM SHELLING
MERKEL TALKS TOUGH ON RUSSIA
FRAGILE 'CEASEFIRE' GIVES WAY TO MILITARY ACTIVITY

But the most obvious reason why these talks might have a chance of success is the sense of urgency that comes with the inexorable advance of winter. Millions of Ukrainians face acute shortages of fuel and potentially food and temperatures far below zero. Even if the EU-brokered gas agreement between Russia and Ukraine is honoured and the gas continues to flow until March, the eastern part of Ukraine, which is under the tenuous control of anti-Kiev rebels, is little short of a disaster area.
While many residents have left, many of the most vulnerable remain. The situation will only deteriorate unless there is agreement  that would facilitate international, including Russian, help. Nor is the rest of Ukraine guaranteed a safe winter. The Kiev government is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, yet it has failed to enact the sort of reforms that would qualify it for more IMF money. Every party to this conflict – Kiev and its Western backers, the rebels in the east, and Moscow – needs some arrangement that will get them through to the spring without a humanitarian or military disaster. That should concentrate negotiators’ minds.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-analysis-russia-may-prefer-an-extended-frozen-conflict-but-freezing-conditions-loom-for-all-9911391.html