Category Archives: Crime

Hmmm, #FordNation Clapping Seals fuel #Harper’s #DumpsterFire Yet Forgot #ProjectTraveller (2013) #DrugsnGuns. Yikes! #cdnpoli #elxn42

“Everyone keeps saying Rob’s a conservative,” Doug explains. “He’s a huge, massive social liberal. He loves Obama. The headlines of the papers when he won? ‘The White Obama.’ “ source: Reporter’s notebook: In the heart of Ford Nation with Toronto’s embattled mayor By Bill Weir, CNN updated 8:51 AM EST, Mon November 18, 2013

#cdnpoli Admission: #CPC & #FordNation
"Everyone keeps saying Rob's a conservative," Doug explains. "He's a huge, massive social liberal. He loves Obama. The headlines of the papers when he won? 'The White Obama.' "

Maybe it’s OK sometimes to “white” wash the “black” market so that drugs, guns and terror can remain accessible to the “white” suburban folks and punishment can be left to the broke and less-white folks or less politically connected. Not only that but this is a fantastic way to “cut” taxes by way of downloading the costs to the tax-payer through the crimes against society?

In other words, even though Rob Ford commits illegal acts and supports organized international criminal activity, being re-branded as a “White Obama” saves the tax-payers of certain areas of Toronto. One might wonder how much illegal activity the Toronto Police Services were really willing to allow Rob Ford to engage in. Not only that, but the bigger question, that has actually answered itself, may be if this is common practice, aka: status quo based upon quid pro quo.

Now one can fully appreciate the gravity that drugs and weapons are not exported to Windsor from Toronto and that they flow from the US through Detroit/Windsor to get to Toronto so that they may be redistributed, aka: trafficked, nationwide, via well organized criminal activity. As noted below, Project Traveller really made headlines because of its connection to Rob Ford and was dropped from the headlines like a scalding hot potato.

If the “Dixon’s” endorsement of the Harper Regime is not worth noting, nothing really is, eh?

Police believe gang hiding suspect By The Windsor Star January 3, 2008

A fugitive murder suspect from Windsor who allegedly shot a man in the back has disappeared into an underground world of gangs and criminals who may be helping him hide from police, say investigators.

Police believe Mohamud Abukar Hagi has ties to a criminal street gang from Toronto called the Dixon True Bloods, which branched out to other cities after police cracked down on their territory.


That Toronto crackdown has Windsor police dealing with a growing number of gangbangers.

“They’ve branched off to Calgary and, obviously, Windsor,” Det. Const. Mike Williams, with the Toronto police guns and gangs unit, said of the Dixon Bloods. “We pushed them out.”


Mayor Ford’s Dangerous Liaisons Bailey Reid 09 Nov 2013

Mayor Rob Ford may or may not smoke crack. That is yet to be revealed- because he doesn’t quite remember. What we do know, however, is that spending time with the man happens to be very dangerous, particularly for racialized communities in Toronto.

There have been numerous calls for the mayor’s resignation in the last few days, but mainly over the horror of his potential drug addiction and the attendant argument that he is unable to govern the city, from a moral standpoint.

Quite frankly, I find this to be the least of anyone’s worries. Our collective dismay about Mayor Ford smoking crack has overshadowed a very important subtext to this video of the mayor of Canada’s largest and arguably most diverse city (“Diversity Our Strength,” to cite the city’s motto). A deeper investigation into the mayor’s feelings towards marginalized people makes the crack video even more distressing: does the mayor see communities of colour as the proverbial “whipping boy”?


Laughing at Rob Ford? The laugh may be on us By Paula Simons, Edmonton Journal November 7, 2013

EDMONTON – In Toronto, they’re known as the Dixon Bloods. Or the Dixon City Bloods. Or the Dixon Goonies. Many — though not all — are Somali-Canadian.

According to Toronto police, the gang has been “networking with associates” in Edmonton since 2006.

Not so coincidentally, since 2006, more than 30 young Somali-Canadian men have been killed in Alberta, most in gang-related shootings and stabbings. About half those killings took place in Edmonton.

Det. Cory Buerger is a member of Edmonton’s gang unit, on secondment to ALERT, the Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team.

For almost a decade, he’s tracked the rise of local drug gangs dominated by Somali-Canadians. All, he says, are tightly networked with Toronto groups.

“Dixon Blood members have been seen in Fort McMurray and Edmonton, but they’re not wearing their gang colours out here.”

Instead, he says, members in Alberta operate as free agents. They don’t stake out physical turf, as they have in Toronto. They’re mobile, customer-based, delivering drugs to their buyers. Buerger says the Bloods and their affiliates bring their drugs through Vancouver, but their guns from Ontario. Most are bought legally in the United States, then smuggled across the border near Windsor.

This June, after a year-long investigation, 17 Canadian police agencies, including the Edmonton Police Service and ALERT, executed a takedown of Dixon operations in Toronto, Windsor and Edmonton: Project Traveller.

Police made 44 arrests, and seized 42 guns and $3 million worth of narcotics, including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, LSD and crystal meth. Among those arrested was Edmonton’s Daud Hussein, 27.

Yet for all its scope, Project Traveller really made headlines because of its connection to Rob Ford.


#Harper’s 2013 #DumpsterFire Flashback: Op-Ed: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind. #cdnpoli #elxn42

Since so many “conservatives” and former supporters of the Harper Regime have either been tossed under the bus or simply jumped off the omnibus, let’s dig through our archives and take a trip down memory lane, since it appears as if the yellow journalists at Postmedia are still busy heavily censoring and restricting access to past articles that cast their ideologically driven despot Stephen Harper into the negative spotlight.

That being stated, please take a few moments to review the following op-ed(s) published in late November 2013 by former conservative communications consultant David Sachs in the Ottawa Citizen. It should be worth noting, and we have, the censored Ottawa Citizen version of the op-ed compared to the version published via the Times Colonist on 29 November 2013…

CENSORED Op-Ed: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind By David Sachs, Ottawa Citizen November 25, 2013
CENSORED Op-Ed: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind By David Sachs, Ottawa Citizen November 25, 2013

Op-Ed: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind

By David Sachs, Ottawa Citizen November 25, 2013

The conservative mindset understands that power tends to corrupt. How far will we let it corrupt us? I have been involved in party work for more than a decade and I call on other party members to demand answers, or resignation from our leader.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has long employed the cynical strategy of total denial when faced with controversy, disregarding the public’s right to the truth.

He knows the public will never follow the minutiae of events. As long as solidarity is maintained, Harper can ride out any storm by claiming it is just more partisan noise. Only we Conservatives have the power to break that solidarity, and take away Harper’s trump card. It’s time to demonstrate that Conservatives care about ethics and ultimately, checks on that corrupting influence of power.

Some of the prime minister’s key people have conspired to undermine Senate investigations, to influence a third-party financial audit and ultimately to pay off a senator, all, in tragic irony, to maintain an illusion of party ethics. The prime minister has, in the kindest interpretation, hidden the full truth.

Is that acceptable to you, as a Canadian and a Conservative?

As Conservatives, there is much Harper and his government have done to be proud of. But as more power is seized by the unelected members of Harper’s inner circle; as more of his key, chosen people turn out to be ethically unsound or worse, we must ask: how far will we let our own leader go?

Some Conservatives argue this tempest is all over a small amount of money. But if the prime minister’s key people are willing to go to such lengths over such a small issue, solely to maintain (how ironic) the façade of ethics, how far would they go over big issues? Does anyone trust this government to deal openly when facing major challenges?

We Conservatives have a rare opportunity. Our opponents are weak and divided. Our team is strong and experienced. If we force Harper to answer truthfully or resign, we gain back our ethical platform. We give a new leader a chance to run in the next election from the prime minister’s office. Even if we lose one election, we will likely face a short-term minority government with a flawed leader. In the big picture, this is the least risky time to change a faulty part.

If we do not act, we embolden Harper. We increase the risk of further ethical scandals. Make no mistake: if Harper continues like this, he will fall, and he will take our party down with it. It will be hard to win an election for a decade. We should control the process.

As a first action, our senators need to make themselves heard. They can break that façade of Conservative solidarity that Harper depends on. Here is a chance to show that they matter, and to take real action to reverse the slide of ethical responsibility we have seen under successive governments of various party stripes.

Ask what is democracy if an elected leader abuses all the levers of power? If he, or his people, manipulate independent branches of government (Senate, Parliamentary Budget Officer)? If he, or people acting on his behalf, abuse the electoral process (as in the allegations of electoral fraud), and then abuse the investigative process (the independent Deloitte audit)? If our leaders hide the truth as common practice?

Harper is no dictator. Call on Harper to speak the truth at last. If he can pull the party back from this slide, he can yet rescue his leadership. If not, he must go.

Harper is putting each of us Conservatives in an ethical bind, and we should resent him for this. We will never be united as a party, let alone as a country, when we are each so divided within ourselves. We need to make ourselves and our country right, and demand ethical, accountable government whatever its colours.

David Sachs is a Conservative communications consultant who has worked for cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon and Peter Kent. He is a board member of the Pontiac Conservative Riding Association in Quebec.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
continue reading source:
or (

David Sachs: Stephen Harper puts Conservatives in a bind

David Sachs / Times Colonist
November 29, 2013 04:29 PM

The conservative mindset understands that power tends to corrupt. How far will we let it corrupt us?

I have been involved in party work for more than a decade and I call on other party members to demand answers or resignation from our leader.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has long employed the cynical strategy of total denial when faced with controversy, disregarding the public’s right to the truth.

He knows the public will never follow the minutiae of events. As long as solidarity is maintained, Harper can ride out any storm by claiming it is just more partisan noise. Only we Conservatives have the power to break that solidarity and take away Harper’s trump card.

It’s time to demonstrate that Conservatives care about ethics and, ultimately, checks on that corrupting influence of power.

Some of the prime minister’s key people have conspired to undermine Senate investigations, to influence a third-party financial audit and ultimately to pay off a senator, all, in tragic irony, to maintain an illusion of party ethics. The prime minister has, in the kindest interpretation, hidden the full truth.

Is that acceptable to Canadians and Conservatives?

As Conservatives, there is much Harper and his government have done to be proud of. But as more power is seized by the unelected members of Harper’s inner circle, as more of his key chosen people turn out to be ethically unsound or worse, we must ask: How far will we let our own leader go?

Some Conservatives argue this tempest is all over a small amount of money. But if the prime minister’s key people are willing to go to such lengths over such a small issue, solely to maintain the façade of ethics, how far would they go over big issues?

Does anyone trust this government to deal openly when facing major challenges?

We Conservatives have a rare opportunity. Our opponents are weak and divided. Our team is strong and experienced. If we force Harper to answer truthfully or resign, we gain back our ethical platform. We give a new leader a chance to run in the next election from the prime minister’s office.

Even if we lose one election, we will likely face a short-term minority government with a flawed leader. In the big picture, this is the least risky time to change a faulty part.

If we do not act, we embolden Harper. We increase the risk of further ethical scandals.

Make no mistake: if Harper continues like this, he will fall and he will take our party down with him. It will be hard to win an election for a decade. We should control the process.

As a first action, our senators need to make themselves heard. They can break that facade of Conservative solidarity that Harper depends on. Here is a chance to show that they matter and to take real action to reverse the slide of ethical responsibility we have seen under successive governments of various party stripes.

What is democracy if an elected leader abuses all the levers of power? If he or his people manipulate independent branches of government (Senate, Parliamentary Budget Officer)? If he or people acting on his behalf abuse the electoral process (as in the allegations of electoral fraud), and then abuse the investigative process (the independent Deloitte audit)? If our leaders hide the truth as common practice?

Harper is no dictator. We should call on him to speak the truth at last. If he can pull the party back from this slide, he can yet rescue his leadership. If not, he must go.

Harper is putting each of us Conservatives in an ethical bind, and we should resent him for this. We will never be united as a party, let alone as a country, when we are so divided within ourselves.

We need to make ourselves and our country right, and demand ethical, accountable government, whatever its colours.

David Sachs is a Conservative communications consultant who has worked for cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon and Peter Kent. He is a board member of the Pontiac Conservative Riding Association in Quebec.
© Copyright Times Colonist

continue reading source:

Please note: As of this posting (Election Day 2015) both of the above (Ottawa Citizen) urls currently lead to an error page at the Ottawa Citizen propaganda outlet BUT the Time Colonist url is still active. While you ponder that, be sure to check out the following video explaining the Harper Regime’s “free trade” policy trade offs.

Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

#Harper’s War(s): The Next Generation(s) of Serfs #cdnpoli #elxn42

For this (hopefully last) installment of the “#Harper’s War(a) series we thought it might be a good idea to consider the actual costs vs benefit of the Harper’s ongoing far-right Economic Extraction Action Plan with regards to the current hybrid “Millennial” generation and next generation(s). At this stage in this game as the election draws near we must also ponder the mysteries within the “text” of the highly secret TPP that was “promised” to be released prior to election day but for rather lame “Go along, to get along” reasons, it will not be available.

The Harper Regime’s non-stop divisive Babylonian shell-game economics, fear-mongering, war profiteering, script regurgitation, hyperbolic rhetoric and it’s pandering for strategic voters to the extreme far-right minority segments for support is a very real and significant problem. They have purposely timed this coordinated operation to coincide with a very small Parliamentary calendar and will complete the far-right takeover with 3 successive blows. While all persist in the war-drumming and Bill C-51 distractions the delayed omnibus budget will go unchallenged, un-scrutinized and unnoticed. Since we know that there is no Parliament sitting until after the election, serious questions have and will continue to simply go unanswered and unaddressed. Win or lose, the Harper Regime wins in the end since if they lose, they won’t have to answer for a lot of issues that are bubbling over, the next group will yet if they do win, it’s full steam ahead until they ultimately lose control of the narrative, message and messengers. Unfortunately if they manage to steal a majority, it will propel us past the point of no return.

Before proceeding further down this rabbit hole, we should contemplate the shorter term consequences with regards to the safety and security of the younger generations, domestically. One thing that we are certain of is that each and every Government policing and security agency  across the board are undergoing sweeping downsizing and compounding budget reductions. In other words, more budget cuts and downsizing measures are being implemented before any review of the cost/benefit analysis of past cuts to see where shortfalls have been discovered and persist to be problematic. With the massive and solitary refocus upon the minimalistic lone-wolf “terrorist” attack scenario, the already stressed system will deteriorate and downgrade the Police State’s collective ability to provide adequate resources for investigations into crimes that affect almost everyone, everyday. The trade off, we as a society are being forced to accept in the form of Bill C-51, is that all resources, real and imaginary, must be allocated to waging a war against an invisible needle-in-a-haystack boogeyman and not against those countless, easy to find, individuals engaging in organized crime, money laundering, Ponzie scheming, fraud, corruption, drug smuggling, gun running, child exploitation, human trafficking, gang warfare, armed robbery and the like. Since we must be made less-safe at all costs to be more-safe with future costs, all that will be needed in the future will be the stoke of a pen and an ever expanding list of “terrorists” can be determined and declared as necessary.

Even putting aside that all of the opaque enemies, boogieman and murky allies in these officially declared and unofficially undeclared ideological wars by the Harper Regime and their globalist comrades, aka: Bolsheviks, are between ultra-right entities fighting for dominance in their sphere of influence and then compound that with the way Bill C-51 is worded to declare the “official” far-right and ultra-right “enemies” and pay attention to the lack of certain “useful” far-right entities. Fast forward a bit and one may notice that in any foreign intervention scheme the Harper Regime’s choice is always in support of the furthest to the right of the embattled parties in the region with the most advantageous economic trade-route territories and better financed private mercenary armies. If we disregard any “left” opposition exists in any region, we can only presume that this Government sanctioned strategy in-itself creates an immediate far-right adversary within itself and is designed for almost immediate failure.

We also know that once any Party is beholden to an assortment of competing unholy fringe alliances for electoral convenience, ultra-far-right (or left) extremist segments can and will, easily coalesce, conspire and ultimately seize complete power and control over the government, economy and the military in one sweep. Isn’t this how the previously far-right Reform/Alliance coup transpired? First they acquired the party apparatus then they seized total control of the PMO and consolidated the powers within itself and the Treasury Ministry and Justice Ministry. Now we will bear witness to the evolution of extreme politics as the Liberal Party will transition further to the right to appeal to the former conservative base that oppose Harper and to piggyback on the politics of fear-mongering and war profiteering that made the “West” great. If recent history is to be proven correct, the best way to form a Party quickly is to coordinate, co-op and/or outright hijack one. In the above scenario, either way the vote goes, the “right” retains control of the Government apparatus with a solid plan b that on the surface seems palatable with the added bonus of redrawing the boundaries and redefining the “left” side of the spectrum.

Considering the generations that will pay for these wars, with their lives and limbs and odious unpayable debts by insulated older generations have zero voice, we must explore and understand the costs, ramifications and implications of an unfettered march to war policy for both the short term and long term. Having driven their carefully “controlled messages” this far into the collective psyche, the Harper Loyalists, propagandists and apologists can now begin probing even further towards the far-right extremes based upon zero facts, tin-foil hats and illogical fears by way of deception and subversive intimidation.

The oddly concealed and/or conveniently overlooked fact remains that these younger generations, with absolutely no voice, will be the bearers of the debts and actions of today’s political establishment. The veil is finally lifting and exposing the “invisible hand” of the economy and how many, if not most, of the publicly elected officials are beholden to the interests of the top 15% of the population. This may well be the ideal scenario, who knows, but even if it is there should be a system of checks and balances so that they do not go off the rail off into some ideological fantasy land. Contrary to the constant “…net new jobs…” mantra we hear repeated, consider real math and compare that to the actual number of newly work-aged employes into the workforce since the Harper Regime first came to power, their employment opportunities and their debt servitude.

The Harper Regime’s job creation results are truly pathetic and serve only the wants of a coddled 15% that will never serve in a war, nor suffer on any battlefield at the expense of the 85% majority. Compound that even further by looking at the age demographics of the actual hiring and associated pay scales, one will see that skewed in favour of the expanding 55+ segment as opposed to the expanding 25 and under segment. Once again, the beneficiaries will never have to serve in military services, but will be free to profit off such endeavours.

This seems to be the beginnings of the perfect generational storm as one generation seeks to reap the rewards of their labours, irregardless to their losses while the generations that will be necessary to fund these rewards remain jobless. This poses a problem since this age segment lost a significant portion of their savings, investments and pensions, aka: “wealth”, in the aftermath of the economic crisis and may never recover. This presumes that one will only have the freedom of choice to choose to be sent off to slaughter as cannon fodder abroad or exist within a rationed impoverishment at home. This also begs the question, how are such a select few able to initiate and instigate problems seeking solutions that they themselves never end up paying for, or adequately funding and/or administering, the long term solutions.

Pay close attention to the shell gaming by way of omnibus budgeteering only short gains profits and all real costs of their selectively interventionist backstopping practices are allowed to download the costs of their imposed austerity measures and military backed foreign financial adventurism, the lower 85% will continue to spiral downward and rapidly converge into a broader society with an overall lesser quality of life. Oddly enough, the data shows that within a zero-sum economic model, the top 15% are pretty much immune to the effects of deteriorating economy and  due to the constraints and trade offs that accompany globalization schemes and economic integration agendas, the younger generations are constrained by the vary same global investors that discourage “public” investment necessary to properly educate our children and instead favour various privatization schemes. This financial downloading can be witnessed in real time with regards to health care, infrastructure, First Nations, Veterans and other public service cuts such as police, fire and other emergency first responder services.

We really can’t proceed without pondering the relativity of the abrupt resignation of John Baird, the shady foreign endeavours file, think Myanmar/Burma and Hillary Clinton’s email (treason) scandal, the pending Iraq/Syria and Beyond War Act, Bill C-51 and the delayed budget fit into this toxic mix. The combination of these three topics uncovers an entirely new perspective into how pervasive and powerful the anti-diplomatic, antagonistic, pro-war lobby has become and how any anti-war dissent will be stifled and suppressed with extreme prejudice and impunity.

Now, one must consider and compare how vigorously the Harper Regime fully endorsed, sanctioned and supported the Maidan, and set the stage for this tragically epic battle of the oligarchs civil war, in Ukraine with how vigorously, through legislation such as the Fair Elections Act and Bill C-51 or violence as in the case of the Toronto G8/G20 kettle filled crackdown, they are assuring that any popular demonstrations and/or uprising against their ideological rule, are fearfully discouraged and cannot happen in Ottawa or elsewhere. In this new norm, only Harper Loyalist’s and apologists will be afforded to any rights and/or freedoms such as speech, thought, association and/or assembly. The inconvenient truth is that all of these bits and chunks of power consolidation to the PMO and Treasury will be afforded to any/all future Governments.

It seems plausible that the fear-mongering, war drum beating and shell-game economics propaganda can easily neuter any opposition. It’s a major trump card and it is being played in much the same way as it was in the lead up to WW1. The pre-war propaganda that sets the stage campaign is in full gear as we speak.

First of all we should remember the timing of the “Arab Spring” and how the Libyan intervention, sprinkled with the “Assad Must Go” sideshow narrative, contaminated the 2011 election campaign that was fraught with several seedy and shady election shenanigans by outside market players beyond the legal jurisdiction of Canadian law enforcement agencies and the reach of Elections Canada. This deviously cleaver tactic conveniently led to major distractions with regards to the fundamental issues that lead up to the Election of 2011 and the ongoing epic failures of the Harper Regime at the time.

Remember, while some have slithered their way into the courts, the major issues with their governance and opacity were never resolved while their dirty deeds remain hidden and concealed from the public by the politicos and media alike for the most part. With cunningly shrewd manipulation of legislation and the subsequent consolidation of powers into the PMO and Treasury Ministry, their collective “documented” shenanigans will be sealed as classified far beyond the reach of the youth of today and tomorrow.

In other words, it is in their collective (15%) opinion, most of which invest and shelter their ill gotten “wealth” abroad, that after they themselves so greatly benefited from, and fully reaped the fruitful rewards of a rigged system, that very same system must be destroyed from the inside and out. This “controlled demolition” will hypothetically assure by way of distraction and diversion that their collective (15%) future prosperity, safety and security is assured at the expense of the remaining 85%, aka: serfs…

Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

#Harper’s War(s): #C51 and the 5-Eyes Spy vs Spy Paradigm, Cui bono? #cdnpoli #pnpcbc #ctvpp #cbcnn

For this installment of the #Harper’s War(s) series, we would like to propose a couple of points to ponder about the broader implications of Bill C-51 as it relates to our “Allies” and especially the citizens of the other 5-Eyes intelligence alliance members, Australia, New Zealand, U.K and U.S., not to mention the jurisdictions of the NSA and the broad array of other international alphabet intelligence agencies within the expanded 9-Eyes and 14-Eyes intelligence community. Considering how creeped out the majority of Canadians are by being johnny-spied and infringed upon by the predatory Harper Regime, our “allies” should feel creeped out even more.

Dominion of Harper's All Seeing Eye
Dominion of Harper’s All Seeing Eye

There must be something more sinister, colonist and imperialist “invisible hand” behind this mad rush to declare more opaque enemies and terrorists located on various blurry battlefields concentrated around trade corridors, energy sources while opening new markets and investment opportunities with military force. Since the pre-World War Next, or at least pre-Cold War 2.0, conditions are being sown, fertilized and fermented on multiple fronts, does Harper seek to be the supreme intelligence overlord and ultimately the overseer of ECHELON 2.0?

Since many of Canada’s Allies have various information and intelligence gathering operations, most of them have some level of real time oversight, not after the fact reviews and unchallenged secret tribunals. The fact that Harper’s Bill C-51 provides no additional oversight to watch over the watchers that share data with other watchers abroad. We can only presume that other “agencies” with arterial motives will attempt to infiltrate our own intelligence apparatuses through vulnerable Ministry/Department backdoors in order to circumvent their own restrictive domestic data and intelligence sharing regulations on mass surveillance and data collection of citizens.

In many ways it seems as if the Harper Regime has decided to be the grand all-seeing-eye, spymaster and records keeper within the right-wing utopian Global Governance Era. In these glorious propaganda filled globalization days where “governments” have embraced tax-cutting and war-mongering at the same time, while downplaying the decline of the domestic economy and outsourcing in order to nickle and dime away solutions in order to create more costly problems, we’ll pose a few questions worth pondering, if anything else…

  1. Who will be watching the Government?
  2. What prevention measures are in place to assure that our intelligence apparatuses are not infiltrated and hijacked by another, group, cabal, cartel, agency or government?
  3. What measures are in place to assure undue search and unwarranted seizure of Canadians data by foreign agencies?
  4. What happens when there is a conflict of interest or competing interests?
  5. What happens when one partner agencies “terrorist” is another partner agencies “freedom fighter”?
  6. What happens “if” another partner agency is found to be committing illegal activities within Canada that go against Canadian interests or violates the civil liberties and freedoms of Canadians?
  7. What prevents multiple agencies from getting bogged down and wasting valuable resources and time engaged in overlapping operations, dis-information campaigns, psyops, spooks, stooges, honeypots, grooming, etc.?
  8. What are the surveillance and preventative counter-measures that address blackmail and/or corruption, rouge advisors, agent provocateurs and/or compromised public officials?
  9. When will robust cyber-security measures be implemented within Canada’s own National IT infrastructure to assure no exploits, vulnerabilities, data leakage or unauthorized access are available between the various Ministry’s portals?How will our personal and private data be protected from potential misuse and/or abuse by external intelligence agencies abroad?
  10. How much will all of this secured infrastructure initially cost and how much will the annual maintenance costs be?
  11. How will the national infrastructure that Canadians need to transact their daily affairs be fortified and secured from the blowback from this unprecedented expansion of secretive intelligence powers?
  12. How will other intelligence agencies data be protected?
  13. Will 5-9-14-Eyes and NATO members or our Allies be contributing to the costs of this shared infrastructure or will they just reap the rewards?
  14. Who assures that all international laws are enforced?
  15. Is the ultimate intent to create a “clearinghouse” for illegal covert supra-national co-intel operations?

Further Research:

Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

#Harper’s War(s): #Harpernomics, #C51 and the #NATO Cruz Missile! #cdnpoli #pnpcbc #ctvpp

Much can be gleaned about the rise and tightening grip of the far-right globally if one dares to look outside the box that is framed by the media conglomerates. The repetition that the “media” is somehow a soapbox for the “left” has run it’s coarse as is evident with the rise of the far-right phenomenon that finds the media on board, full steam ahead. At best the media may be a few steps away from the ultra-far right but it is closer to the far-right than ever and is certainly going along to get along. One question may be, are they willingly going along or have they been secretely legislated?.

This mashup summary will be a somewhat long rant that will pose some seriously neglected questions, expose some uncomfortable gaps and potential connections and exploit some rather historical similarities. This summary may be updated but more than likely will branch off into further research. If anything it should prompt many to delve deeper into any of the issues that are connected.

We intend to additionally explore if we are actually in an “official” state of war that has been secretly declared. Is it possible for a War Measures Act to be secretly or subversively implemented? If so, how do we actually know if this is the case and who the “enemy” is? Or is this where “Harper’s Enemies Lists” somehow fits in? This may explain the virtually one-sided presentations across the various conflict zones and hot spots that emanate from the same handful of global conglomerates. That’s just the tip of the iceberg for a much bigger glacier.

How can an ideological war between the ultra-far-right and the far-right politically or a cultural/tribal/civil war pitting nationalists vs ultra-nationalists militarily, be fought simultaneously at home and abroad?

How far to the “right” must one travel and give up personally to acquire perceived safety and security provided by the oppressive Harper Regime over real life freedom and liberty in the pursuit of prosperity provided by democracy and credible market based capitalism?

How much further to the “right” will the Liberal Party creep and how far will the NDP choose to follow behind?

We only ponder this because some circles are harder to square than others. The further to the right you travel, you’ll notice that moar war and less freedom are on the agenda while the less war factions simply go along to get along for the most part.

We are also beginning to contemplate how the destabilization in Ukraine and Iraq are not being used as some sort of “incentive” to members within the E.U. with regards to expediting and completing the pending cross-Atlantic Free Trade Agreements. Cutting of access to Eurasian markets under the cover of sanctions against Russia seems like a good strategy as is the display of how quickly organized violence against any State can be launched. Add that with the secret TPP and it gets much clearer but we might have to ask Nigel Wright since he has his fingerprints all over the place. The Duffy scandal forces one to consider how much access and influence really had and how he used it to further his own financial portfolio.

How do all of these tie in with the SPP and Bill C-51?

Who are Harper’s advisors anyway and who advises them?

Are these the same type of ideological “foreign policy” advisors that the G.W. Bush Iraq team “employed” to cherry pick reams of intel for a needle in a haystack, pie in the sky, unsubstantiated documents/clauses to fabricate the conditions that justify immediate and massive military intervention?

“We the People” are certainly being groomed for a war of unimaginable scale and consequences, but it will be very, very good for some global investors. The “Police State” conditions are being arranged via the Trojan Horse Bill C-51 to “legally” stifle any/all anti-war and/or anti-austerity protests. There will be no Ottawa Maidan, period. If we were to boil it down to it’s murky base, we would notice that all of the current conflict zones that require liberation are concentrated along various pipelines, energy, transportation, shipping and rail corridors. When the long dust settles, new borders will be redrawn to consolidate and secure trade routes. The real problem is that no State can control what it’s oligarchs invest in or how they invest it, move it, offshore it or divest it. Another thing that is certain is that professional mercenary alliances and the black market only serve those that provide the necessities of war and are loyal only to those that can provide them financing and armaments.

The key fact is that through the various narratives being weaved about Bill C-51, it is a massive Trojan Horse with the anti-war movements in it’s sights. All of the others that will be caught up in this dragnet operation that fall on the “left” side of the political spectrum will be either considered a “bonus” or as acceptable collateral damage and cannon fodder. Keep in mind that fear, intimidation and propaganda plague all cultures/regions and are utilized by multiple overlapping players with their own ultimate agendas. while violent persecution attempts to solve dissent abroad, the “West” achieves this control of dissent easily by way of economic persecution. In either case, the “life” of the individual involved is lost, one by loss of blood, the other by loss of assets/income/credibility/career.

One of the key provisions of Bill C-51 that needs to be examined is the “language” about the censoring of the interwebz of “terrorist” propaganda. If we harken back to WWI and ponder the implications of how propaganda and censorship are used to sell wars and interventions, we need to ask ourselves one fundamentally important question, who decides this opaque definition. Then we need to ask ourselves, where, why and how opaque definition based declarations are decided. The logical follow up question would be who has the most to benefit from the proceeds of the declaration?

If we look at the deteriorating situation in Ukraine from beyond the lens of the AP/Reuters reports, we see a nation that is spiraling into chaos and various oligarchs have their own loyal “volunteer” battalions. Many estimates put these far-right extremist “anti-Russia” mercenary groups at approx 17, each with it’s own vision, mandate and source of funding. The same might be presumably said for the “pro-Russian” side as well. These would be players that are being employed to either secure business interests or expand land claims.

Some other interesting points to ponder may be related to the bursting of the Commodities Super Cycle during a highly concentrated, uncertain, oversupplied and illiquid global market based upon unsustainable debt.

Have we reached peak energy?

How low can the price of oil/energy go before the serviceable-debt bubble pops?

Are these wars being waged to assure that the flow of energy profitability increases in an otherwise oversupplied market?

Since no Central bank or amount of austerity can ever balance the costs of misguided military interventions and the effects of previous omnibus budgets yet to be felt, let’s review a small segment of what has transpired since debt based Harpernomics has replaced surplus based economics.

Even with the massive downloading of costs onto the Provinces without balancing the tax system and revenue sharing, the Federal Debt has exceeded $600 Billion, with debt servicing alone growing daily at a steady clip. Since those costs are immediately download to the Municipalities/etc. the costs to service existing debts becomes an issue that rapidly prevents proper infrastructure maintenance and upgrade investments.

Since Harpernomics has replaced economics with selective inflation based shell-game budgetary tricks to acquire a magical surplus of everything just before an election, the fact remains that job creation continues to lag far behind the amount necessary to accommodate new entries into the work force, wages are stagnant at best and according to the Harpernomicists themselves, the average hours worked per week is in a steady decline and is projected to continue the trend downward.

Will the drop in oil and commodities afford the Harper Regime the “right” to encourage wage reductions throughout the energy sector like they did to the non-outsourced manufacturing sector?

At what point does using a sliding scale for the hours worked considered “full time” for job numbers presented by the Harpernomicists become a purely mythical and unreliable set of digits to an actual number?

Other than the Harper Loyalists, Harpernomicists and apologists, who actually thinks that misguided war waging is free?

Even though the Harper Regime cannot provide a final figure for the Afghanistan intervention, the costs estimates thus far range between $20-30 billion CDN + uncountable collateral damages. The results of the intervention, other than the huge short term gains by military contractors, are far from conclusive. No matter how hard anyone tries or how many times it is invaded and/or occupied it, Afghanistan is going to be whatever it wants to be based upon their own best interests within boundaries on a map that they had no voice in drawing. In the overall case of the invasion, on paper it looked all good and noble and just, but not far under the surface the truth existed. The entire process was manipulated and intelligence was distorted so that one of the more sinister and nefarious minority groups were given authority over the majority. Surely a group will accept “aid” to gain their own syndicate a competitive advantage but there will always be shifting of the balance of power between tribal alliances as power is gained. This is not the first rodeo of this kind for Afghans and they know that any “foreign” presence will be short  sights and short lived in the big picture and have pretty much decided where the boundaries lie between themselves.  The greatly under-reported violence that we see now in Afghanistan is the end result of external military intervention and occupation that allowed certain tribes to immediately fill the vacuum and consolidate “legal” authority by force. Not only that but, the blowback from the flourishing Poppy boom and trade is already being felt globally and the negative effects will be long lasting across the board.

In much the same way the Afghanistan costs were budgeted, contrary to the initial “estimates” provided by the Harper Regime, the Libya intervention Harpernomiced out several times higher at approx. 1/2 billion + uncountable collateral damages that has resulted in a completely insecure failed state embroiled in a civil/tribal war intermixed with various mercenary groups seeking weapons and training. The fact that there were no attempts by Canada or other NATO Allies to secure cooperation with the remnants of the Libyan Military to secure the armories and military facilities is highly suspicious at best. Has anyone pondered the thought that maybe John Baird was communicating about Libya/Syria with Hillary Clinton via her unsecured private email server? What happens if those communications get leaked?

Who is ultimately paying for this high, long-term debt-servicing-cost agenda?

What is the motivation, and what are the true long term costs in blood, currency value and purchasing power, behind the fascinating objective of creating an “invisible” self-perpetuating unsustainable debt burden?

How can Harper promise that 2 wars, in Ukraine and Syria/Iraq, can be fought and funded on the backside of lower oil revenues, stagnant at best wages, massive looming job losses, deflationary housing market pressures and lower tax revenues.

As the debates surrounding war and electioneering take center stage, Bill C-51 and the “delayed” budget simmer away. One affects our assets and the other affects our liberties bad both are being looted by the pro-war insiders. This brings us to a rather oddly timing of the NATO meeting, the U.S. Presidential campaign bid that was declared by Canada’s own export, far-right winger Ted Cruz and the devious election tactics used by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to court, fear-monger and rally the farther-right elements to assure his grip on power. These “faces” present the sell-siders of apocalyptic evangelical wars in their respective domains and propose, foster and initiate discontent within and interventions abroad to protect opaque “national” interests. Ultimately, since Cruz has zero chance just based upon the amount of cash he has, we conclude that he is simply strategic investment in the global game of consensual election engineering and a political pawn that posed no threat to the U.S. status quo. His entry is a pre-election campaign aimed at intended to influence and engage Canadians to bolster far-right support for the Harper Party in the short term from beyond the realm and jurisdiction of Election Canada. Since Cruz is staunchly anti-Obama, pay attention to which slogans and taking points get highlighted, accentuated and repeated by whom, on this side of the border. Then pay closer attention to how the media in the U.S. respond to hostile rhetoric from the anti-Obama/pro-Bibi Harper Loyalists. Then pay attention to how the Liberals respond.

This combination sets the stage for Harper’s  sell-side that supports NATO’s expansion into sovereign Syrian territory against “darker” ultra-far-right mercenaries for hire with the bonus prize of additional Ukraine territory to train “lighter” ultra-far-right mercenaries for hire that will eventually become a battle hardened menace to the E.U. and the West. Fear not, Harper’s Bill C-51 will protect us.

Is widespread war and discontent the Harper Regime’s reverse Soylent Green Solution for youth unemployment and lack of opportunity?

Are these strategic regions being justifiably destabilized in order to profitably reduce the stockpiles of Cold War era armaments and battle-harden the next generation of unaccountable and subcontract-able mercenary units?

What about the Yemen powder keg that is exploding and what about the current and ongoing collateral damages, dislocations and refugee crisis?

In one instance, international law isn’t relevant as Harper Loyalists proclaim that they are defending the autonomy of “Kurdistan” against a threatening “darker” ultra-far-right terrorist threat emanating from Syria that has no legal standing. One that, oddly enough, is fully armed with American equipment, hardware and armaments and has secured funding from several regional players with varied agendas. We need to remember that “Kurdistan” is a province within Iraq in what amounts to a breakaway region that has been planning and forming an independent State since at least 1991. It is rather obvious that the Sykes-Picot concept over and the position and/or agenda of the Kurds and that of the Iraq Government in Baghdad are not necessarily in sync. Their ultimate vision is the combination of the greater Kurdish regions that span across Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq or maybe the recreation of Assyria. This which would provide “space” for the Kurds to consolidate authority as well as provide regional protection for the remaining Christians and other targeted minorities. The only way for that to unfold would be if the primary players decided to seriously negotiate satisfactory representative regional agreements that settles the power/land dispute between the Sunni and Shiite populations in Iraq and Syria, below Kurdistan. These primary players would have to coordinate with Baghdad and Damascus and consider splitting off Sunni chunks into an independent state that lies between Syria and Iraq. With the hidden civil war in Iraq bubbling over and the chaos in Syria putting more pressure on the border, this seems like the most plausible end-goal as this strategically concentrated and central swath would be able to control the flow of resources and mercenaries between all of the surrounding nations and let the Sunni/Shiite and Islamaphobia battles ensue.

In another instance, in a quasi-mixed role reversal as far as international law is concerned, the autonomy of “Novorossiya” within the Ukraine is being denied to it’s inhabitants while they are being attacked by far-right mercenary groups funded international and regional players with diverging, converging and overlapping interests. Another odd twist with regards to interpretations and reinterpretations of international laws is in the way Crimean autonomy post 1991 has been interpreted

In a coinciding instance in Syria itself, much like the propaganda campaign to bomb freedom into Libya, an actual far-right terrorist threat was detected from a very small and problematic region and was identified as emanating from the same roots as the armed insurrection in Libya. In these cases, the media portrays these known terrorists as peaceful liberators and gives them a free pass to do their dirty deeds without question.

Then we have the Yemen civil war being reignited in what is a very strange play with regards to the loose application regarding international law, violating sovereignty and crossing borders. In this case, unlike Ukraine, the President that fled to safety abroad is given authority over the security situation. In some ways it almost seems as if there are some interesting energy power alliances behind the scenes that may be trying to isolate the House of Saud by drawing them into a trap in Syria or is the House of Saud is pursuing more calculated and nefarious deeds by isolating it’s own allies into convoluted quagmires with it’s adversaries and enemies.

Maybe Gaddafi was right, over the years he repeatedly told all of the Arab leaders that eventually they will all be deposed and replaced eventually, just like Saddam. It is probable that some of those leaders realized this threat existed, or quickly became aware with the prophetic demise of Gaddafi, and have been engaged in developing solid contingency plans for the stability of the most vital economic regions while destabilizing others in-between the regional economic hubs. This situation has the potential to close vital sea traffic between the Red Sea and Arabian Sea and if it accelerates quickly may well put the traffic thru the Persian Gulf at risk/mercy of counter measures since port and seaway blockades are typically dealt with with military means.

All of this will of coarse, allow the price of oil to rise. the problem is that the overall fuel savings did not provide any real measurable “spending the savings” injection into the economy. The price of fuel and energy went way up too fast and for far too long that it was a drain on the overall disposable income of everyone all along. We can now see what a negative effect the post economic crisis energy boom was really having. Considering actual inflation for necessities, Canadians have not seen any measurable savings in the retail, supply chain or transportation sectors due to the reduction in fuel costs, we know that any increases at the pumps, scales or meters will be felt hard by everyday Canadians.

The odd denominator is that even if we were still able to ignore the armed foreign factions, the peaceful anti-regime factions that were caught in the crossfire were all declared terrorists by some and/or liberators by others. Either way, with complete disregard to civilian casualties entire villages and communities are being bombed into ruins by their own government forces vs foreign funded mercenaries that are both engaged in scorched earth policies. Whomever keeps fighting for the most piles of rubble the longest, wins and eventual gains access to various economic aid and stimulus packages with the high interest portion of the debt shifted off as a Government obligation and the next to zero interest portion to the private interests

These facts along countless fronts and lines in-between sides and within context “paints” pretty much anyone and everyone as a hostile target, enemy and/or terrorist threat. It’s only a matter of time before someone/something of importance is downed and the tragedy and chaos that follows. It’s only a matter of time until some politico spouts off the wrong thing that lights the fuse.

Does any of this sound familiar? What about the “geographical” turf being disputed? Look at the “lines” and former boundaries of nations and empires after the tumultuous 1800’s that were drawn on paper pre-WWI. Look for connections to the competing oligarchs, moguls, robber-barons and profiteers that supported the pro-war expansionist parties and lobbies, some of the links still exist today.  and then follow whomever eventually held/holds the war debts of the winners and losers for more insight.

As in the past, the financial structure will be recalculated based upon the final holdings of the competing oligarchs and the division of power that will have afforded themselves. With these “rights” they will reserve the “right” to redraw secure trade routes, “lines” and boundaries in order to forcibly open new markets for some and close them to others. As far as Iraq is concerned, Harper advocated, without question, the deceptive 2003 strategy and subsequent invasion and destabilization of Iraq. Harper Loyalists and apologists ideologically accepted the potential for collateral damage and to this day are committed to pursing an opaque end goal of Middle East liberation and democratization, by hook or by crook. The plan is several years behind and like ll government projects, grossly over-budget and rife with corruption.

Has anyone considered that the “national” interests in Libya that Harper sent the Military to protect were none other than those of Canada’s former spy watchdog, Arthur Porter and other SNC Lavelin insiders? The timing of it all behind the backdrop of the “Arab Spring” that followed the financial “crisis” is rather intriguing. War provides a very effective duck, dust and cover opportunity for those with the inside power to wage war to their own benefit. It is also rather revealing how deep the plot(s) really are and how many of Harper’s current and past advisers and insiders have run amuck or gone rogue.

Moving back a bit to Ted Cruz and the upcoming Harper campaign, let’s ponder a few facts/fictions. The first point is that, in case anyone has not noticed, the far-right Ted Cruz will never win, period, but his “views” on Iraq/Syria, NATO and Ukraine will provide a nice background for Harper’s campaign with it’s shared agenda of instigating hostilities and division and discrediting honest questions, dialog and diplomatic/political compromise. His entry will serve to rally and kettle the far-right fringe groups into more manageable small subgroups that can/will be pigeonholed within the current North American Conservative/Republican base. They will, at least in the short term, be given maximum exposure followed by a carefully controlled rhetoric that mimics the views of the far-right in Canada. This is important because these are the far-right fringe groups that have felt betrayed by the Harper Regime. This propaganda tactic cements them into the Conservative caucus and this empowerment and coverage gives the formerly fractured fringe groups a vast illusion that they will ultimately benefit if victory is achieved, which will further radicalize them. This of coarse, will only radicalize and encourage other far-right-wing anti-elements to thrive. This sets the stage for the able, mobile and nimble enemy of the future to be created and fostered in much the same way as how, what was framed initially as an al Qaeda offshoot, IS/ISIL/ISIS has mystically conquered the Middle East. Strip out the foreign fighters and interventionists and one might be surprised that “We the People” know how to live side by side for the most part and what our regional and national interests are based upon facts on the ground, not dreaming and pondering of right-wing thinktanks.

To truly this perspective one must, at least partially, appreciate how intricate these apparatuses are linked, since this pro-war vs anti-war propaganda phenomenon has often been repeated. One only needs to look back to the pre-WWI era though the various national lenses, media presentations and political rhetoric compared to the rush into the Afghanistan and Iraq quagmires and fiasco in Libya. Keep in mind that the declared military campaign was to be “over by Christmas” and lasted years beyond and effectively set the stage for the Stock Market Crash and WWII that set the stage for the Cold War, etc. Since most publications are/were heavily censored depending upon the “official” states of war in each of these cases, one does need to differentiate between the sell-side war players, the active-side war players and the instigating, agitating warmongering and escalation sided players. Combine those sides together and the un-holy trio radicalizes into an axis with the powers of the Wall Street insider syndicates behind them.

Is it possible to acquire a true cost vs benefit to overall society analysis that is not based upon the ideological zero-sum economy that transforms sovereign state wealth into publicly subsidized debt and then concentrates the usury proceeds to the upper percentile? When one considers the above it seems as if the governments of “sovereign on paper” Nations are really nothing more than fronts for various financial criminal cabals and those that require capital.

Until next time, we’ll leave you with the following press release that pretty much sums up the state of the “independent” and “free” press…

News Release Article from  Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Statement by Jean-Pierre Blais, Chairman and CEO of the CRTC, on journalistic independence

March 25, 2015 – Ottawa-Gatineau – Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

One of the pillars of Canada’s broadcasting system—and, in fact, of our country’s democracy—is that journalists are able to report news stories independently and without undue editorial interference. This principle, along with other fundamental journalistic values, is enshrined in the Code of Ethics that was developed by RTDNA Canada (The Association of Electronic Journalists).

Further to section 2(3) of the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has been entrusted by Canadians, through Parliament, to defend the principles of fair comment, freedom of expression and journalistic independence.

That a regulated company does not like one of the CRTC’s rulings is one thing. The allegation, however, that the largest communication company in Canada is manipulating news coverage is disturbing. Holding a radio or television licence is a privilege that comes with important obligations that are in the public interest, especially in regards to high-quality news coverage and reporting.

An informed citizenry cannot be sacrificed for a company’s commercial interests. Canadians can only wonder how many times corporate interests may have been placed ahead of the fair and balanced news reporting they expect from their broadcasting system.

The RTNDA Code of Ethics is administered by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Canada’s private broadcasters, including CTV, are members of this independent body and must adhere to its codes of conduct. Complaints about this matter should be directed to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for investigation.

We expect Canada’s broadcasters to live up to their responsibilities and adhere to a high standard in their news and information programs.

– 30 –


Follow us on Twitter: @CRTCeng

Follow us on Facebook:

Media relations:
Tel.: 819-997-9403; Fax: 819-997-4245

General inquiries:
Tel.: 819-997-0313, TDD: 819-994-0423; Fax: 819-994-0218
Toll-free No.: 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
TDD – Toll-free No.: 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
Ask a question or make a complaint

These documents are available in alternative format upon request.


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

#Harper’s War(s): #Ukraine, #Iraq, #Censorship, #Propaganda and False Narratives #cdnpoli #pnpcbc #ctvpp

Just when we thought the Harper Regime’s fear-mongering and war-profiteering propaganda had no “legitimate” counter narratives thanks to gaslighting media conglomerates, yellow journalists and cowardly controlled Oppositions, Friday the 13th presented a couple of rather odd surprises from the most unusual sources. Thanks to an attempted censorship of an article/video published/uploaded 12Mar2015 by the Voice of America (VOA), an article that seemingly flew under the radar via  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) published 08Mar2015 and another under the radar article via ABC News published 11Mar2015, we can actually present some facts about the situation in Ukraine and Iraq/Syria that may come to a surprise to many but unsurprising to others. One may begin to wonder who “We the People” should really be afraid of, who the enemy actually is and who should be incarcerated for life.

Sadly, this tri-fecta is not really good for the actual People of Ukraine nor Iraq nor Syria or here, but you can be assured that the People of Ukraine and Iraq and Syria, and their respective regions, their collective peace, prosperity, safety and security, are feeling the full brunt of this wonton military adventurism and they certainly will not forget these omissions and facts.  While our attention is being diverted every which way but loose, the Harper Regime and their foreign partners are taking full advantage of the ongoing distractions and fear-mongering while at the same time coordinating very similar draconian legislation, such as Bill C-51, to curtail the fundamental liberties of the collective citizenry and populous. Let’s face the facts, the Harper Regime is merely going along, to get along.

Below, we will present everyone with 3 articles that should concern everyone for multiple reasons. After you take the time to review them, ponder the wars that are being sold by way of deceptive propaganda techniques sand the flooding of vast regions with weapons and armaments. Then question the role that the “legitimate” media conglomerates playing to sell these foreign endevours as legitimate and necessary as well as the way that our elected politicians are turning a blind eye to certain facts to go along, to get along. Discuss them with your friends, political representatives and adversaries alike. Upon reflection, utilize some critical thinking skills and ask yourself and decide for yourself, Cui bono?

The first article is the most recent and the one that prompted this summary that should stir the debate about the situation in Ukraine, who is fighting who and why. The article/video from the VOA was censored within a day of being published for some odd reason. Since this one requires a bit of an introduction, we will present an embedded summary video, that may also be viewed via our ytube channel, followed by screengrabs of the pages and the content of the original article.

Censored VOA: In Eastern Ukraine, Civilian Casualties Push Men to Join Rebels #cdnpoli

12mar2015 VOA In Eastern Ukraine, Civilian Casualties Push Men to Join Rebels Cached 12Mar2015 15:39:57 GMT
Cached 12Mar2015 15:39:57 GMT
VOA: In Eastern Ukraine, Civilian Casualties Push Men to Join Rebels Cached 13Mar2015 Page Not Found
Retrieved: 13Mar2015 Page Not Found

In Eastern Ukraine, Civilian Casualties Push Men to Join Rebels
Published March 12, 2015

After months of fighting in eastern Ukraine, the presence of the Ukrainian military and the shelling of civilian neighborhoods seem to be pushing more men to join the rebellion. VOA spent a day with a group of new recruits undergoing weapons and explosives training. Patrick Wells reports from Donetsk.


This article should cause alarm bells to go off far and wide, considering the non-stop, wall to wall coverage of a single suspicious recently slain politician in Russia. Oddly the “international” community is loud with regards to one individual in Russia yet completely silent about several suspiciously dead individuals in Ukraine. Once again, Cui bono?

Suicide Or Homicide? In Ukraine, Old-Guard Officials Dying Mysteriously

Mykola Serhiyenko apparently shot himself dead with a hunting rifle.

By Marichka Naboka
March 08, 2015

This year Ukraine has seen a bizarre string of deaths involving high-ranking officials, including a ex-city mayor, a former railway executive, and the former head of the state body in charge of privatization.

A total of five officials died in a single 34-day period between January 28 and February 28. In each case, the deaths have been ruled probable suicides. But the victims’ political allegiances and job histories have led many in Ukraine to suspect that the men were in fact murdered:

January 26 — Mykola Serhiyenko, the former first deputy chief of the state-run Ukrainian Railways, died in his Kyiv home after apparently shooting himself with a registered hunting rifle.

Investigators said Serhiyenko, 57, was alone at the time of the tragedy, and that all of the flat’s doors and windows had been locked shut from the inside and showed no signs of tampering.

Serhiyenko, who worked with Ukrainian Railways from April 2010 to April 2014, had been appointed to the post by Mykola Azarov, the former prime minister under Viktor Yanukovych. Azarov and Yanukovych are both wanted by Interpol on charges including embezzlement and misappropriation.

Oleksiy Kolesnyk

January 29 — Oleksiy Kolesnyk, the former head of the Kharkiv regional government, died after apparently hanging himself.

Kolesnyk, 64, did not leave a suicide note, but media and investigators have hinted he may have killed himself, noting that his death took place on the birthday of his friend and fellow politician, former Kharkiv Governor and Party of Regions ideologue Yevhen Kushnaryov, who died in 2007 after being shot on a hunting expedition.

Kolesnyk began serving as chair of the Kharkiv Regional Council in 2002, but resigned prematurely in 2004.

Serhiy Walter

February 25 — The former mayor of the southeastern city of Melitopol, 57-year-old Serhiy Walter, reportedly hanged himself. A member of the Party of Regions who had served as the head of Melitopol since 2010, Walter had been dismissed from his post in 2013 and put on trial for abuse of power and ties to organized crime.

Walter was forced to attend some 145 hearings during his trial, with prosecutors calling for 14 years’ imprisonment. Throughout the proceedings, he insisted he was innocent. Walter was due to attend a new hearing on the day he died.

Oleksandr Bordyuh

February 26 — One day after Walter’s death, the body of the 47-year-old deputy chief of the Melitopol police, Oleksandr Bordyuh, was found in a garage. According to news reports, Bordyuh’s former boss was a lawyer involved in Walter’s trial.

Media reported that the cause of Bordyuh’s death was ruled a “hypertensive crisis,” or stroke — a term that police frequently use in instances of suicide. Additional details were not provided.

Mykhaylo Chechetov

February 28 — Mykhaylo Chechetov, the ex-deputy chairman of the Party of Regions faction in Ukraine’s parliament, died after jumping or falling out of the window of his 17th-story apartment.

The death came just days after Chechetov was arrested for fraud and abuse of office stemming from his two years at the helm of the powerful State Property Fund. (Chechetov posted bond to avoid being held in pretrial detention.)

Chechetov’s time at the property fund, from April 2003 to April 2005, marked one of the busiest periods of post-Soviet privatization, with the steel giant Kryvorizhstal among the cut-rate sales made during his tenure. The plant, notoriously, was sold to a group that included the son-in-law of former President Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Pinchuk, for just $850 million. (In October 2005, Viktor Yushchenko reversed the sale, reselling a 93-percent stake in the plant to Mittal Steel for $4.8 billion.)

Anton Herashchenko, a Popular Front lawmaker and adviser to the Interior Ministry, has speculated that Chechetov may have been driven to suicide by fellow old-guard members whose role in the deal stood to be exposed by his testimony. “It’s a shame we’ll never get to learn all of the interesting things we would have heard from Chechetov’s evidence,” he wrote on Facebook.

Chechetov isn’t the first head of the State Property Fund to die an unnatural death.

On August 27, 2014 the body of Valentina Semenyuk-Samsonenko was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head, with a gun lying nearby. She led the agency from April 2005 to December 2008. Her family told reporters they dismissed the possibility of suicide, saying that she had spoken fearfully of someone taking out a contract on her life.

The third death of an official tied to Ukraine’s privatization took place even earlier. In May 1997, the head of the Crimean branch of the State Property Fund, Oleksiy Holovizin, was killed in the entryway of his house.

Lawmaker Ihor Lutsenko, a member of the new government’s anticorruption committee, wrote in Ukrainska Pravda that eliminating Property Fund chiefs makes it almost impossible to reverse corrupt privatization sales, like that of Kryvorizhstal.

“Semenyuk and Chechetov won’t be saying anything,” he wrote. “And that will cost us, the citizens of Ukraine, tens of billions of dollars.”

The recent string of deaths comes 10 years after two more resonant cases that followed closely on the heels of the Orange Revolution. Heorhiy Kirpa, transport minister under Kuchma, was found dead in late December, 2004. His death came two days after the rerun of the second round of presidential elections that handed Yushchenko the win over Yanukovych.

The following March, Kuchma’s former interior minister, Yuriy Kravchenko, died one day after being called as a witness in the resurrected case of slain journalist Heorhiy Gongadze.

Both deaths were officially ruled suicides — even though, in Kravchenko’s case, it had taken two gunshots to kill him.

Written in Prague by Daisy Sindelar based on reporting in Kyiv by Marichka Naboka


Now this article is the most troubling since it not only affects the credibility of the military interventions, but it also poses the greatest threat to our soldiers that are being deployed. make no mistake, if ABC News decided to run this story, it has already been widely disseminated abroad by so called enemies and allies alike. This is where the Harper Regime has sent our special forces to “train” Iraqi soldiers/miltia and where they want to deploy even more in an offensive capacity. It may be time to question this misguided mission before more flag draped coffins begin to arrive home. Does anyone really believe that those foreign funded mercenaries or our so called allies in Iraq/Syria can tell the difference between an American and Canadian? Once again, Cui bono?

‘Dirty Brigades’: US-Trained Iraqi Forces Investigated for War Crimes
Mar 11, 2015, 2:18 PM ET

PHOTO: A bound and blindfolded detainee appears to be dropped – or possibly hung from the neck according to one analyst — from what looks like an Iraqi military base guard tower. The image was posted on Instagram.

A bound and blindfolded detainee appears to be dropped – or possibly hung from the neck according to one analyst — from what looks like an Iraqi military base guard tower. The image was posted on Instagram.

Obtained by ABC News

U.S.-trained and armed Iraqi military units, the key to the American strategy against ISIS, are under investigation for committing some of the same atrocities as the terror group, American and Iraqi officials told ABC News. Some Iraqi units have already been cut off from U.S. assistance over “credible” human rights violations, according to a senior military official on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff.

The investigation, being conducted by the Iraqi government, was launched after officials were confronted with numerous allegations of “war crimes,” based in part on dozens of ghastly videos and still photos that appear to show uniformed soldiers from some of Iraq’s most elite units and militia members massacring civilians, torturing and executing prisoners, and displaying severed heads.

The videos and photos are part of a trove of disturbing images that ABC News discovered has been circulating within the dark corners of Iraqi social media since last summer. In some U.S. military and Iraqi circles, the Iraqi units and militias under scrutiny are referred to as the “dirty brigades.”

“As the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] and militias reclaim territory, their behavior must be above reproach or they risk being painted with the same brush as ISIL [ISIS] fighters,” said a statement to ABC News from the U.S. government. “If these allegations are confirmed, those found responsible must be held accountable.”

[In an image posted on Instagram, six black-uniformed men who appear to be Iraqi Special Operations Forces from the “Golden Brigades” surround an alleged ISIS suspect who has been dragged with a rope or cable tied to his foot.]

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, along with international human rights advocates and military experts, called the photos evidence of Iraqi “war crimes.”

“I guarantee you ultimately we get blamed for it whether we did it or not,” Leahy predicted.

Under what is known as the Leahy Law, the U.S. is required to cut off funds to any foreign military unit when there is “credible evidence” of human rights violations. In Iraq the responsibility of determination falls to the Department of Defense. In recent Senate testimony, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed the Iraqi investigation had been ordered and said the Leahy Law applies to units operating alongside the many militias also fighting in Iraq against ISIS.

“I would say that involves the Leahy Law,” Leahy recently told ABC News after viewing the shocking imagery. “And I’d argue that we should be withholding money.”

According to the Pentagon, the U.S. already has. In a statement to ABC News, the Joint Staff official revealed that in the months since the U.S. began airstrikes and military assistance to Iraq last August, “We have withheld assistance from certain Iraqi units on the basis of credible information in the past. Due to the sensitive nature of our security assistance, we are unable to discuss specific units.”

In Washington today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers the U.S. military is keeping a close eye on the militias as well.

“What we are watching carefully is whether the militias — they call themselves the popular mobilization forces — whether when they recapture lost territory, whether they engage in acts of retribution and ethnic cleansing,” he said.

An Iraqi government spokesperson previously said while the dozens of photos could be ISIS propaganda, a full investigation was warranted.

“Yes, of course we will investigate these pictures,” the spokesperson, Gen. Saad Maan, said in an interview in Baghdad as he viewed a selection of images provided by ABC News.

“We don’t have anything to hide,” the general said. “We don’t have anything to be in, let’s say, in a black corner.”

[A bound and blindfolded detainee appears to be dropped – or possibly hung from the neck according to one analyst — from what looks like an Iraqi military base guard tower. The image was posted on Instagram.]

The Iraqi military is key to the U.S. strategy to fight ISIS and stop its atrocities, which have outraged the world. The U.S. is shipping almost $1 billion in weapons, as well as providing U.S. military trainers to instruct new Iraqi recruits. A special operations official in Baghdad, however, said it’s the government of Iraq that decides — not the Pentagon — which Iraqi units get U.S.-donated weapons, such as 43,000 M4 rifles and thousands of other light infantry weapons Congress approved for shipment in December. American troops are not known to be operating on the ground in combat in Iraq or Syria. No Americans are shown in the images or footage ABC News has found, nor have any Americans been implicated in any of the alleged atrocities.

Officials from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International who reviewed the library of horrors assembled in the ABC News investigation said it is rare to see so much visual evidence of human rights abuses.

“Usually when forces commit such crimes they try to hide them. What we are seeing here is a brazen, proud display of these terrible crimes,” Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East Executive Director at Human Rights Watch, said in an interview as she and the group’s lead investigator in Iraq, Erin Evers, surveyed the carnage.

ABC News came upon the first such images last September, when a reporter following personal Instagram accounts of Iraqi counter-terrorism troops spotted a video of a handcuffed prisoner shot in the head by a man in camouflage — which more than 600 users “liked.” The English and Arabic captions by a self-identified member of the Iraqi security forces said, “We have arrested this terrorist yesterday and we killed him after completion of interrogation.”

A separate photo posted in September showed the severed head of a long-haired and bearded alleged ISIS fighter lashed to the grill of a U.S.-donated Humvee bearing an Iraqi Army license plate. A second related photo eventually surfaced of what appeared to be an Iraqi Army soldier holding up the same severed head next to the gun truck. Desecration of war dead and extrajudicial killings are violations of the Geneva Conventions.

“You don’t behead someone and place their head on the front of your Humvee. That’s unacceptable — because it’s a war crime. And it’s an atrocity,” retired U.S. Army Special Forces Lt. Col. James Gavrilis told ABC News.

As a senior officer in 5th Special Forces Group in Iraq a decade ago, Gavrilis was deeply involved in counterinsurgency during the U.S. war and creating Iraqi counter-terrorism units from Special Forces and special police teams.

“I think it’s horrible. I think this really shows a failure of our policy for Iraq,” Gavrilis said, confirming that the imagery looked authentic and too plentiful online to be faked.

“Both sides are committing war crimes,” he said. “This is widespread, it’s endemic.”

[A man wearing a uniform with a patch that appears to be from the Emergency Response Brigade steps on two severed heads in a photo posted on Instagram.]

In another video posted online in October, two unarmed civilians are shot to death after being questioned, and denying, whether they were part of ISIS. When the camera pans to one man with a gun, he appears to be wearing a uniform and shoulder patch of Iraqi Special Forces, with Iraqi Army officers also nearby observing the atrocity.

Fighters who appear to be a mix of militia and army appearing in a separate 78-second video circulating in January — including some wearing Iraqi flags and Iraqi Special Forces patches — take pictures of a captured teenaged boy who appears terrified. “Didn’t you just shoot?” demands one fighter. The handcuffed boy, shoved to the ground, insists, “No, no, I did not shoot a single bullet.”

The men argue over whether to kill him, some asking the others to calm down, but they shoot him to death anyway as the sound of mortars and gunfire nearby punctuate the crime. “This is to avenge the martyrs,” one man says.

“I’ve seen all sorts of horrible things over the years… but I have never seen anything this bad in my life,” said Ali Khedery, an American former diplomat in Baghdad who advised five U.S. ambassadors in the Iraqi capital and three generals overseeing Middle East operations at U.S. Central Command.

Khedery recently wrote in Foreign Policy about another video, where a man was beaten and machine gunned to death by a gang who appeared to be both militias and Iraqi Special Forces with U.S.-donated M4A1 rifles. He said the video slaughter of the Iraqis accused by their killers of smuggling weapons for ISIS was far worse, because Iraqi government troops were present.

“It was the shooting of unarmed men. This is a U.S.-backed government. They carried U.S. weapons,” he said.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities say they have been working to fully authenticate the content posted online on sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter connected to the Iraqi military. The uniforms and insignia of Iraqi Special Operations Forces under the command of Baghdad’s Counter-Terrorism Forces as well as special police and Emergency Response units from the Ministry of the Interior are clearly identifiable in many of the photos and videos, which include many severed heads and corpses dragged behind humvees.

Gen. Maan, the Iraqi government spokesperson, claimed the patches identifying Iraqi military units could be bought on Iraqi streets and that the gruesome images could be a clever ploy by ISIS to discredit the Iraqi military.

[The patches worn by the men in one of the photos posted to Instagram appear to match the patches of the Iraqi Emergency Response Brigade (E.R.B.), a counter-terrorism unit within the Ministry of Interior.]

“It does not look like ISIS propaganda at all,” Gavrilis said. “I don’t know how we could support them, if they are spearheading a lot on the front lines alongside these militias, and if they are conducting these kinds of atrocities as well… These Shi’a militias are just as barbaric as ISIS.”

Some militias take pride in their atrocities and appear to often be calling the shots on the battlefield, not the government forces, BloombergView columnist Eli Lake found when he recently visited the front lines north of Baghdad.

Officials said that the State Department’s human rights observers and military intelligence had viewed examples of Iraqi Security Forces posting atrocities on personal social media for over a year. But one knowledgeable U.S. official said that since ABC News began asking about the many disturbing images last fall, the atrocities allegations against Iraq’s fighting forces have grown “more severe” and the “very concerning” allegations are being raised at high levels in Baghdad.

The Pentagon spokesperson told ABC News the U.S. military has “discussed with Iraqi leaders the paramount importance of maintaining high standards of conduct and protecting civilian populations of all sects.”

“The actions of a small minority, if left unchecked, could do serious harm to the efforts of the Iraqi government,” the spokesperson said.

With several thousand American troops back in Iraq as trainers, the alleged atrocities by Iraqi troops puts U.S. military commanders in the unenviable position of having to sort out which units are clean or dirty, Gavrilis said.

[The severed head of an alleged ISIS fighter is being held up by a desert camouflage-uniformed individual in front of a Humvee in this image uploaded to Instagram. Patches on his uniform match those often worn by the Iraqi Army.]

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights last month released a report on Iraq that both condemned ISIS for its campaign of killings verging on genocide, but also criticized Iraqi Security Forces for military operations that “which may have amounted to war crimes.”

Last March, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor also issued its own damning report on Iraq, stating that government officials under then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki committed “extrajudicial killings” — meaning battlefield executions of ISIS suspects and killing individuals in custody without trial.

“Ministry of Interior officials tortured detainees to death, according to reports from multiple government officials and human rights organizations,” read the annual report. The Bureau explicitly fingered the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Forces and Interior Ministry’s special police units — which the U.S. established, trained and armed from 2003-2011, and whose troops are seen in many of the atrocities images.

But the State report was issued before the U.S. began airstrikes in Iraq last August to assist security forces in successfully retaking the Mosul Dam, and long before President Obama deployed thousands of American infantrymen, special operations forces and enablers back into Iraq beginning last fall to assist the Iraqis in fighting ISIS. A new report is expected soon, officials said.

Now that the alleged war crimes of the U.S.-backed forces have become public, the Iraqi spokesman stressed that his government will not tolerate “bad behavior.”

Using the Arabic slang for ISIS, Gen. Maan said, “We do not allow any person to be a savage like Daesh.”

ABC News’ Divya Kumar, Cho Park, Rhonda Schwartz, Randy Kreider and Lee Ferran contributed to this report.

[A black uniformed individual holds the severed head of a purported Saudi ISIS fighter while standing on top of a black-painted Humvee. In the background, a man wears two patches signifying the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s Emergency Response Brigade.]


Cui bono?



Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

#Harper’s War(s): Ten + Reasons to Vote Against the Use of Military Force #cdnpoli #GPC #NDP #LPC #CPC

With the hyper-accelerations and unprecedented fear-mongering campaign being waged upon “We the People” of Canada and our “Allies” with regards to the “terrorist” threat posed by IS/ISIL/ISIS. With the recent tragic friendly-fire death of a Canadian soldier, the reports that an Agent employed by a Canadian intelligence organization was involved in the delivery of the 3 U.K. schoolgirls into Syria and the media blackout by the Canadian media conglomerates regarding the very important Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled “The President’s Request for Authorization to Use Force Against ISIS: Military and Diplomatic Efforts” (AUMF), we feel it is necessary to republish an open letter by former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich Members of Congress detailing 10 reasons to vote against the use of military force.

The reason this is of utmost importance is that the Harper Regime is hell-bent on furthering our military intervention and has thus far been less than transparent, actually rather deceptive and opaque, regarding our role in Iraq/Syria and beyond while the U.S. is proposing an initial 3 year open ended commitment. According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, President Barack Obama’s proposed resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Islamic State contains no geographic limitations. The proposal allows attacks on “associated persons or forces” or any “closely related successor entity” to IS/ISIL/ISIS that is at war with the United States or its partners.

Yes, this is the very same Dennis Kucinich that announced the raising of the Al Qaeda flag over the courthouse in Benghazi in Libya back in November 2011 after the “successful liberation” of Libya by NATO air power. Oddly enough, the Canadian military predicted Libya would descend into civil war and Top Pentagon officials distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya as well.

We may also presume why John Baird has decided to “quit” the game of geo-poltics, maybe there was too much blood on his hands and realized that the fix is in within the Harper Regime. Now this is extremely problematic considering the rush by the war-mongering Harper Regime to ram Bill C-51 through and the implications of these combined issues. Within a few days we have several “Allies” that are publicly stating views that counter the narrative of not only the Harper Regime, but our so called “free and independent” media conglomerates. Unlike the coordinated one-sided Ukraine/Russia propaganda campaign, this poses such an interesting and convoluted conundrum that even the AP and Reuters can’t seem to deliver a straight storyline. This is presumably, much like the dueling Israel/Iran narrative, due to the fact that their dueling narratives reach a much broader audience on both sides of the false left/right paradigm with the single solid connection that there are a small group of fear-mongering war-profiteering NeoCons within both “official” political Parties, whether they may be Liberal/Democrats or Conservative/Republicans. Below this open letter, we will embed the above mentioned video uploaded by former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich along with another article titled “How Governments Twist Terrorism” since there seems to be no clear “definition” being presented by the Harper Regime with regards to Bill C-51 and the Harper Regime members of the Committee seem to have a serious problem asking questions of the witnesses and instead are presenting monologs to the witnesses.

Ten Reasons to Vote Against the Use of Military Force

Dear Colleague,

I was honored to serve in Congress for 16 years. During that time I provided information and helped to create debates over U.S. policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other nations, defending the Article I, Section 8 responsibilities of Congress on matters of war and peace. Those of you who know me are aware that I avoid partisanship. I have challenged Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Congress rightfully lacks confidence in this administration, given its bungling of a war against Libya and its general mishandling of international policy.

Why would Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, be so ready to give up its constitutional power to this president with an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which represents a wholesale appropriation of war power?

This could be one of the most important votes you will ever cast, so I want to share with you, collegially, information that I hope will be of use in your deliberations.

I present some thoughts for your consideration as you enter into a momentous, new debate over the authorization of military force, this time against the Islamic State.

This could be one of the most important votes you will ever cast, so I want to share with you, collegially, information that I hope will be of use in your deliberations.

Here are 10 reasons why Congress should not grant the president authority to use military force against the Islamic State, based on fact, consequences and the U.S. Constitution:

  1.  ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. homeland.

Writing in The American Conservative, Senior Editor Daniel Larison points out that the U.S. is taking on an unnecessary risk:

“… the U.S. mistakenly volunteers to address a regional security problem that poses no real threat to America, [while] its regional partners do as little as they can get away with, and in some cases stop doing even that in order to get the U.S. to take additional risks on their behalf.”

If the U.S. enters the fray, of course, regional partners will let us do the fighting.

There is no credible information available that indicates ISIS is a direct threat to the U.S. According to a Wall Street Journal article, “Lawmakers Told Islamic State Isn’t Terror Threat on U.S. Soil,” Congress has already been advised by U.S. counterterrorism officials that ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. homeland. Additionally, no new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has been produced alleging ISIS is a direct threat to America. However, an all-out U.S. war against ISIS could expose America to unnecessary threats, without any national security benefits.

  1. The AUMF disingenuously calls for a “limited” war, while it is written to guarantee a permanent war, thus nullifying the power of the people’s representatives in Congress.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were vitally concerned with the separation of powers, especially when it came to war. The power to declare war is vested in the Congress, in Article I, Section 8. The AUMF is written to enable the administration to conduct war, unilaterally, against any group, anywhere, at any time, over a period of three years, which opposing combatants will ignore.

If the administration succeeds in gaining approval for this particular AUMF, it will not have to return to Congress for approval as it takes its war from nation to nation. This is clearly contrary to the intent of the founders. It weakens Congress’ constitutional power (checks and balances) and undermines the Constitution.

  1. The AUMF is a blank check and a fiscal black hole.

Since the AUMF sets the stage for a worldwide conflict, the cost of action will run into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, particularly if ground troops are involved in a war with religious overtones that go back 14 centuries. This war will inevitably require an emergency wartime supplemental appropriation and massive borrowing, adding to the $16 trillion U.S. deficit and weakening the U.S. economy internally while providing great wealth to war profiteers who are already draining America’s wealth.

  1. Regional armies appear to be rising to their own defense; U.S. presence will escalate war.

At this very moment ISIS is finally under pressure from Iraqi forces and pro-government militias, without U.S. boots on the ground. Additionally, ISIS is said to be experiencing internal pressures and conflicts. The Washington Post points out: “The Islamic State is battling major offensives waged on at least three fronts — by Kurds in northern Syria, Kurds in northern Iraq and the combined force of Iraqi army and Shiite militia fighters advancing on the central Iraqi city of Tikrit.”

“…the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An [U.S.] invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide … they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims.” — Graeme Wood in the Atlantic Magazine, March 2015.

ISIS desperately needs to draw the U.S. in, to provide a rallying cry “against the foreign invader.” Why should America put our troops in harm’s way to provide this terrorist organization with new life, especially since armies in the region are stepping up to take the fight to ISIS?

In the AUMF, the president wants language that provides for U.S. ground forces to have “flexibility.” Read: “Boots on the ground!” If Congress passes the AUMF, it will have no say in the conduct of this war, except for appropriations.

  1. The U.S. could get drawn into a worldwide religious war.

President Obama says, “We are not at war against Islam.” Congressional approval of the president’s request for the AUMF against the Islamic State will change that quickly. The AUMF will become a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS. How else will it be interpreted abroad, other than America at war with Islam? The U.S. could blunder into a complex, multidimensional conflict with explicit religious overtones, no matter what the president says.

ISIS wants to draw the U.S. into a religious war, to secure its role as the self-proclaimed defender of Islam against crusading foreign invaders.

Jihadis, anticipating a great war for Islam, have streamed into the region from all over the world to join ISIS ranks. An estimated 20,000 fighters from 90 nations have converged to fight alongside ISIS.

“This is a fight the Islamic State should be denied. And yet we should have learned that it is a bad idea to get into a ground war with people whose idea of victory is martyrdom.” — Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2015.

  1. ISIS and Al Qaeda are divided. US re-entry into war could unite them.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are in a deep rift. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri differ on strategy, tactics, methods, religious interpretations and on Baghdadi’s establishment of a caliphate.

An all-out U.S. military attack against ISIS will force Al Qaeda into an alliance it does not want, to join ISIS in a “fight against Western invaders,” creating a united front much stronger and more deadly to America and her allies.

  1. A Solution: Follow ISIS’ money, and shut it down.

Where is ISIS getting its money? Up to 100,000 ISIS fighters are funded by Gulf State donors, identified in the past as being from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Fully equipping and providing for one modern combat-ready soldier can cost $850,000 to $1,000,000 a year. ISIS’ army could be gaining $85 billion to $100 billion a year from various sources. We can either commit the U.S. military to another war, and the U.S. to further risk of impending attacks through the genesis of a new crusade, or we can fight this threat with intelligent power and high technology.

The administration must identify the specific sources of ISIS’ money, the individuals, the nations and the means of transfer, and shut them all down. It must sanction countries and individuals, tie up their bank accounts and commercial activities, freeze their assets and cancel their credit cards. Send platoons of accountants from the Treasury Department and the IRS into the fray, not platoons of U.S. soldiers. The U.S. must track oil sales, sales of antiquities and other valuables. Anyone involved in any transactions of any kind with ISIS must be identified and sanctioned.

  1. Solution: Cyber response.

The U.S. has the ability to identify and disrupt terror networks using digital technology. The CIA, in a major reorganization, has just created a fifth directorate, the Directorate of Digital Innovation, in recognition that intelligent power means using the most technologically advanced tools available. For its part, the NSA, which has admitted gaps, is also strengthening its information collecting. If, as Clausewitz said, “War is the continuation of politics by other means,” in the 21st century we  have other means to avoid a “boots on the ground” shooting war.

  1. Endless wars enable Washington to ignore a domestic agenda.

It has been said that others attack us in order to destroy the way we live. Since 9/11, our own government has been responsible for shredding the Constitution through wars of choice and the imposition of a national security state with a permanent state of emergency.

The U.S. now spends about $1 trillion a year to “defend” America using lethal means. Yet the more money we spend, the greater the peril. Why? Meanwhile, at home, America’s middle class is falling apart, wages and benefits have dropped, retirement savings have vanished and Wall Street and war profiteers clean up. Americans, punished through unwarranted, massive surveillance, have forfeited constitutional rights and civil liberties. The right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, has been destroyed in the name of security.

  1. The time has come for the U.S. to review the effects of interventionism.

ISIS grew out of U.S. interventions. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria have disintegrated into chaos and violence. The price tag has been extraordinary in loss of human life and the cost of trillions of dollars. Bad judgments, misinformation and even lies have caused our nation to intervene, inspiring radical elements, stoking the fires of nationalism and engendering religious conflict. A great price has been paid and continues to be paid by our troops and their families.

This is the time for Congress and the administration to rethink the failed national security strategy, the failed doctrine of intervention, the failed “right to protect” doctrine and the abominable intrusion into the private lives of Americans.

Congress must refuse to give up its constitutional power under Article I, Section 8 and hold the executive branch in check on matters of war. It should defeat the AUMF and stop the administration from spreading war around the world.

Congress has a new opportunity to get control of runaway spending and keep America strong without wasting resources. In my early years in Congress, I was shocked to learn, from the inspector general to the Department of Defense, that DOD had over $1 trillion in accounts that could not be reconciled. According to the GAO, the Army “lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch units.” The Constitution, Article I, Section 9, requires an accounting. With the national security budget at $1 trillion annually, and trillions spent for wars of choice, and a trillion unaccounted for, and countless billions in cost overruns, the question is who is defending the taxpayers?

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force provides a new opportunity for a much-needed debate over the direction of America, our priorities and the best way to protect our nation from harm. Thank you for considering my views.


Dennis Kucinich
Member of Congress 1997 – 2013


Uploaded on Nov 2, 2011

Hi, Congressman Dennis Kucinich here. I just got off the phone with a very well-known talk show host from Cleveland, Mike Trivisonno, who told me about calls that he is getting from people who are concerned that there is an Al Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi in Libya. It was put there by the same group that we helped to oust the Gaddafi regime.

What is going on in America? On the one hand, we have soldiers dying in Afghanistan fighting Al Qaeda. On the other hand, we just helped a group of people take over Libya and the Al Qaeda flag is flying over their capital city headquarters.

What are we doing? It is time for America to get its story and its priorities straight about what we stand for as a nation. Its time to get out of all these wars and all of these conflicts where we think we can play both sides against the middle and it usually ends up with U.S. soldiers getting killed.

Its time to bring our troops home and take care of things here at home. As we approach Veteran’s Day 2011, we should really honor those who serve by having a foreign policy that is straight. That speaks directly to the concerns of the American people. That is mindful of the fact that we can’t tell the whole world what to do and we have an obligation to get our own house in order here at home and put people back to work.


How Governments Twist Terrorism
By Philip Giraldi | March 12, 2015

States craft terror definitions and designations to absolve themselves and satisfy their constituencies.

The Washington Post reports that “terrorism trend lines are ‘worse than at any other point in history.’” But what is terrorism? It has frequently been pointed out that “terrorism” is a tactic, not an actual physical adversary, but it is less often noted that a simple definition of what constitutes terrorism is hardly universally accepted, while the designation itself is essentially political. The glib assertion that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter fails to capture the distinction’s consequences as the terror label itself increasingly comes with a number of legal and practical liabilities attached. Describing an organization as terroristic in order to discredit it has itself become a tactic, and one that sometimes has only limited connections to what the group in question actually believes or does.

The bone of contention in defining terrorism is where to draw the line in terms of the use of violence in furtherance of a political objective. In practice, it is generally accepted that state players who employ violence do so within a social framework that confers legitimacy, while nonstate players who use political violence are ipso facto terrorists, or at least susceptible to being tagged with that label, which confers upon them both illegitimacy and a particularly abhorrent criminality. But some on the receiving end of such a Manichean distinction object, noting that the laws defining terror are themselves drawn up by the governments and international organizations, which inevitably give themselves a pass in terms of their own potential liability. They would argue that established regimes will inevitably conspire to label their enemies terrorists to marginalize both resistance movements and internal dissent in such a way as to diminish the credibility of the groups that are so targeted. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has recently been doing precisely that, and one might reasonably argue that government use of violence is often in practice indistinguishable from the actions of nonstate players.

Some common dictionary definitions of terrorism include engaging in “the systematic use of terror,” surely an indication of the inscrutability of an issue when the word must be used to define itself. The United Nations has been unsuccessfully negotiating a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism since 2002 that would define terror as causing death or serious injury or destroying or damaging public or private property “to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”   The United States Federal criminal code uses similar language, as does the Patriot Act, with the key elements being the use of violence or physical destruction to “intimidate or coerce” a civilian population or an existing government.

Governments are aware of what can be accomplished by invoking the word “terrorism.” The diplomacy-averse United States frequently hides behind the label, as it is prohibited by law from negotiating with groups so-labeled, and thereby avoids having to confront the possible legitimacy of what they represent. And it also justifies a uniformly violent response, which is invariably described as self-defense.

Fourteen years ago the “global war on terror” was used to justify wholesale American intervention in predominantly Muslim countries. A number of European countries, including France and Britain, have followed the example of the two Patriot Acts by introducing antiterrorism legislation that provides special police and intelligence service authorities that limit normal legal protections in terrorism cases. The broadly written laws have largely rendered the authorities immune from either regulation or prosecution, and governments in the West have generally been reluctant to allow any third-party inquiries into the related behavior of military and police forces. In the United States the state secret privilege, originally intended to prohibit the exposure of classified information in court, has been used to completely derail judicial proceedings relating to offenses allegedly committed by the government in terrorism cases.

And critics of the essentially hypocritical double standard used in defining terrorism certainly have a point. One might reasonably argue that the use of drones, in which “signature” targets are killed because they match a profile, fits comfortably within the definition of terrorism. During 2003-4, American Army and Marine forces in Fallujah sometimes shelled and bombed targets in the city indiscriminately and were certainly responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths. The Israeli Defense Forces killed thousands of civilians in two incursions into Gaza as well as several attacks on Lebanon. There was no declaration of war to justify the use of armed force in either case, and independent observers noted that many of the civilian casualties could have been avoided, normally a defining factor that makes an incident terror. Both Israel and the United States turned the tables on the situation by referring to their opponents and victims as “terrorists.” There has been no accountability for the deaths because it was two governments that carried out the killing.

In a world seemingly obsessed with terrorism it was inevitable that something like an anti-terrorism industry would grow dramatically. Every television and radio network has its own stable of pundits who pontificate on every violent incident, and there also are well-compensated freelancers, who describe themselves as experts, such as Evan Kohlmann and Steve Emerson. Emerson recently had to apologize after claiming that Birmingham, England had a number of no-go areas controlled by local Muslim extremists.

It should be no surprise that lawyers have now also gotten into the game. In 1996 Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which allows victims of terrorism to file civil suits in federal and state courts against sponsors or supporters of terrorism. Once you have a group or individual labeled as terrorist, or providing assistance to terrorists, there are a number of options you can pursue. The burgeoning antiterrorism industry appears to be in some ways linked to the increasing employment of Lawfare, which uses the legal system to wage war by alternative means, making it possible to obtain a favorable judgment and damages from the assets of a recognized terrorist organization. Such litigation benefits from favorable legislation in the United States that makes terrorism a worldwide crime subject to U.S. judicial review.

Recent court cases have involved both states that allegedly sponsor terrorism or actual organizations that are now parts of governments that either currently or at one time were perceived to be terrorists. Many of the groups targeted are enemies of Israel, and the Israeli Lawfare center Shurat HaDin is most active in pursuing such litigation. In a recent case in New York City, the Palestinian Authority was successfully sued by a group of Israelis and Americans over terrorist attacks that took place in Israel in 2002-4. If the appeal fails, the Palestinian Authority will be required to pay $1 billion in damages and will be bankrupted, with negative consequences for the United States, which has been seeking to create a viable government on the West Bank.

The U.S. Department of State identifies four countries as state sponsors of terrorism, making them prime targets for sanctions and other legal action. They are Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran. Cuba is an anomaly as it has not threatened anyone in decades but remains on the list due to the deep passions within America’s politically powerful Cuban Lobby. Sudan likewise should not be so designated, as even the U.S. government admits that it is cooperative on terrorism issues.

This leaves Syria and Iran, both of which are regarded as state sponsors of terrorism even though both are themselves victims of terrorist attacks carried out by groups supported by the United States. They are on the list because they harbor or cooperate with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. All three groups consider themselves to be resistance movements against the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, but Israel regards all three as terrorists, a view shared by the United States on the state department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. That viewpoint is not necessarily shared by many European governments, which regard the organizations as having evolved into legitimate political parties. There are also thousands of individuals and groups considered to be terroristic or criminal, collected by the U.S. Department of Justice on its Special Designated Nationals List. Individuals and organizations on the list have their assets blocked and are subject to other punitive action by the United States government.

Being designated by the Department of the Treasury or state does not necessarily mean that someone or some organization was actually involved in terrorism. The Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity, was declared a terrorist organization in 2001. Its officers were convicted and imprisoned in a 2008 trial because the Treasury Department determined ex post facto that it had given money to Hamas before that group was itself named as a terrorist organization.

Inclusion on the State or Treasury lists can mean that there is solid evidence of wrongdoing, but it can also represent mere insinuations or a strong desire to see a group singled out for punishment. In any event, once a group or person is designated for a list, it is difficult to get off. Organizations that have not engaged in terrorist activity for many years remain on the list while other groups that are active escape censure. Recently, the Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that killed six Americans in the 1970s, was removed from the list under political pressure from Congress and the media. Again, Israel was involved. MEK is an enemy of the current government in Tehran and is itself an important component of the Israeli intelligence effort against Iran, having been involved in the fabrication of information suggesting that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program as well as participating in the assassinations of Tehran’s scientists.

So what terrorism actually consists of very much depends on one’s perspective, rendering the word itself largely meaningless. But those who are listed as terrorists experience real consequences even accepting that the designation is both selectively applied and politicized. The United States and Israel in particular use the terrorism label to demonize opponents, drum up fear, and generate popular support for security policies that might otherwise be unpalatable. They also justify their own behavior by asserting that they occupy the moral high ground in the defense of the world against terror, a claim that certainly should be regarded with considerable skepticism.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.



Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

#Harper’s War(s): #Canada vs #C51 vs #CSIS vs #RCMP – #cdnpoli #pnpcbc

In our previous brief summary,  The Rise of the #NeoBolsheviks aka #NeoCons, we touched upon the various similarities between the Harper Regime and the Bolsheviks counter-revolution that violently seized power in Russia in 1917. For this brief summary we will pose a few questions and issues that seem to be missing from the current discourse, dissemination, conversation, reporting and debate about Bill C-51.

When will the Opposition and those opposed to the Orwellian and dystopian Bill C-51 mobilize in mass protests and how long will they remain committed?

Before we delve into the content, or lack thereof, we feel it is necessary to question the “Bread and Circuses” methods that are being utilized to “frame and mandate” the debate via the MSM and social media. The easiest way to present this is by utilizing our own CBC News coverage. At a later date we hop to present a summary that compiles the result of our in-depth analysis into how the CBC News and especially CBC’s Power and Politics, and to a lesser degree the Exchange, are nothing more than well organized and scripted “Limited Hangouts” that are engaging in a full spectrum “Gaslighting” operation against the citizenry that is being guided directly via the PMO. Not only are the hosts actively engaged but the supporting staff and reporters, guests, panelists, lobbyists and free-lance journalists are as well. This does nothing but cast a broad cloud of suspicion and call into question their own ethics and legitimacy. This harms our economy, society, peace, safety and security more than anything and everything else combined.

The short and simple overview is that the primary mandate is one that completely reinforces the PMO scripts and message about the geo-political and economic environment with a shrewd blend of “Yellow Journalism” and a tightly “Controlled Opposition” counter narrative when necessary, if at all. To observe this one only needs to inspect the language that is crafted within their coverage and articles and how “Sockpuppets” and carefully placed commentary divert the comments sections and social media discussions.

For the above to be addressed, we propose a few remedies that may open the debate and conversion. In our opinion, the collective Opposition and concerned backbenchers must, on behalf of all Canadians, demand a formal, immediate, open and transparent inquiry into how the PMO is utilizing tax-payer resources to contaminate and gaslight discussion and comment threads.

  1. Who are those being employed and who is actually accountable for the scripts and narrative?
  2. What are the costs vs benefits and implications vs opposition associated with these activities and what amount of resources are being utilized?
  3. When will there be an initial investigation and/or formal inquiry.
  4. Where are the message control operatives operating from, where are they being deployed?
  5. Why is there no public and/or Parliamentary scrutiny and/or oversight and why has this issue been allowed to fly under the radar for so long?
  6. How much is this actually costing, how can these practices be acceptable to anyone that is not in power and how will the results of any investigation be presented?

Moving forward to the Bill C-51 “Bread and Circuses” debate, keeping in mind that this is directly related and overlaps several narratives that converge the economy and security amongst others. These narratives are in full view and converging rather rapidly. We need to point out that this is by design and being controlled by a relatively small few that have the controlling stake within the Harper Regime itself, the segment that is completely protected from the implications and/or ramifications of Bill C-51 for various reasons.

Bill C-51, like all of the previous Omnibus Bills, many of which we have still not felt the ramifications of, is an extremely opaque, ill-conceived, bloated and convoluted piece of oppression. Just observe the smugness, arrogance, and self-absurdness of the Harper Regime and their Loyalists.

  1. Who ultimately controls the fear-mongering narrative surrounding Bill C-51 and who ultimately benefits other than the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists?
  2. What measures are in place to assure the legality the fear-mongering scripts, talking points, narrative and spin surrounding Bill C-51 by the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists?
  3. When will the illegal terror propaganda being disseminated and propagated, fear-mongering scripts, talking points, narrative and spin surrounding Bill C-51 by the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists be investigated and prosecuted?
  4. Where are the fear-mongering scripts, talking points, narrative and spin surrounding Bill C-51 by the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists being organized and are they legal?
  5. Why are the scripts, talking points, narrative and spin by the Harper Regime, their special interest lobbies and their Loyalists surrounding Bill C-51 being endlessly regurgitated and why have the Opposition not formed, fostered, nutured and/or encouraged protests?
  6. How are the the fear-mongering scripts, talking points, narrative and spin surrounding Bill C-51 being addressed and countered?

To move forward a bit, we also need to open the debate about expanding the powers of CSIS, especially intervention strategies, when they conflict with the RCMP and/or contaminate and/or corrupt active investigations by other law enforcement agencies. We know there are serious flaws with the U.S. with regards to the conflicting agendas of the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. When one or more agencies are directing resources in what amounts to turf wars, which take precedence and who reimburses the resources that were wasted.

We already have serious backlogs and deficiencies within our own systems and entities. The most troubling stem from the lack of adequate funding, manpower and resources across the board. These deficiencies have bogged down investigation, burdened the courts and crated an extremely insecure environment. Considering the lack of security within the various Government controlled Ministerial databases and web portals, one must ponder how these can be adequately addressed without proper funding and oversight. In short, the entire “system” is insecure and that places all Canadians at risk.

  1. Who will assure that the activities and expanded powers being proposed do not encourage a “spy vs spy” scenario playing out and who will assure the integrity of the investigations?
  2. What provision will be utilized to assure that there are absolutely no conflicts of interest between CSIS interventions and RCMP investigations along with covert foreign intelligence operatives/agencies operations and what steps are being taken to assure that the expansive inter-Ministerial data sharing system is secured and invulnerable to exploits and back door attacks?
  3. When will the public be allowed to address their concerns about the ramifications of entrapment and dragnet surveillance?
  4. Where are the provisions that address the activities of foreign intelligence operatives and agencies that are actively conducting their own independent operations in Canada?
  5. Why is the Harper Regime entitled to be given a blank check free pass to directly and indirectly seize complete control of Canada and the lives of Canadians at home and abroad?
  6. How can CSIS and the RCMP assure Canadians that rogue agents within their own ranks or the ranks of Government are identified and eliminated as potential threats to our collective safety and security?

In addition to the above questions and concerns we need to be very mindful of the potential long term effects regarding Bill C-51 especially the budgetary implications. We presume that, based upon the previous failed budgets, that none of the programs and/or operations will be allocated adequately. This presumption is based upon several key components and the inadequate funding that are associated with the unbroken string of failed budgets by the Harper Regime and taking into consideration that the across the board austerity cuts have yet to actually fully be realized nor have they borne any positive results.

We realize that Bill C-51 is the most opaque, broad sweeping, dangerous and un-democratic Trojan Horse legislation ever proposed by the Harper Regime. We also realize that the language about “economic” security is even more opaque. What we take great issue with is the way in which the likes of the oppressive Regimes of Egypt, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are glorified as proponents of liberty, freedom, democracy, peace, safety, security and prosperity with regards to the funding of ongoing terrorist activities in Europe, Eurasia, the Middle East and North Africa, while other less oppressive regimes are demonized, targeted and sanctioned.

Contrary to the published punditry, we realize that while the Harper Regime insists that the provisions contained within Bill C-51 is not a treat to legitimate forms of dissent and/or protests, past experiences and practices employing agent provocateurs by policing agents at the Montebello SPP Summit in 2007, the kettling, arrests and mass detention of “legal” protesters at the Toronto G8/G20 while suspected agent provocateurs went unattained, the various attacks and anti-protest legislation passed nationwide, but specifically against Quebec students and the storm trooping of the Occupy protests.

In other words, since the foreign funded bloodless coup d’état by Stephen Harper and his Reform/Alliance cabal over the past decade that brought them to power, virtually all forms of opposition, legitimate dissent and legal protests have either been co-opted, infiltrated by agent provocateurs, faced threats and intimidation, been financially sanctioned, silenced, censored, slandered and discredited.

Most of all and probably of utmost importance, protests to the actions and inactions of the Harper Regime have been either declared illegal, disallowed and/or severely limited by way of legislation and/or by-laws.

If we were to foresee “who” Bill C-51 is targeting. Based upon the militarism and foreign adventurism trend by the Harper Regime and their failed attempts to become actively involved and deploy forces into the 2003 GW Bush fraudulent WMD War upon Iraq that was blocked by “We the People”, anti-war advocates, activists and protesters are the intended targets. All of the others that are already on Harper’s Hit List are just gravy on the potatoes and frosting on the cake.

Now, keeping in mind that the Harper Regime actually sent officials to stand by those protesters at the Ukrainian Maidan and supported, advocated and encouraged the overthrow of an corrupt albeit elected Regime, not to mention their active involvement into the affairs of Libya and Syria, both of which are mired in foreign funded civil wars, that directly fostered the foreign funded “barbaric terrorists” of today, the only real questions that remain are really simple:

  1. Who benefits from the Harper Regime’s opaque agenda and mandate?
  2. What is the true agenda the Harper Regime’s Loyalist and supporters?
  3. Where is this mass suppression and surveillance data accumulation by the the Harper Regime ultimately headed?
  4. When will the will of “We the People” be heard and acknowledged by the Harper Regime?
  5. Why does the Harper Regime fear and refuse to address questions and concerns?
  6. How far will the Harper Regime go in their quest of full spectrum domination of Canada and Canadians?

Wake up, smell the coffee and face the cold hard facts, this may well be the last time Canadians will ever be able to protest anything that is not sanctioned by the Regime that controls the Parliament and Government of the day.



Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

#Harper’s War(s): The Rise of the #NeoBolsheviks aka #NeoCons #cdnpoli #pnpcbc

At certain points in time one must reflect upon the past in order to sort out the present as it trends into the future. In many ways this seems like an impossible task for even the most prolific academics and historians considering history is often typically distorted and “created” based upon past propaganda that contradicts current propaganda efforts. This is why we must go back a bit further in time for comparison to decipher and decode the facts and realities from the fictions and propaganda in order to reconstruct the actual facts and realities. Keep in mind that the shylocks, charlatans and snake-oil salesmen that control the past easily control and rewrite “history” on demand and ultimately control the present and intend to do so well into the future.

We assUme that our “free” and “independent” media plays an unbiased and transparent role in investigating, researching, presenting and publishing evidence based facts. The only constant fact about this assumption is that it is fundamentally flawed. The one simple and glaringly obvious fact is that our “free” and “independent” media presents information in a very hyper sensationalized, biased and opaque manner to gain and retain viewers, followers and subscribers. These distorted facts and opinions are then presented to the general public by our “free” and “independent” media conglomerates to serve the needs and requirements of their own investors, stake-holders and advertisers. In other words, they are “free” and “independent” to publish whatever provides the best return on investment, period. At the present time, as has occurred in the past, if it bleeds, it leads, because fears and wars sell “papers” and allows the ruling Party to fraudulently sell the “justification” loss of freedoms and liberties to an ill-informed populous.

We also, sometimes foolishly, assUme that our “elected” officials play an unbiased and transparent role when in fact they only present the information in an opaque manner that serve the needs of its own investors and ideological supporters in order to get “elected” by the less informed citizenry. In reality our “free” and “independent” media are simply the sell-side tools of the Harper Regime Loyalists that promote globalist intervention schemes. Instead of well researched facts to formulate and base our own opinions, “We the People” are simply given “Bread and Circuses” to distract from reality in order to further an opaque and hidden agenda that is based upon their fabricated realities. Simply put, the “free” and “independent” media are nothing more than the ultimate tools of war, at home and abroad and they are indeed controlled by munitions makers, armaments dealers, war profiteers and financial terrorists along with countless mercenaries, private militias and armies that engage in both quasi-legal, semi-legal and illegal terrorist activities.

The parallels between the past and present are astounding considering the fact that if either of these collective entities fails to remain transparent with the facts, they utterly fail the populous, not only today but well into the future. In other words, just as the victors of the past wrote their own version of history, todays political victors misguided, falsified talking points and regurgitated published propaganda become the historical fact well into the future as they are the only source of information. This may be refereed to as the “Big Lie” theory and is developed and nurtured via “sockpuppets”, “Limited Hangouts” and the “Gaslighting” effect.

While this is noticeable to a great degree across the MSM, to see this in action one only needs to parse the “articles” and comments on our own tax-payer funded CBC News website. Pay close attention to how the timing of the “UPDATES” coordinate with the arrival of sockpuppets and trolls and how the message is massaged on both ends by way of subversive propaganda techniques. On the one hand, there are several half truths presented with subtle innuendos, based upon hearsay, within the “articles” themselves at various points to appear well researched, honest, truthful and factual. On the other hand, important and relevant factual articles that have been investigated and researched, worthy of broad discussion and sharing, typically have the comments feature disabled. Most of the sensationalized and misrepresented articles are from outside sources, primarily Reuters and AP.  These articles work two-fold, first and formost to drive a message that follows the Harper Regimes talking points and spin as close as possible and second as a click-bait distraction that keeps and/or pushes these well spun “articles” into the “Most Viewed” sections in order to drive out the more important topics.

For many the “title” of this entry and the reference to Bolshevism seems comparatively disjointed in the least or sensational at best. It poses a sort of conundrum and prompts further explanation, if at all possible. One may inquire as to how Stephen Harper and the Harper Regime Loyalists could be compared to the Bolsheviks circa 1917? Some might opine, isn’t that a stretch of the imagination? Others may ponder and obsess that Stephen Harper and the Harper Regime Loyalists are more akin to NeoNazis and fascists.

In order to delve a bit further we need to understand the difference between the Russian Revolution in the spring of 1917 that lead to the downfall of the Czar, coincidentally a cousin of the reigning Crown, and the violent Bolshevik Revolution that hijacked it within a few months time as summer transcended into autumn of 1917. One must keep in mind that the initial revolutionaries sough to create an elected Constitutional Republic much like that of France and the United States, not a theocratic oligarchy based upon subjects and/or serfdom led by empty promises and catchy sloganeering.

While the comparison to fascists seems more appropriate and fairly well traveled within the interwebz to many they really are two sides of the same coin that enable technically what amounts to total government control and oppression of all dissenting opinions total government control and oppression of all dissenting opinions. In broad terms, fascists typically aim to protect the interests and well being of the citizenry of the Sovereign State they represent, its own productivity, industries, public services, etc. to support a strong national economy founded upon a high quality education that leads to full employment. On the other side of the coin, bolsheviks prefer global domination and the concept of globalization where the interests of the Sovereign State become secondary to the global investor class of Carpetbaggers and Robber Barons hell bent on global domination at all costs. Sadly, as opposed to a multi-polar “win-win” economy, the uni-polar “zero-sum” economy transfers those costs to the citizenry while the profits are quickly offshored.

This seems like it is impossible since over the past century we have all been indoctrinated into believing a false left/right paradigm exists based upon the battle of the “…ists & …ism’s” factored within. This simple word play allows global investors to play the tried and true leftists vs  rightists meme along with the persistent communists vs fascists theme. This easily allows the ultra small minority investor class, aka: regional/global oligarchs, complete control over the establishment main-stream media and anti-media conglomerates, dis-information aggregators, politicians, economists and politicos in order to “trickle down” and share in the spoils of excess, while the  majority of the populous are burdened with the costs under the collective banner of “capitalists/capitalism” that serve no public or national interests anywhere.

This was fairly evident during the First Cold War propaganda campaign that cemented the sides by way of half truths, misrepresentation and factual manipulation that ultimately relied upon morphing German and Soviet propaganda intermixed with the Allies propaganda to confuse and indoctrinate the masses. The problem and stark reality is that none of the propaganda that was published and propagated in the various regional/global media outlets to “sell” these wars before and during the First and Second World Wars have ever been properly scrutinized and disseminated before it was shrewdly entrenched into the educational system as history class nor corrected before it took root into the collective psyche.

This conundrum has become even more evident now that we have hyper accelerated into the Second Cold War via the external geo-political/military meddling in the EU, the Ukraine, North Africa and the Middle East, not to mention the rest of Africa, Asia and South America. This begs the question of who benefits when the Regime in power actively seeks out, creates and encourages enemies at home and abroad? At what point does one acknowledge that the Regime in power may in fact, be the actual enemy of the State?

If one analyzes and digests the implications of the above, one can easily draw parallels to how the Harper Regime and it’s die hard Loyalists, aka: Reform Party, effectively hijacked a major political party in what amounts to a bloodless coup d’état. These Loyalists have formed under the collective banner of what amounts to fear-mongering, war-mongering NeoConservatives within the U.S. and Canada and draw upon a fraudulent form of flag waving nationalism that encourages misguided ultra-nationalists to, in many cases violently, force their agenda, lest one be labeled as “unpatriotic”, towards furthering extreme economic NeoLiberalism that ignites the flames for extremists and terrorists to thrive at home and abroad.

The inconvenient truth is that no matter how often the Harper Regime Loyalists proclaim and repeat their pre-scripted talking points, nothing is ever either just black or just white, there are an infinite number of shades of gray in-between. The Harper Regime and their Loyalists, under the guise of providing safety and security with their endless “Tough on Crime” rhetoric, undermines the safety and security of now only Canadians, at home and abroad, but the entire global community.

This should sound multiple alarm bells that something is rotten in Ottawa. The only question that really remains is will the collective Opposition, non-Reformers and Conservative backbenchers actually take the hard steps necessary to remove the stench and rot before more damage is done, or will they simply choose to await another fraudulent election shrouded within the fog of war and rhetoric as they did in 2011 when the Harper Regime, its Loyalists and apologists declared that Libya must be bombed back into the stone age and Syria’s Assad Must Go?  The reality is that the previous NeoCon led schemes in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to the destabilization of the region and the more recent NeoCon instigated schemes in Libya, Syria and Ukraine have literally flooded 3 Continents with an endless supply of modern weaponry and uncontrollable chaos.

Do Canadians really “need” the Harper Regime to “protect” Canada from the various “terrorists” they themselves fostered and nurtured into existence? Keep in mind that the Harper Regime’s aggressive interventions in Libya and Syria alone have accounted for millions upon millions of displaced and impoverished families, hundreds of thousands of dead men, women and children of all ages and hundreds of billions of dollars in destroyed infrastructure, not to mention the countless lost historical sites and artifacts.

As a final point to ponder, has anyone really considered that Bill C51 is really designed to silence the anti-war, anti-foreign intervention advocates? Let’s face it, the genie is outta the bottle, Pandora’s box has been ripped wide open as the Harper Regime and their collective war-profiteering “Allies” at home and abroad have seemingly crossed the rubicon,  passed the point of no return, and leading “We the People” into yet another multi-continental World War.

Cui bono?


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

#Poroshenko’s Speech to #Harper’s Parliament: 17Sep2014 #cdnpoli #Canada #Ukraine #Russia #NATO #EU

Well friends and adversaries alike, it surely appears that the zero-sum gain manufactured crisis’ in Ukraine and Iraq/Syria are slowly pushing us towards another “World War” in an eerily similar fashion as the others. Since we have already well documented the media manipulation and propaganda being weaved and spun via the CBC, we feel that certain other “details” should be archived and published as well.

Before we move further, let’s review a few “other” pending issues that the Harper Regime, controlled Opposition and yellow journalists seem to be conveniently unaware of. The first items and questions that should be addressed are indeed related to the actual situation evolving in Ukraine and the “speech” that seems full of inconsistencies and mis-truths. Notice that there has been zero mentions about any actual investigation into the Maidan sniper incident and the actual investigation, or lack thereof, regarding the perpetrators and causes of the MH17 shoot down, only repeated memes that are based upon false speculations. The preliminary report is very light on details, yet the current narrative keeps repeating the same false narrative, that is not based upon any truths and/or facts. Guilty until proven innocent and lies in the face of truth is the new normal. Not only that, but there is no hope for the required gas supplies anytime soon, not directly nor reversely. As a matter of fact, even if the US and Canada can deliver any at all, it won’t be available until 2018 at best. What real capitalist wants to “sell” or provide any goods/services to a consumer that refuses to pay their previous debts?

While the billionaire oligarch Chocolate King, instead of digging into his vast fortunes, was being praised, honoured and clap-trapped, while begging, pleading and looking for yet another financial and military handout from Canadian and U.S, taxpayers, the Ukraine Rada (Parliament) was surrounded by rather violent Svoboda and Right Sector affiliated protesters. Those “protests” included the typical tire burning festival along with the usual democratic beating and intimidation of politicians and social media advocates. At the same time, the more powerful war party Prime Minister and Rada were busy rewriting the so called amendments that were being sold via the Harper Parliament under the guise of democracy. Not only that but they also introduced more anti-democratic legislation that all public sector workers would be forced to take a “loyalty” pledge to the Kiev Regime. Keep in mind that elections are supposed be be undertaken next month so why would they need to purge the ranks so quickly and stack the deck and silence dissent. One may think that there is another coup being planned but this time it’s a pre-emtive strike against Poroshenko while he is away selling a bad bill of goods abroad. The latest ceasefire meme was one of the greatest and grandest illusions thus far. The problem was that since the Kiev side and their “volunteer” battalions immediately violated it, the meme had to continue that it was “fragile” but still holding. Never mind the dozens of long range TOCHKA-U ballistic missiles being utilized by the Ukrainian forces, further assaults on civilian infrastructures and not so covert repositioning of advancing pro-Kiev groups, that somehow keep finding themselves in encircled within bubbling cauldrons. It really does begin to seem as if, from the relative safety of their geographic positions, certain special interests, lobbyists, munitions makers and oligarchs, including their politco proxies, will wage war ’till the last Ukrainian drop of blood is spilled. Or maybe, like the previous World Wars, the desired result is a brutal military dictatorship, that can be groomed into being the next target in this perpetual war economy.

If one were to ponder a bit more, it appears that a full scale coup to remove this entire Regime is being coordinated on many levels. The battle between the oligarchs that have controlled Ukraine since the Orange Revolution has only just begun and many have their own private mercenary battalions conducting various ATO operations, not to mention the many “volunteer” battalions that seek to purge the oligarchs and corrupt politicians completely. We also should not forget that the Right Sector and their allies are anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist and defiantly not pro-EU by any stretch of the imagination. Do not forget that they were actually the ones that violently took down the previous democratically elected Yanikovich Regime only last time they were armed with bats, clubs, molotov cocktails and small arms, this time they have heavy weapons and real war time training and experience. For those that claim that Putin is the modern day Hitler, keep in mind how well Hitler was received by the elites and their political proxies of the “West” and the parallels to Poroshenko’s receptions(s) today.

One must also consider the implications of several other anti-democratic strategies as well. The 25 May 2014 elections did not include the 40% or so Ukrainians in the East that were certainly suppressed by the initial stages of the so called ATO launched in April, a couple of political party’s were declared illegal, several media organizations were declared illegal and shut down. Then we must acknowledge the massive amount of refugees that have fled the region. Out of approx 1 million refugees reported, at least 90% have fled to the Russian Federation for some reason, while the other 10% fled to an increasingly unstable Western Ukraine where many have faced hostilities.

In this newly “democratic” Ukraine, the goal of purging any/all that do not agree with the pre-scripted narrative and/or hidden agenda seems to be par for the coarse that almost seems to mimic the strategy of the Harper Regime. In other words, anyone that disagrees with and/or questions them or there opaque agenda are deemed to be enemies. This is nothing more than a simple divide and conquer strategy concealed from the public by legislated secrecy. It is rather sad and even more troubling that the “prominent” Ukrainian diaspora are so willing to be duped once again and sacrifice their own. It’s almost like they have forgotten how their predecessors were forced into the horrific internment camps in Canada circa WW1 after their usefulness in propagating the march to war rhetoric had achieved the desired purpose which were conflicts that consumed their former homeland. This is the third time in a century that the same piece of geographic real estate has been utilized for the benefit of profiteers and carpetbaggers. All of which began by first imploding their own “capitalist” economies and accelerated by creating fictitious adversaries enemies that turned into real enemies eventually. These economic wars have all been based upon false speculations and propagandist narratives as a convenient cover, under the guise of economic sanctions, for their economic crimes against humanity.

Even if one were to dismiss any/all of the above, there are several other issues that need to be addressed. Let’s ponder why there has been so much focus upon this rather odd war-mongering blame game. Why is there no actual reporting by the yellow journalists or mentions by the controlled Opposition related to the realities about the utter failures of the Harper Regime’s “Economic Extraction Action Plan”, nor the over valued CDN Dollar, nor the free falling TSX, nor the collapsing commodities sector, nor the hyper inflated housing bubble, nor the record debt-to-income ratio, nor the shale gas bubble that is more akin to a vast Ponzi scheme. That does not even factor in the gross manipulation and deception by the pharmaceutical industry with the assistance of Health Canada and the cover provided by the Harper Regime. This also provides pretty a deep cover strategy for the complete disregard to the issues that face our Aboriginal, Indigenous and First Nations Peoples.

Since most of these issues directly affect everyone that is not fortunate enough to be in the top 10%-15%, they do seem to be more important to our National security and our society as a whole. If we are to even begin to look deeper into our own affairs, we may begin to see that the Harper Regime is working for some outside foreign interests at the expense of Canadians. Some refer to this type of opaque and deceptive governance as the Deep State. Once we consider that, we must realize that whether we are focused upon Ukraine/Russia, Iraq/Syria, Scotland/UK or any other diversions, we have not only lost one generation due to the gross mismanagement of government institutions that pander to global special interests and international corporate lobbyists, we are dooming yet another generation to poverty and despair.

Below you will find the 17 September 2014 “speech” (in 3 parts) by Petro Poroshenko’s to the clapping seals of Harper’s Parliament and the controlled Opposition, followed by a text transcript that was sent to us by one of our anonymous contributors. Below that for comparison study and research purposes, you will also find the “speech” that Poroshenko gave to the U.S. Congress on 18 September 2014 followed by transcripts that were sent to us by another anonymous contributor.

You will notice that the false narratives that have already been dis-proven and/or discredited are being re-injected as fact. This only goes to show that as long as a lie is repeated and regurgitated often enough, sooner or later it becomes accepted as truth by clapping seals that pose as politicians. It is also a bit odd that in these “speeches” Poroshenko uses the “war” term considerably and liberally that, if the rules of the IMF still apply, restrict them from issuing any loans, not to mention that they have wasted most of the previous cash and loans on their utterly failed ATO. Ukraine today, just like the rest of the G7 cabal, will never, ever, be able pay off their massive debts, no matter how much “austerity” is downloaded upon their society…


Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

Andrew Scheer: I would now like to invite the right hon. Prime Minister to take the floor.

Stephen Harper: Monsieur le Président du Sénat, monsieur le Président de la Chambre des communes, honorables sénateurs et députés, distingués invités, mesdames et messieurs, ladies and gentlemen.

It is our great pleasure to welcome to Canada, to welcome to our Parliament today, the President of the Ukraine and his wife, Petro and Maryna Poroshenko.

Merci monsieur le président d’avoir quitté brièvement votre pays pour participer à cette séance conjointe de notre Parlement. Nous savons qu’il s’agit d’une période cruciale pour vous et pour l’Ukraine et nous apprécions grandement votre présence ici.

Mr. President, you will recall that in June I was in your parliament to witness you take the oath of office to “protect the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine”. I went to Kiev representing not only the Government of Canada, not only the 1.2 million Canadians of Ukrainian descent, I went to Kiev representing all Canadians from all regions, all walks of life, and all parties represented in this Parliament to demonstrate our unwavering support for your nation’s democratic future and for the independence of the Ukrainian people.

Monsieur le président, peu de temps s’est écoulé depuis le mois de juin. Cependant, seulement quatre mois plus tard, votre pays et notre monde ne sont plus les mêmes.

Mr. Putin’s soldiers and their proxies have expanded their penetration into Ukrainian territory. More members of Ukraine’s armed forces have been obliged to make the ultimate sacrifice. The world has witnessed the attack on flight MH17, a deplorable crime that took the lives of so many innocent people, including one Canadian.

Mr. President, what I told you in June has not changed.

Peu importe les difficultés que pourrait réserver l’avenir, peu importe les actions de ce qui menace la liberté de l’Ukraine, l’Ukraine ne sera jamais seule parce que l’Ukraine peut compter sur le Canada.

This commitment is almost as old as our country. It began in the late 19th century with the arrival in our west of tens of thousands of Ukrainian settlers fleeing tyranny and poverty there to help build a free and prosperous society here, but never surrendering the dream that their homeland would one day also share that freedom and prosperity.

It was expressed in the 1960s by Prime Minister Diefenbaker in his demand that Khrushchev grant open elections to “freedom-loving Ukrainians”.

Cette sympathie s’est à nouveau manifestée à la fin de la guerre froide lorsque le premier ministre Mulroney a fait du Canada le premier pays occidental à reconnaître une Ukraine nouvellement indépendante.

It was forcefully displayed again in this Parliament in 2008 when, led by our colleague James Bezan, we declared the Holodomor what it was: an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people.

Canadians have now served proudly as observers for seven successive Ukrainian elections and just last week I announced that when the Ukrainian people once again go to the polls exercising their hard-won democratic rights on October 26, Canadians will again be there in force.

Nous collaborerons avec nos alliés afin d’aider l’Ukraine par d’autres moyens.

We have, in large measure, terminated our engagement with Mr. Putin’s regime, suspending his Russia from the G7 and working to isolate it diplomatically.

We have enacted tough sanctions on business interests tied to Russia’s illegal occupation of Ukrainian territory. Just yesterday, Minister Baird announced additional measures.

Nous avons livré de l’équipement de protection et de l’équipement médical et logistique pour aider les courageux soldats ukrainiens à défendre leur pays et leur famille.

We are providing significant financial assistance. Canada is also giving humanitarian aid to help Ukrainians affected by the conflict, including additional funds announced today.

We have also deployed the Canadian Armed Forces as part of the reassurance mission to our NATO allies in Eastern Europe, and we have been unequivocal, Mr. President, in our support for the peace plan that you have been pursuing for the Ukrainian people.

At the same time let us be clear. Canada recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, all of Ukraine. Whether it takes five months or 50 years to liberate it we will never, ever recognize the illegal Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory.

Comme vous-même l’avez dit là-dessus, il ne peut y avoir aucun compromis. Le Canada restera ferme dans ses positions et continuera de dénoncer sans équivoque le manque de respect de M. Poutine pour les lois et nous continuerons avec nos alliés à répondre à l’agression russe.

Mr. President, in your inaugural address last June you said, and I quote, “Nobody will turn Ukrainians into the slaves of criminals or the servants of a colonial power. The world”, you said, “supports us”.

Monsieur le président, les pays libres et démocratiques du monde vous appuient.

We cannot let Mr. Putin’s dark and dangerous actions stand for they have global security implications and because, as I have said before, for Canadians, with our deep connections to the Ukrainian people, this is not to us just a matter of international law or political principle, this is a matter of kinship, this is a matter of family, this is personal and we will stand by you.

Monsieur le président, ce n’est pas en vain que des générations de patriotes ukrainiens ont lutté pour la liberté.

The Ukrainian people have the right, like all free countries, to seek their own future, to seek a European future of hope and never to return to the darkness of a Soviet past.

La population d’Ukraine veut avec raison ce dont nous profitons en Occident: la liberté, la démocratie, la justice, la prospérité.

Mr. President, freedom, democracy, justice, prosperity. These are not mere words, they are the very foundations of our country and they are the values that Canada champions around the world, not out of selfish ambition but because Canadians have always desired these things for all peoples.

Lorsque nous aidons d’autres peuples à préserver leur liberté, c’est notre propre liberté que nous assurons également.

Let me close, Mr. President, by commending you for showing leadership and courage and careful judgment in the face of ruthless and relentless intimidation and for tirelessly pursuing peace, independence and security for your people. Know that whatever lies ahead, Canada and Ukraine will continue to move forward together, confident that our shared dreams and aspirations are right, just and good.

I told you you would feel at home here.

Mesdames et messieurs, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming a true friend of Canada, le président de l’Ukraine, the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko.

Petro Poroshenko: It is very hard to give a speech in such an atmosphere, believe me. I have never felt anything like this.

Mr. Prime Minister, Speaker Kinsella, Speaker Scheer, hon. members of the Senate and the House of Commons, hon. members of the diplomatic community, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, dear Ukrainians, it is a deeply felt honour to address this distinguished legislative body.

I must thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for inviting me to come to Canada, Speaker Kinsella and Speaker Scheer, for giving me such an outstanding opportunity to address the Canadian Parliament. I see this as a tribute to my country and the Ukrainian people and an expression of the unique distinctive partnership which both of our nations enjoy.

C’est un grand honneur pour moi de tenir un discours dans le Parlement du Canada.

Let me also, just once, use the third official language of Canada: Ukrainian.

Thank you for this great honour, dear friends, dear compatriots, and dear Ukrainian community.

To be frank with you, I feel very much at home with you here today in a country that is very close to Ukraine, not in distance but through our hearts and through the common idea.

Indeed, Canada has become home for so many early Ukrainian settlers who came here more than a century ago. In 1892, a century before Canada was the first to recognize Ukraine’s independence, the first Ukrainian immigrants, Ivan Pylypiw and Wasyl Eleniak, arrived. They launched further numerous Ukrainians’ immigration to the Pacific coast, settling across the woods and prairies of Canada.

The Ukrainian community has easily integrated into Canadian society. It built railways and towns, schools and churches, heroically fought against the Nazis during World War II, contributed to the Canadian economy and culture. Later, the sons and daughters of farmers became prominent members of Canadian society, businessmen, artists, scientists, athletes and politicians.

One of them, Ramon Hnatyshyn, became a governor general of Canada. We always remember his name. The list is long and impressive: the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Roy Romanow and Gary Filmon, Senators Raynell Andreychuk and David Tkachuk, James Bezan and William Kereluk, hockey superstars Terry Sawchuk and Wayne Gretzky, and also female astronaut, Dr. Roberta Bondar.

We have high praise for the great Ukrainian Canadian sculptor Leo Mol who crafted one of the best Taras Shevchenko monuments in the world in Washington, D.C. We always remember that. If I continue with the list, we will run out of time in this session, believe me.

Today, the Ukrainian Canadian community is over a million people. It is strong, and now it has been demonstrated that it is consolidated. It has preserved the language of their homeland, faith and traditions. Ukraine has always felt proud of Ukrainian Canadians and grateful for their lasting support.

On behalf of the Ukrainian people, I would like to thank you, dear brothers and sisters, for your help to Ukraine.

However, it is not only history that bonds us; it is also shared values that make Canada and Ukraine an integral part of the global family of democracies.

Today Ukraine pays a very high price for defending what we believe in: democracy and the freedom to choose our own future. For more than two decades we proudly stated that Ukraine gained its independence without shedding a single drop of blood. Now that is no longer true. Now we are engaged in a true battle for our independence. Now we are paying the real price.

Today Ukraine is bleeding for its independence and territorial integrity. The Governor General of Canada, Ramon Hnatyshyn, in his speech at the Ukrainian Parliament in 1992, just one year after Ukrainian independence, stated that we must not forget the suffering of the people that we are witnessing. That day he spoke to brave Ukrainian and Canadian soldiers who kept the peace across the world in zones of conflict and unrest. These words remain true now as never before.

Today thousands of brave Ukrainian men and women are sacrificing their lives for the right to live in the way they choose, on their land, under the blue and gold colours of the Ukrainian flag, colours that are so dear to many Canadian Ukrainians. In these dark days, we feel your strong support. Thank you very much for that.

It is in our time of need that we see our friends, and there is no other way to put it: Canada is a friend indeed.

As a commander-in-chief, as a Ukrainian, and as a father of soldiers, I thank Canada for each life that is being saved today in the Ukrainian Donbass by the helmets and bulletproof vests you gave us.

Once again I thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, and your government for your position. I thank the Canadian parliamentarians and senators, all Canadians, and fellow Ukrainians for standing tall and making your voices heard; for helping financially with technical assistance and non-lethal military aid; and for supporting us in international fora such as the UN, NATO, and the G7. This is very valuable for us.

I would like to use this great opportunity to thank all Canadian parliamentarians for their continued support of Ukraine and especially for the emergency debate in the House of Commons during the critical period of the Maidan revolution in human dignity. We heard your voice, and this voice was very important for us. Our great achievement and our victory happened because of your support.

Thank you very much indeed for the work of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee on Ukraine and for the election observation mission, which helped to ensure that the will of the Ukrainian people was respected. You sent 500 observers, the biggest mission ever to come to a presidential election to confirm that it was true, free, and fair. It helped us to establish a new authority in Ukraine. Thank you.

We are waiting for your October 26 mission on the parliamentary election because we are determined to demonstrate that this election will also be free and fair.

Thank you for the many visits by the parliamentary interns, and for your visit, Mr. Prime Minister, at the inaugural ceremony. In the same way that Canada recognized our independence, you recognized the results of the presidential election. That was crucially important for us. In difficult times, you are always with us.

Also, I want to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, for his support of Ukraine, during the Maidan especially.

I have a long list of thanks, believe me. From my heart, thank you very much. We really feel the strong support of Canadians not only in difficult times, but I am sure when we have peace and we stop the war by integrated and coordinated efforts of all the nations of the world. Canada helps us to keep the world united and Canada can help us to demonstrate to the whole world its strong solidarity with Ukraine. Thank you very much, Canada.

Without this support provided by the Government of Canada, by all parliamentarians, and by the Ukrainian Canadian community under the leadership of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, it would be much harder for Ukraine to face the challenges of today. No other leaders or nations, I mean no one, with the possible exception of Poland, was so straightforward and earnest when sending a signal across the world to the Russians and the rest of the world that fighting a nation which is trying to chart its own path is just conceptually wrong.

It is arming rebels with advanced anti-aircraft missiles, providing them with operators, intelligence, and in-flight data. Those who were equipped, trained and financed by Russia executed a terror attack, shooting down the civilians on flight MH17, killing 298 innocent lives of the Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia, and many other nations, including Canadian citizen Andrei Anghel. I think that the war in eastern Ukraine is a war against terror, our common war. I have no doubt of that.

With your support and with the support of the global community, we will win this struggle and fulfill the dreams of many Ukrainians in our homeland and across the world. Ukraine will be strong and independent, a very important European nation.

Yesterday was one of the most important days in the history of Ukraine. Thee Verkhovna Rada ratified the European Union-Ukraine Association agreement. Do you know what my feeling was yesterday when I was standing in front of the Ukrainian parliament presenting this association agreement, coordinated and synchronized with the European parliament? It was that it was the last farewell from Ukraine to the Soviet Union. That was a Rubicon that Ukraine crossed and we never ever will turn back to our awful past.

I strongly believe that our values, our freedom, our democracy, our European future, including a membership perspective, is possible and reachable for the Ukrainian nation. Why? Because the Ukrainian nation has passed one of the most important tests during the last five months and maybe paid the highest price for being European. That is why we demand providing reform, defending democracy, defending freedom, from a membership perspective, in the European Union.

Implementation of the agreement will not only harmonize Ukraine’s trade and customs rules with European Union standards but will help my country draw closer to democratic norms and a market-oriented economy.

At the Wales NATO summit, I declared my country’s desire to move closer to NATO and to gain the status of a major non-NATO ally. I really count on your support on this.

All allies have strongly condemned Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the illegal annexation of Crimea, and stand ready to support territorial integrity and sovereignty in Ukraine within the internationally recognized borders, as the Canadian government, the Canadian Prime Minister, and the Canadian people are strongly doing.

I am thankful to Canada. Your country was one of the strongest supporters of Ukraine at the summit and committed to provide more than $1 million to the NATO trust fund. It will help Ukraine build its command, control, communications, and computer capabilities.

Dear friends, let us look beyond the crisis and war. Let us think of how to enhance the special partnership between Ukraine and Canada. This is why I am here. I am convinced that we need to pay more attention to bilateral co-operation and such spheres as energy, trade, investment, information, air space, and many other technologies.

In co-operation with Canada, we hope to accomplish the ambitious project of consolidating Ukraine’s informational space by launching the telecommunications satellite built by a Canadian company. We will finally be able to provide all of our regions with reliable and trustworthy information and export telecommunications services. There should be more projects like this.

I hope that both negotiation teams have translated our firm signal, the Prime Minister’s and mine, and the next time we see each other we will have a Ukraine-Canada free trade agreement to sign.

Having said that, I cannot help but mention one particular program that played a significant role in enhancing our people-to-people contact. I am talking about the Canada-Ukraine parliamentary program. During the years of independence, CUPP has hosted over a thousand students from Ukraine who were able to work as interns right here in the Canadian Parliament and help us build Ukrainian democracy. Welcome back, dear colleagues.

I also want to thank the Canadian Parliament and the Ukrainian diaspora for helping us breed the new generation of new Ukrainian democratic and free leaders.

Mr. Prime Minister, I remember you mentioned that Canada is probably the most Ukrainian nation outside of Ukraine itself. You know what? This is absolutely true. Let me reciprocate. There are great European nations that stood as the source of the foundation of modern Canada. Canada has friends all over the globe, and the closest one is next to it. However, I doubt that you will find another nation that would say so sincerely what I say about you: Ukraine is probably the most Canadian nation after Canada itself.

Exactly this feeling I felt today during my meeting with many Canadians. Thank you for all of that.

Let me refer to the words of Winston Churchill, who truly loved your country and visited it seven times from 1900 to 1954. We recall him as a brave leader who confronted the Nazi aggression with courage.

In the summer of 1929, he wrote this from Canada to his wife: “Darling I am greatly attracted to this country.I am profoundly touched; & I intend to devote my strength to interpreting Canada to our people.”

I have the same feeling, believe me. Unfortunately, I will not write these words to my wife since she sits here with me today. I will simply tell her these words.

Please let me quote Churchill once again. He said: “I love coming to Canada. God bless your Country.”

Thank you very much indeed. Merci. Diakouyou. Slava Ukraini.

Noël A. Kinsella: Mr. Speaker, Your Excellency President Poroshenko, vitannya.

Prime Minister, honourable senators, members of the House of Commons, mesdames et messieurs, on behalf of all parliamentarians and all gathered here this afternoon I have the honour, Mr. President, to thank you for addressing this joint session of the Parliament of Canada. Your important words have been clear and stress that you are among friends.

We have taken note of the significant challenges currently facing the peoples of Ukraine. We thank you for your leadership and courage that you are bringing to securing peace, order and good government in your beautiful country.

Monsieur le président, monsieur le premier ministre, nous avons pris bonne note des importants défis auxquels sont confrontés les peuples de l’Ukraine à l’heure actuelle. Nous vous remercions, Votre Excellence, de votre leadership et de votre courage quand vous assurez la paix, l’ordre et une bonne gouvernance dans votre magnifique pays.

Canadians appreciate your leadership and fortitude as Ukraine addresses current challenges. We support your efforts to realize a successful resolution based on the solid foundation of human rights and democratic values.

Colleagues, Mr. President, Prime Minister, among the many images that adorn the chamber of the Senate of Canada is one of St. Andrew the Apostle, who is of course the Patron Saint of Ukraine. Indeed it was St. Andrew who prophesied in the year 55 A.D. that a great people would build a successful civilization along the banks of the River Dnipro. Notwithstanding the ebb and flow of the tides of history, the peoples of Ukraine continue to fulfill the prophecy of your patron saint.

Thank you, President Poroshenko, for sharing with us Your Excellency’s view of the road ahead. Please be assured of the solidarity of the peoples of Canada on your journey forward.

To Your Excellency and to the peoples of Ukraine we wish you godspeed. Thank you for your presence and address to the Parliament of Canada.

Andrew Scheer: Monsieur le président Poroshenko, monsieur le premier ministre, monsieur le Président du Sénat, collègues parlementaires, distingués invités, mesdames et messieurs,

Au nom de tous les députés et de toutes les personnes rassemblés ici, à la Chambre des communes, je souhaite la bienvenue au président Poroshenko et le remercie de prendre la parole devant nous, aujourd’hui.

It is a rare and special occurrence when heads of state or foreign dignitaries address a joint session of our Parliament and, even rarer still, to have a joint address during world events such as we are witnessing today. Your inspirational words are given even greater historical significance when we consider the current situation facing Ukraine.

As has already been mentioned, the links between our two great countries are well known and they run deep. Ukrainians have made their mark in many areas across Canada, from vibrant communities and our large cities to enclaves across the Prairies. Their contribution to Canada’s social fabric has been profound.

Les liens qui existent entre les citoyens de nos deux pays contribuent à nous rapprocher et ce qui renforce nos liens d’amitié, surtout depuis 1991, ce sont nos positions de principes communs envers la démocratie, les droits de la personne et la primauté du droit.

For those of us who were fortunate enough to be sitting as members of Parliament when His Excellency President Viktor Yushchenko addressed the chamber in May of 2008, we will recall that he observed that in the previous 90 years Ukraine had declared its independence six times. He said that he did not want the range of historic tragedies to be repeated in today’s history of Ukraine. What President Yushchenko then described in what may have been more abstract or theoretical terms has become all too real today.

Canadian parliamentarians have followed closely as recent events have unfolded in your country and have been inspired by the courage and perseverance that has been repeatedly demonstrated by Ukrainians in recent months. This Parliament has expressed its resolute support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the Ukrainian people and their determination to realize a free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous future.

While there are, no doubt, many challenges and uncertainties for your country and its people, one thing that is certain, however, is that this Parliament and Canadians across the country are watching closely and stand united in support of Ukraine.

Thank you; merci; slava Ukraini.

Petro Poroshenko address to Congress Full Speech Sept 18th 2014

Mr. Speaker, Majority Leader, members of the House, members of the Senate, ladies and gentlemen, it’s impossible to imagine what I’m feeling right now.

How symbolic is the unity of United States Congress and solidarity with Ukraine.

This is exactly which Ukraine now needs the most – unity and solidarity not only with the United States Congress, not only with the United States but with the whole world.

Let me thank you for your warmth and hospitality. Addressing both houses of the Congress is one of the highest political privileges.

Standing here, I’m grateful and fully aware that this honor goes not to me but to the people of Ukraine – those brave men and women who are today on the forefront of the global fight for democracy.

Forty-five of Ukrainian people now watching this speech and this session of the Congress and seeing me [are] absolutely sure about our solidarity and our joined common strength. And please allow me to speak on their behalf.

I will focus on the one thing that is at the core of Ukraine’s existence today – freedom.

There are moments in history when the freedom is more than just a political concept. At those moments, freedom become the ultimate choice which defines who you are as a person or as a nation.

Ukraine has lived this moment over the last 10 months and became a sign for the most heroic story for the last decade – a synonym for sacrifice, dedication, and an unbreakable will to live free.

The people of Ukraine stood up to the corrupt regime of Yanukovich. They stood their ground during this dramatic winter. More of you were together with us during the last winter, and I thank you for this very important for us gesture of solidarity.

The defenders of freedom were willing to sacrifice their life for the sake of better future. What is more amazing – they and we won.

Armed with only sticks and shields, they attacked by the special police and chased them away.

The victory gained on the Independence Square in Kiev known now to the whole world as the very international word – the Maidan – was a victory against police brutality, harassment by the state-controlled media, violence, intimidation.

There is nothing more impressive than seeing hundreds of thousands of peaceful people forcing out a violent dictator and changing the course of the history. Second time in our history.

Day after day, week after week, month after month, thousands upon thousands streamed into the streets of Kiev simply because their dignity didn’t allow them to remain passive and silent while their liberty were at stake.

The standoff at the Maidan lasted long three months. It culminated on February 20th and 21st when over 100 protesters in one day were shot by snipers. We call them “Heavenly Hundred”. We remember them as the true national heros, and we applaud their heroism.

Ladies and gentlemen, in February, when the world saw that no one could take away Ukraine’s freedom, an external aggressive decided to take away part of Ukrainian territory. The annexation of Crimea become one of the most cynical act of treachery in the modern history.

…Ukraine, which gave up the third largest nuclear potential in exchange for the security assurance, was stabbed in the back by one of the countries who gave her those assurance.

Allow me to remind you, 20 years ago – exactly 20 years – the Budapest Memorandum, Russia along with the United States, United Kingdom, France, and China vowed to provide for the inviolability of Ukraine’s state border and territorial sovereignty.

In reality, what we got from Russia was annexation and a war that has brought Ukraine to the brink of its survival.

The Soviet Union has collapsed too quickly, creating the illusion that this chapter in history was closed and that this story had come to the end.

But unfortunately, in mind of the people, it has not end. The imperialistic mindset is still there. Nostalgia for the Soviet Union and the dismissal for the settlement that ended the Cold War have been cultivated in the revisionist instincts.

In year 2008, Russia troops occupied Abkhazia and South Ossestia. They now have invaded Ukraine.

The right to protect ethnic Russians and even Russian speakers can and already has become a reason to fan the flames of war.

Besides Ukraine, Russian speakers are reside now in Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Baltic states, Poland, and even Germany – there’s a very big majority – Bulgaria.

Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine – who is next?

Many things including the effectiveness of the global non-proliferation system will be put under severe test and judge depending on the response of America, of the whole world to this very simple question. Even NATO allies are at risk.

…Two days after President Obama’s visit to Estonia, the day NATO Summit ended, the Estonian intelligence officer was abducted and accused of espionage.

The security assurance that was extended to Ukraine and then have failed to work, providing no agreements, treaties, containments can secure world order.

So what can bring the peace? And what can maintain it?

Common values. Cooperation. Interdependence. Leadership. And responsibility.

This is the things who can defend the global security.

So, I urge you not to let Ukraine stand alone in the face of this aggression.

And this is very important that the whole world will see this gesture of solidarity. Ukraine are not alone. We are together. We are united. And we’ll win because of our fighting – we’re fighting for freedom. It’s fighting for democracy. And I have absolutely no doubt that our victory will be very close.

I’m absolutely sure that United States made a commitment that it would stand behind Ukraine’s territorial integrity and we hope that it will live up to that promise.

Because it is very simple. Democracies must support each other. They must show solidarity in the face of aggression and adversity. Otherwise, they will be eliminated one by one.

The aggression against Ukraine has become one of the worst setback for the cause of democracy in the world in the years.

In just one move, the world has been thrown back in time to the reality of the territorial claims, zone of influence, criminal aggression, and annexation.

Can you imagine within two weeks Crimea was invaded and then annexed? Why? Because Ukraine simply were not prepared to this aggression. We were not prepared to face this…That was exactly at the time of the revolution of dignity and the use of this opportunity without any doubt

Post-war international system of checks and balances was effectively ruined. The world has plunged into the worst security crisis since US-USSR standoff 1962.

Today, we are witnessing another attempt dividing the world. Ukraine stands in the center of this attempt.

The outcome of today’s war will determine whether we will be forced to accept the reality of the dark term and beaten Europe as part of a new world order.

These Ukrainian army – imagine, these young boys under-equipped and often under appreciated by the world are the only thing that now stands between the reality of the peaceful coexistence and the nightmare of the…new Cold War.

Ukrainian soldiers, Ukrainian people, Ukrainian boys and girls now on the front for the freedom and democracy. They need your support.

The war that these young men are fighting today is not only Ukrainian war. Everybody should understand that. It is Europe’s and it is America’s war too. It is the war for the free world. For the free world.

Today, aggression against Ukraine is a threat to the global security everywhere – proxy war, terrorism, national radical and exodus movement, the erosion of national and international agreement, the blurring and even the raising of national identities. All these threats now challenge Europe. If they are not stopped now, they will cross European border and spread absolutely throughout the world.

To prevent this, thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are in the line of fire exactly right now when we have the so-called cease fire.

From the day we will start the cease fire, Ukrainian lost 17 lives of the Ukrainian soldiers. 67 are wounded. This is a cease fire. This is the price Ukraine now paid for the peace. Speaking in the United States Congress from this high beacon of freedom, I want to thank them for their sacrifice.

Thank you for the United States Congress, and I urge the world to recognize and endorse their fight. They need more political support throughout the world. They need more military equipment both lethal and non-lethal. Urgently need.

Please understand me correctly. Blankets, night vision goggles are also important. But one cannot win the war with blankets. Even more, we cannot keep the peace with blanket, and this is most important of our values, of our aid. Not to win the war but to keep the peace.

For keeping the peace, we should be strong enough and there is no any doubts that we will be strong because of you, because our solidarity, and because of the common very strong spirit of Ukrainian soldiers.

I thank all of those in America who realize and appreciate the historic importance of this fight.

Just like Israel, Ukraine has the right to defend her territory, and it will do so with all her courage, her heart, and dedication of her soul.

I urge America to help us and to rise and to be equal to its natural and manifest role. I urge America to lead the way.

Ukraine has a special bond with the United States. Today, Ukraine is taking shape as America’s natural and significant partner in the region.

This partnership is not circumstantial. It has not come because we find ourselves in the same boat. It came about because in the moment of the existential crisis Ukraine’s choice was the same as America. Very simple. Freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

In a time of Euro skepticism and Russia’s open unprovoked hostility, Ukrainian citizens have been ready to give their lives to see Ukraine democratic and free. Circumstantial votes can change; nature of the people cannot.

It is the nature of the Ukrainian people to tolerate no dictators and to strive for their freedom no matter what.

Given today’s situation, Ukraine’s democracy will have to rely on their own strong army.

In the upcoming years, building a strong military will be another existential test for Ukrainian democracy.

I see in my utmost duty to rectify the damage done to the Ukrainian military and to give Ukraine a strong, modern army that we can be proud of.

I strongly encourage the United States to give Ukraine a special security and defense status, which reflects the highest level of interaction with non-NATO ally.

And I also ask that the United States be forceful and stand by its principle with respect to further sanctions against the aggressor.

Economic sanction are important for many reasons. They help to distinguish between good and evil. They help us to defend and stand the moral high ground and not to sink into the indifference, disgust, and pragmatism.

I understand that the wars of the last decade have been taken a heavily toll on the economy of the West. And I understand that Americans and American citizen and American taxpayer want peace not war. So do Ukrainian citizen and taxpayer.

However, there are moments in history, those importance cannot be measured solely on the percentage of the GDP gross.

The Ukrainian war is not only the war of the last decade that is purely about the values. Ukraine war is the war again for the freedom, democracy, European values, and the best evidence of that is the number of members of Ukrainian Parliament which ratified our Association Agreement with the European Union.

Our nation decide to be free and democratic. Another nation decide to punish Ukraine for this.

The world simply cannot allow this kind of behavior.

Values come first. This is the truth the world and the West will remind Ukraine over the last years. Now, it is Ukraine’s chance to remind the West this truth.

Allow me also to say this. There is no way at no price and under no condition that we will ever put with the Crimean occupation.

Ending the occupation and the annexation is not only an integral pre-condition to a full normalization of the relations between Ukraine and Russia, it is also the integral condition for the Crimea’s own prosperity and modernization.

Until this pre-condition is fulfilled, I urge America and the world to stand united in sending the signals to the aggressors of today and to the future that the policy and practice of annexation will never be tolerated.

And clearly, I’m not talking about the military solution of the Crimean problem. This will be dilemma for many years – a choice between two ways of life, two political, economic, and social system.

But I have no doubt that in the long run the system that offers the greater freedom will prevail. It always does.

Ladies of gentlemen, the last half year has been time of ultimate challenge for millions of Ukrainians. It was a time for heroism and sacrifice. Too many it become for their ultimate sacrifice.

Let me share with you three human stories that illustrate my point.

On March 3rd, when the occupation of Crimea just started there was one man in Crimean city of Simferopol who did the unthinkable. Where millions felt paralyzed and stunned at what was unfolding before their eyes, [incomprehensible name], 39-year-old father of three decided not to be silent. This brave son of the Crimean Tatar people ran a one-man protest in the front of the occupied city hall. He did nothing more than hold a sheet of paper that said “No to occupation”. A group of unknown people arrested him, transported him away in the plain sight of the thousands of witnesses, in front of the TV cameras. Two weeks later, he was found tortured and executed mafia style. Just the thought of this man’s final torment – I mean, it sends chills down my spine.

I ask myself, “What made this hero do what he did?” And I can find no other answer than he did for the freedom so his children would not face slavery like that neo-Stalinism dictatorship.

And I am convinced that in the years from now when Crimea occupation will belong to the past, the Crimean people will think about what he did and salute his braveness just as I do now.

I assure you that Ukraine will always stand together with the Crimean Tatar people. Those language, rights, culture are being trampled upon the right now as they were many years ago under the Soviet rule.

I urge America and the world not to be silent about these crimes. It is Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars who are being oppressed in Crimea right now. And it is a time for all the people of good will – to rephrase John Kennedy’s words from over 50 years ago – I am Crimean Tatar and there is nothing that would make me give up my freedom.

And let me also commemorate another Ukrainian hero – [incomprehensible name]. 42-years-old father of two. A member of the municipal parliament of east Ukrainian city of Volnovakha.

On April 15th, he confronted the separatists and the Russian special operations officers over the separatist flag that they were trying to hoist atop the local administration building…He was abducted and tortured. His last hours must have been unthinkable. His body was badly mutilated.

Today, I stand here in awe of this tragedy and of the courage and sacrifice of this man and of the courage and sacrifice of the millions of Ukrainians, from the bottom of my heart I deeply believe that there will be a time – and I’m sure very soon – when [incomprehensible name] Square will be named after [incomprehensible name] and when school children will bring flowers to his monument.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake Europe’s and the world’s choice right now is not the choice between uni-polar or multi-polar order. Neither is it a choice between different kinds of civilization. It’s a choice very simple between the civilization and barbarism.

And while standing at this juncture before the great trial, the democratic pole cannot shrink or hesitate. We don’t want to see all the democratic accomplishment to the last decade to be erased and have been for nothing.

The free world must stand its ground. With America’s help, it will.

Yes, we live in a world that is mutually reliant and inter-connected. In this world, the aggression of one democratic nation is aggression against all of us. We fully understand that.

If anyone has doubts about this, if anyone was hoping to see the doubt while Ukrainian and Russian continued killing each other, this ended on July 18th when Russian missile launched by the Russian mercenary shot down civilian Boeing 777 of the Malaysian flight MH17.

298 innocent peaceful people – many of whom were flying on their vacation in the south – met their ultimate demise on the steps of Ukraine. Their cold-blooded killing, just like the barbarian treatments on their remains afterward, show that whoever fools Europe with uncontrolled weapons put millions of lives at risk for years, for decades.

This was an indisputable brutal act of terror. Unfortunately, it was this tragedy that gave a wake-up call to many in the world about the situation in Ukraine.

Long after wars end, the fear and hate linger on. How many more deaths will be caused by the handguns handed out with absolutely no control or accountability in those regions? How many innocent children will step on land mines so massively utilized by the separatists? How many lives will be ruined and so poisoned by the propaganda machine?

The act of pumping the region full of uncontrolled arms represent the policy of the state-funded terrorism, and it need to stop now.

The cynical downing of the Malaysian Boeing deliberated one most important thing: we are now at the forefront of the fight against terrorism, and we need to join our efforts to effectively respond to this challenge.

With this said, people throughout the world are asking the same question, “Are we on the eve of the new Cold War? Is the possibility of the new terrible, unimaginable European war there? Is what until recently seemed unthinkable now becoming a reality?”

Sadly, today the answer to all of these questions is yes.

However, we cannot and must not accept this as an inevitability.

As recently as in 2008, the President of Russia ran his election campaign under the slogan “Freedom is better than non-freedom”. And it was in Russia in year 2008.

And I’m sure that despite the Crimea annexation and ongoing aggression, millions of Russians still remember that slogan and take it seriously.

Please, let’s remind them. Let’s show them that the freedom is not the luxury as some try to convince them but necessity and the pre-condition for the true success of the nation. And I’m convinced that the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia have enough good will to give peace one last chance and prevail against this period of hate between our countries.

That’s why my presidency began with a peace plan and one-sided cease fire which will last long term base. Again, paying the very high price of the killing of Ukrainian soldiers, hitting Ukrainian planes, and hundreds wounded. We keep this cease fire long term base.

Unfortunately, this was not accepted by Russian authorities. That’s why we’re holding our fire now. That’s why two armies stand before each other without massively shedding each other’s blood. And if the thing work out right, they will not have to.

I’m in daily contact with the leaders of the world, including the leader of Russia. The dialogue is not easy, believe me. Over these last months too much good will was destroyed. Too much hate was generated, naturally and artificially. Too many people have died.

Based on that, I feel that there is growing mutual recognition that enough is enough and that the bloodshed must stop. The pandemic of hate must be localized and contained.

As a President, looking into the eyes of the mothers and wives of the dead soldiers and civilians, believe me, this is my hardest duty. No one can take it slightly; today it’s my burden and the burden of President Putin. As he lit a candle in Moscow church to remember those who perished in this war last week, I did the same in Kiev.

And from the bottom of the heart, I deeply profoundly wish that the church candles would be the only thing to burn in Ukraine from now.

Over the last months Ukrainians have shown that they have courage to stand up to the most powerful enemy. We will never obey or bend to the aggressor. We are ready to fight but we are people of peace and we extend the hand of peace to Russia and the to Russian-inspired separatists.

I am ready to do my utmost to avoid the further escalation and casualties. Even at this point when the war has already started feeding on itself, sooner or later, I’m absolutely sure peace will return to the Ukrainian homes.

And despite the insanity of this war, I’m convinced that the peace can be achieved sooner rather than later. And I’m ready to offer the separatists more rights than any part of Ukraine have ever had in the history of the nation. And I’m ready to discuss everything except one thing: Ukrainian independence, Ukrainian territorial integrity, Ukrainian sovereignty, Ukraine dismember.

And I’m confident if this war is about the rights and not about the geopolitical ambition, the solution must – and I’m sure – will be found.

Ladies and gentlemen, in 1991 independence came to Ukraine at a very low cost and peacefully. Yet, the more real this independence become, the higher grew its cost. Today the cost is as high as it gets.

While fighting this war, we’ll learn the value of independence and to recognize the true friends. And at no point we ever forget why we need independence. We need it to have a country worthy of the dreams of our ancestors. We need a state that would give its citizens a life of dignity, fairness, and equal opportunity.

To reach this goal, we would have to root out the things that drain Ukraine’s potential for such a long time and make for the two decades of independence and times for the lost opportunities.

We are painfully aware of this largely inherited from the era of Soviet Union decay: corruption, bureaucracy, and the self-preserving cynicisms of the political elites.

There is a saying that each people deserve the government it gets. Ukraine – two revolution within a single decade show that Ukraine as a people is better – much better – than Ukraine as a government. They show that Ukraine needs and deserves deep and profound modernization in absolutely all sphere, of the kind that brought economic success to Poland.

Given the kind of situation in and around Ukraine, the implementation of the comprehensive reform is not a matter of Ukraine succeeding but Ukraine surviving. Deeply aware of that, I give my voters the pledge; I will stick with it.

With the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement signed and ratified simultaneously in the Ukrainian and European Parliament, we have a clear path of reform before us. Never in the history of the European Union was there a document that was paid so dearly with such incredible human cost and sacrifice.

And this sacrifice – the memory of the hundreds dead and wounded will be one more reason – an incentive – to hold this unique chance to make Ukraine live up to its potential.

Ukraine need modern governments and non-corrupt public administration. Ukraine need to delegate more power to the local communities. Ukraine need to rely more on its strong, vibrant, and dynamic civil society. Ukraine is building a new model of managing its state and economic affairs where merit and hard work are duly rewarded. Ukraine need know how technology and new start-up to become better integrated to the global economy.

And for all of that, we need you – America’s help.

In particular, I ask the Congress to create a special fund to support the investment of American companies in Ukraine and to help us with the reform of our economy and our justice system.

And I assure you that all aid received from the West will be utilized by non-corrupt institution and that the new generation of officials will make sure that the funds are distributed effectively.

Ladies and gentlemen, we call our revolution – a revolution of dignity.

Human dignity was the driving force that brought people to the street. And this revolution must result in the education of dignity, economy of dignity, society of dignity. Human dignity, which makes Ukraine’s heart beat, and Ukraine’s mind look toward new and better version of itself. Human dignity is one thing we have to oppose to the barbarism of those attacking us.

It is one thing that we can set against the sea of lies in which highly sophisticated and well-funded machine of Russian propaganda is trying to drown the truth about Ukrainian democracy.

In the coming years, too many thing will depend on Ukrainian success. Believe me, too many things. And this success will be determined by Ukraine’s new leadership, by its new political generation, and by newly modernized society of Ukraine. Ukraine truly makes a difference.

By supporting Ukraine, you support new future of hero and the entire free world. By supporting Ukraine, you support a nation that has chosen freedom in the most cynical of the times.

In Ukraine, you don’t build a democracy. It’s already exist. You just defend it. And exactly this – what makes Ukraine unique, its struggle deeply and profoundly different from any other countries on the world…This is what make Ukraine the ultimate test for adherence to the idea of freedom.

Live free or die was one of the mottos of the American Revolutionary War. Live free or die was the spirit of the revolutionaries on the Maidan during the dramatic winter months of 2014 with the significant presence of the member of United States Congress, and we thank you for that. Live free or die are words of Ukrainian soldiers standing on line of freedom of this war. Live free must be the answer with which Ukraine comes out of this war. Live free must be the message Ukraine and America send to the world standing together in this time of enormous challenge.

Thank you.



Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

Tears in Moncton

It’s enough to make you cry.

While I’m writing this, Police in Dartmouth are responding to reports of a man with a gun, people in Moncton are mourning the murder of three Police Officers, and the idiots are running around the Internet.

The people of Moncton and the rest of Canada were only just beginning to realize what had happened in Moncton when the National Firearms Association (NFA) made their crazy statement.

Canada’s excessive firearms control system has failed again

The NFA may believe this to be true, but to make such a statement the day after the murder of three RCMP Officers, before an arrest was even made just boggles the mind. If they had merely made a statement deploring the shootings, which was part of their original statement and stopped right there, I wouldn’t be mentioning them at all.

NFA, if you don’t like bad press, stop acting like idiots.

The NFA did say that they were responding to the gun critics on Twitter.   For Pete’s sake! It’s Twitter, give them a couple of hours and they’ll be howling about something else. They always do, except for the handful that has been trolling on both sides of the gun control issue here for years, and they’ll never go away.

There will be another set of arguments about gun control in Canada because of this, but now is not the time. Now is the time to think about the three families that have someone who is never coming home again.

I’m glad they arrested the guy, and I’m glad they got him alive.

Now we at least have a chance to find out the truth about what really happened. Why someone would decide to do what he did. How he was able to do it.

There is plenty of speculation on the Internet and in the Media about the accused killer. Is he crazy? Were his weapons illegal? Is there a way to stop this from happening again?

There are lots of questions and very few answers at this point.

I hope the trial will allow us to see some of the answers. I really hope he’s found fit to stand trial.

And on top of all the gun lobbyists ranting on both the pro and con side of that Internet coin, we’ve got the pro and anti Police crews out as well.

I’ll cut to the chase, yes there are bad cops out there, people who should never have been allowed into law enforcement at all, but there are a lot more good cops that you’ll never hear about. Let’s face it, when something happens in your neighbourhood, who are the first people that you call, and who are the first ones to show up? Yep, the Police.

Finally, there are the reborn arguments on Capital Punishment.

I’m pretty clear on that one, I don’t support it and don’t think I ever will. In this particular case, I’d rather see the sentences carried out consecutively… 25 years for each of the murders of the RCMP Officers, and 25 years for each of the attempted murders of the two Officers wounded in the attacks.

Let him sit in prison for 125 years, and then his family can come for his bones, that is if they want them.

That’s it for me


The So Called Digital Privacy Act

Some things just never cease to amaze me.

Remember a few years back, there was a tremendous uproar because the long form Census wanted to know how many toilets you had in your home? This was horrid! Egregious! An unjustified invasion of peoples’ privacy!

How many illegal toilets do people have?

Now the same people who decried the invasion of the Toilet Counters are backing the Stop the Child Pornographers Stop the Bullies Internet Act.

Remember that one? The Pornographer one I mean.

Remember Vic Toews standing there and telling us that we either stand with the Harper Party or we stand with the Child Pornographers?

Well we weren’t standing with the pornographers and we aren’t standing with the bullies… but we sure as shootin’ aren’t standing with the Harper Party on this.

Listen, if the police suspect that someone is doing something illegal, there are ways to investigate this. Take your evidence to a Judge and get the Judge to sign an order. Take that to the ISP or the phone company and I have no issue. It’s transparent and it’s legal.

What is being proposed is that the police check up on you because someone told them to. Who is someone? I don’t know and the police won’t have to tell you. Maybe you ticked off your neighbour? Maybe you ticked off the PMO?

And there is no messy getting a warrant or dealing with Judges part, they’ll just snoop and if they find something, they’ll act.

Nice huh?

Actually the police do have this power. They can tap your phone or snoop your internet without permission but that information can only be used to help get a warrant. It can’t be used in court.

Imagine this. The police walk in unannounced and proceed to go through your house without your permission. What would you do? Call the cops? They’re already there. Demand to see the warrant? Call your lawyer?

Why should you care? If you’re not doing anything wrong they won’t find anything, will they?

That’s the tired argument proponents of this invasion use against you. Wanting to retain your privacy makes you suspect?

You cannot justify one without allowing the other.

And you were worried about toilets.

Think about it…


Will #Harper’s #cdnpoli Lies re #Crimea #Ukraine Lead to War with #Russia?

There are several burning questions with no clear answers. We will explore the subject and present some grossly overlooked facts that preceded the current seemingly manufactured crisis situation in Crimea. Before things spiral into the abyss it’s very important that everybody keep cool heads considering time and time again we are told by the Harper Government that the Canadian Government is acting for the benefit of the “Ukrainian people”.

Does a lie become the truth by simply repeating it over and over?

Is Stephen Harper and John Baird’s opaque “Cold War” lies and misrepresentation of the facts regarding Ukraine leading to war with Russia or is this just self-fulfilling grandstanding by the PMO or simply a dangerous campaign stunt aimed at pandering for votes hatched within the Harper Party itself?

Is the Canadian media’s lack of due diligence in omitting facts by repeating press releases from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and reports from RFE/RL’s Ukraine/Russia/Middle East dis-information propaganda arm Radio Svoboda fueling an unnecessary rush to war?

Do these events truly signify that the Harper Government has officially ceded Canada’s sovereignty and turned over control to foreign entities?

Unfortunately there is to this point no recognition of events leading to the formation of the Government Harper’s going to visit – overturning of an agreement made on 21 February 2014.

An action motivating the Russians, but to this point totally ignored in the words of John Baird – though not in those of Christopher Westdal, a former Canadian ambassador to both Ukraine and Russia.

Does re-directing the narrative away from Kiev and towards Crimea change the facts?

This is very troubling since it really brings into question the legitimacy of Stephen Harper and John Baird among others. Another troubling aspect is the complicity with which the Canadian media conglomerates have decided to report on the subsequent events. Not only that, but if there was a voice within Ottawa that knew the truth, the secretly passed lifelong gag order officially titled “Order Amending the Schedule to the Security of Information Act P.C. 2014-165 February 28, 2014” that was quietly announced on 12 March 2013 via the Canada Gazette website would see them imprisoned for up to 14 years.

On Friday, February 21 there was agreement on positive directions for the Ukraine as related in the following live blog coverage article via the Guardian:

Ukraine crisis: deal signed in effort to end Kiev standoff
Shiv Malik and Aisha Gani in London and Tom McCarthy in New York, Friday 21 February 2014 23.01 GMT

The signed agreement has been translated and is now available on the German Foreign ministry’s website.

Here it is in full:

Concerned with the tragic loss of life in Ukraine, seeking an immediate end of bloodshed and determined to pave the way for a political resolution of the crisis, We, the signing parties, have agreed upon the following:

1. Within 48 hours of the signing of this agreement, a special law will be adopted,signed and promulgated, which will restore the Constitution of 2004 including amendments passed until now. Signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter.

2. Constitutional reform, balancing the powers of the President, the government and parliament, will start immediately and be completed in September 2014.

3. Presidential elections will be held as soon as the new Constitution is adopted but no later than December 2014. New electoral laws will be passed and a new Central Election Commission will be formed on the basis of proportionality and in accordance with the OSCE & Venice commission rules.

4. Investigation into recent acts of violence will be conducted under joint monitoring from the authorities, the opposition and the Council of Europe.

5. The authorities will not impose a state of emergency. The authorities and the opposition will refrain from the use of violence. The Parliament will adopt the 3rd amnesty, covering the same range of illegal actions as the 17th February 2014 law.

Both parties will undertake serious efforts for the normalisation of life in the cities and villages by withdrawing from administrative and public buildings and unblocking streets, city parks and squares.

Illegal weapons should be handed over to the Ministry of Interior bodies within 24 hours of the special law, referred to in point 1 hereof, coming into force. After the aforementioned period, all cases of illegal carrying and storage of weapons will fall under the law of Ukraine. The forces of authorities and of the opposition will step back from confrontational posture. The Government will use law enforcement forces exclusively for the physical protection of public buildings.

6. The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Poland and the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation call for an immediate end to all violence and confrontation.

Kyiv, 21 February 2014


President of Ukraine: Viktor Yanukovych

For the Opposition: Vitaliy Klichko, UDAR, Oleh Tyahnibok, Svoboda, Arsenij Yatseniuk, Batkivshchyna

Witnessed by:

For the EU – Poland: foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski; Germany: foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier; France: foreign minister Laurent Fabius

For the Russian Federation – Vladimir Lukin, special envoy

Updated at 3.27pm GMT



The agreement was officially delivered by the Embassy of Ukraine to Canada on 21 February 2014:

February 21, 2014 an Agreement to resolve the crisis in Ukraine was signed in Kyiv
21 February, 22:58 Embassy of Ukraine to Canada

In result of negotiations President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders Arseniy Yatseniuk, Oleh Tiahnybok and Vitali Klitschko have signed an agreement to resolve the crisis in Ukraine.

The Agreement provides:

– Within 48 hours of the signing of this agreement, a special law will be adopted, signed and promulgated, which will restore the Constitution of 2004 including amendments passed until now.

– Signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter.

– Constitutional reform, balancing the powers of the President, the government and parliament, will start immediately and be completed in September 2014.

– Presidential elections will be held as soon as the new Constitution is adopted but no later than December 2014.

– New electoral laws will be passed and a new Central Election Commission will be formed on the basis of proportionality and in accordance with the OSCE & Venice commission rules.

– Investigation into recent acts of violence will be conducted under joint monitoring from the authorities, the opposition and the Council of Europe.

– The authorities will not impose a state of emergency. The authorities and the opposition will refrain from the use of violence.

– The Parliament will adopt the 3rd amnesty, covering the same range of illegal actions as the 17th February 2014 law.

– Both parties will undertake serious efforts for the normalisation of life in the cities and villages by withdrawing from administrative and public buildings and unblocking streets, city parks and squares.

– Illegal weapons should be handed over to the Ministry of Interior bodies within 24 hours of the special law, referred to in point 1 hereof, coming into force.

– After the aforementioned period, all cases of illegal carrying and storage of weapons will fall under the law of Ukraine.

– The forces of authorities and of the opposition will step back from confrontational posture. The Government will use law enforcement forces exclusively for the physical protection of public buildings.

The negotiations was also attended by representatives of the European Union – German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and Head for Continental Europe at the French Foreign Ministry Eric Fournier and also Russian human rights commissioner Vladimir Lukin.


The agreement was officially accepted and recognized by John Baird on behalf of Canada on 21 February 2014:

Canada Welcomes Agreement in Ukraine

February 21, 2014 – Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement on the current situation in Ukraine:

“Canada welcomes the agreement reached today between the Ukrainian government and opposition leaders, including the Maidan council, to bring an end to months of repression and violence and hold early presidential elections.

“Canada will remain vigilant in monitoring progress under the agreement and stands ready to promote the full implementation of its commitments. We note the steps taken toward releasing former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko from prison and continue to call for this to happen immediately.

“The measures on travel bans and sanctions announced yesterday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be calibrated to respond to the degree to which the Ukrainian authorities adhere to both the spirit and the letter of today’s agreement.

“All Canadians mourn the lives lost over the past several days. We remain committed to ensuring Ukraine’s path toward democracy and to ensuring that the lives were not lost in vain.”

For a full list of actions taken to date by Canada in response to the situation in Ukraine, visit Canada’s Response to the Situation in Ukraine.

– 30 –

For further information, media representatives may contact:

Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada
Follow us on Twitter: @DFATDCanada

Date Modified: 2014-02-21


The reaction? “EU, U.S, Germany and France welcome Ukraine agreement” U.S. said “We support the efforts of all those who negotiated this agreement, commend the courageous opposition leaders who recognized the need for compromise”:

22 February 2014 EU, U.S, Germany and France welcome Ukraine agreement

The White House welcomed the signing of an accord between the Ukrainian government and opposition leaders Friday.

“We support the efforts of all those who negotiated this agreement, commend the courageous opposition leaders who recognized the need for compromise, and offer the support of the United States in its implementation,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney in a statement released to the press.

The agreement calls for early elections and a new government.

Following the signing, the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s parliament) restored the 2004 constitution.

Russia, a strong supporter of Yanukovych, was not a signatory to the agreement.

The White House again called for those responsible for the violence to be held accountable, saying it was prepared to “impose additional sanctions if necessary.”

Carney added that the U.S. will stand with the Ukrainian people “as they work to restore peace, security, and human dignity across the country and determine the future course of their nation.”

– The European Union has welcomed the agreement reached on Friday between Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders.

In a written statement, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said he welcomed the agreement, describing it as a necessary compromise for a democratic, peaceful way out of the crisis.

Rompuy said the EU continues to stand by Ukraine.

“The agreement was facilitated by the important work of the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Poland and the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation and based on the persistent efforts of the last two months by High Representative Ashton and Commissioner Fule,” he added.

French President Francois Hollande also welcomed the agreement and called for a “full and timely implementation of the deal.”

“After the unacceptable, intolerable and unjustifiable violence that has plunged Ukraine into mourning in recent days, France calls for the full and timely implementation of the deal that has just been signed,” he said.

Three European foreign ministers – France’s Laurent Fabius, Germany’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Poland’s Radoslaw Sikorski – brokered the peace deal and praised Yanukovych and the opposition for their “courage” in agreeing to end the standoff.

The agreement stipulates a return to the 2004 Constitution within 48 hours and calls for early presidential elections.

The crisis-ending agreement is expected to help end EU sanctions against Ukraine, which were agreed on during yesterday’s extraordinary meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.

Dozens were killed in violent clashes on Thursday, according to a statement from Ukraine’s Health Ministry.

Mass anti-government protests began in November when Yanukovych refused to sign a free trade agreement with the EU amid pressure from Russia.

– Germany FM expresses cautious optimism after Ukraine deal

Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has welcomed an agreement signed today between Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders, but warned that difficulties lay ahead.

“This might have been the last chance to find an exit and end the violence,” Steinmeier said.

“Not all of the problems are solved,” Steinmeier cautioned, but added that the agreement opened the way for a political solution to the crisis.

“There is reason to look forward with confidence,” he said.

Steinmeier, together with France’s Foreign Minister Fabius Laurent and Poland’s Radoslaw Sikorski carried out marathon talks with the government and the opposition after deadly clashes broke out early Thursday morning.

The three welcomed the agreement and called for an immediate end to the violence.

“The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland welcome the signing of the agreement and commend the parties for their courage and commitment to the deal. We call for an immediate end to all violence and confrontation in Ukraine,” said a joint statement released by the German Foreign Ministry.

Germany’s government spokesman Steffen Seibert said Friday, “This might be the last chance for a political process to come out of this deep crisis in Ukraine.”

“We are witnessing a terrible human tragedy. Dozens of deaths within a few hours,” Seibert noted. He also said that it was the duty of all to ensure that the protests remain non-violent, adding, “It is the duty of the Ukrainian government to create the conditions for nonviolence and an opportunity for peaceful free expression.”

Seibert said the German government strongly condemned the week’s violence and Chancellor Angela Merkel was shocked by the events.

He said Merkel had a phone conversation with Viktor Yanukovych yesterday and convinced him to receive the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland as moderators of talks between the government and the opposition.


Yet the next day overthrow of the agreement and installation of a new President was accepted and is being supported as though there had been no agreement:

Putin’s frustration with West begins to show [Video]

The Globe and Mail | Mar. 04 2014

The Globe’s senior international correspondent Mark MacKinnon explains why the West should not expect Russian President Vladimir Putin to ease tensions over Ukraine.


Christopher Westdal on Ukraine talks [Video]
World | Mar 14, 2014 | 9:37

CBC speaks to former Canadian ambassador to Russia and Ukraine


Ukraine ambassador on de-escalating Crimea tensions [Video]
Politics | Mar 13, 2014 | 9:02

Vadym Prystaiko comments on a controversial referendum in Crimea as Russia amasses troops at the border


John Baird on Ukraine aid [Video]
Politics | Mar 13, 2014 | 8:21

Foreign Affairs minister discusses Canada’s $220M million loan for Ukraine


PM Harper to visit Ukraine [Video]
Politics | Mar 14, 2014 | 21:10

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says Prime Minister Stephen Harper will travel to Kyiv next weekend


Further Research

Manufacturing Discontent Propaganda 101. Just rinse, recycle and repeat the past…

United States Government Support of Covert Action Directed at the Soviet Union: Memorandum for the 303 Committee Washington, December 9, 1969 Mentions a FY 1970 budget of $13,130,000 for the Radio Liberty Committee

103. Memorandum for the 303 Committee 1
Washington, December 9, 1969.

United States Government Support of Covert Action Directed at the Soviet Union

[1 Source: National Security Council, Nixon Intelligence Files, Subject Files, USSR.
Secret; Eyes Only.]

4. Alternatives

A. The United States could follow a policy of encouraging more vigorous émigré activities by more forthcoming identification by United States officials with émigré objectives, the extension of subsidies for émigré activities or organizations not presently receiving assistance from the United States Government, and adoption of a policy of open support for the independence of national minority areas such as the Ukraine. Substantial intensification of émigré propaganda activities might result in stimulating dissension inside the USSR, inducing defections and improving the collection of intelligence; identification with the independence of national minority groups could strengthen ethnic nationalist resistance to Russian domination. On the other hand, a more vigorous emigration probably would strengthen the forces of conformity and repression would retard the process of evolution in popular and leadership attitudes which the program is trying to promote.

B. It could also be argued that it would be in the national interest to divorce the United States Government entirely from the emigration and its activities. In this event the efforts of Soviet conservatives to justify repression of dissent on the basis of American “subversion” would lose some of their credibility. This argument, however, is negated by the fact that suspicions of U.S. intentions are so deeply ingrained that any change in U.S. policy toward the emigration would have minimal impact on the conservatives. Moreover, a source of support for those in the Soviet Union who are sustained by a sense of contact with the emigration would be removed and the Soviet authorities would be able more easily to foist their own version of events on the people and be under less pressure to make reforms.


United States Policy Options

A. High Profile Support
The United States could reverse field and follow a more vigorous pro-émigré policy, which might take the form, for example, of (i) more forthcoming identification by United States officials with émigré activities and objectives, (ii) extension of subsidies for émigré activities or organizations not presently receiving U.S. Government assistance; (iii) adoption for the first time of a policy of open support for the independence
of national minority areas like the Ukraine.

—Blatant support of anti-Soviet émigré activities would suggest the determination of the Administration to follow a tough policy toward the USSR, exploiting any vulnerability, in the event that the USSR does not become more cooperative on major issues in dispute.
—Any substantial intensification of émigré propaganda activities might have some feedback in terms of defections, in acquisition of information, and in stimulating dissension inside the USSR;
—United States identification with the independence of national minority areas would strike a responsive chord in an area like the Ukraine and could strengthen nationalist resistance to Russian domination.


Minority Repression

Among many of the non-Russian minorities in the Soviet Union, dissent is vocal and widespread. It is also vigorously repressed. In the Ukraine, the arrests of hundreds of Ukrainian dissidents in 1965 and 1966, and subsequent repressions, have been vigorously protested by leading Ukrainian scientists, artists, and writers, including Oleg Antonov, one of the Soviet Union’s leading aircraft designers.

The contempt of the Baltic people for Soviet rule remains as strong as ever. It is no longer expressed in hopeless armed resistance, as it was twenty years ago. Instead, these small nations manifest a vigorous determination to preserve their national cultures. Even the local Communist Party apparatus has sought to assert a degree of autonomy. In Estonia many works of Western literature that have never been published in Russian are printed in the native language. Two of the major underground documents recently proposing alternatives to the Communist dictatorship originated in Estonia.

source: [pdf]

NATO’s Relations with Russia and Ukraine
R. Craig Nation
Elihu Root Professor of Military Studies
Director of Russian and Eurasian Studies
U.S. Army War College
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
June 2000


1. The New NATO.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was conceived and maintained during the decades of the Cold War as an association for collective defense in the face of a clear and present external threat. With the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact on 1 July 1991, NATO appeared to many to be an alliance without a mission. In an era of revolutionary transformations, where the familiar certainties of bipolarity no longer held sway, the future of the Alliance was inevitably placed in discussion. Immanuel Wallerstein, speaking from the far left wing of the American political spectrum, pressed the conclusion to its logical extreme: “A Cold War instrument, it is not clear why NATO is now needed … The United States should stop obstructing the creation of a European army, allowing NATO to wither away.”1

The American commitment to European defense lies at the heart of the transatlantic bargain that defines NATO. It is an expensive commitment, which absorbs nearly half of total U.S. military spending.2 Washington reacted to the end of the Cold War by significantly reducing its troop presence in the European theater, lowering the number of effectives from over 300,000 in 1991 to approximately 100,000. Simultaneously, however, it made clear that at the institutional level no other organization could substitute for the Atlantic Alliance as the anchor of a new European security order. From a European perspective, though the imminent d0anger of the Cold War period was no longer in place, as a forum for defense cooperation and a means for keeping the U.S. engaged in the Old Continent the Alliance remained essential.

Survival demanded adaptation, and at its Copenhagen session in 1991 the North Atlantic Council took a first step toward revitalization with a declaration on “NATO’s Core Security Functions in the New Europe” that reiterated collective defense and transatlantic cooperation as essential responsibilities.3 As if in answer to Wallerstein, the need to keep other European security forums subordinated to NATO leadership was clearly stated, a priority that coincided with the U.S.’s March 1992 Defense Planning Guidance concept, which specified that “we [the U.S.] must attempt to prevent the emergence of any kind of exclusively European defense forces, that could finish by threatening NATO.” 4

The Atlantic Council summit in Rome on 7-8 November 1991 culminated a first phase of adaptation. The Council sought to redefine NATO’s military responsibilities with the publication of a New Strategic Concept that encouraged the creation of multilateral formations, coined the phrase “interlocking institutions” to emphasize the complementary role of other leading European institutions (such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE], the Western European Union, and the Council of Europe) in the security sector, and placed a new emphasis upon mobile forces and peace operations.5 NATO’s “intact validity” as the keystone in Europe’s security arch was clearly stated.6 Finally, the Council sought to confront the potential for a security vacuum to develop in post-communist central Europe by announcing the creation of a North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) as a forum for formal association between NATO and the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe.7

At Rome the Alliance staked a course toward expanded out of area commitments and engagement to the east. Much of its subsequent development has been consistent with that course. In Sintra, Portugal on 30 May 1997 the NACC was reestablished as the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), with “increased ability to give focus and weight to discussions concerning multilateral political and security-related issues.”8 With 46 members (19 NATO full members plus 27 partners) the EAPC has become a vital pillar of NATO’s aspiration to play an inclusive, pan-European role.

The NACC’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program was launched at NATO’s Brussels summit in January 1994. Today, under EAPC auspices, it too has expanded to include partnership programs with 27 partners. PfP seeks to promote transparency in national defense planning and budgeting, democratic control of armed forces, and readiness to operate in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations under UN or OSCE auspices as well as with NATO. It includes ambitious NATO/PfP national and “In the Spirit of PfP” exercise programs and NATO School SHAPE programs open to partner participation. Over the years it has become ever more ambitious, establishing the norm that partners should be contributors as well as recipients, moving from broad-based multilateral dialogue to bilateral relations between individual partners and the Alliance in the form of Individual Partnership Programs, and establishing a Planning and Review Process to draw partners closer to the Alliance by helping them to meet interoperability standards.9

The 1995 Dayton Peace Accords assigned NATO forces, designated as an Implementation Force (IFOR) and after renewal of the mandate as a Stabilization Force (SFOR), significant peacekeeping responsibilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1999, after diplomatic pressure failed to convince Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to call off his campaign of repression and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, NATO waged a full-scale air war to impose a peace settlement. Since June 1999, Kosovo has been occupied by a NATO-led Kosovo Peacekeeping Force (KFOR), with extensive responsibilities for maintaining public order. In 1997 the Alliance also launched a first round of enlargement by agreeing to bring Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary into the fold as full members, and adopted a Membership Action Plan to assist new candidates in their efforts to prepare for eventual affiliation.10

These varied initiatives had a purposeful logic. The new NATO would not be limited to collective defense responsibilities, but rather actively engaged in peace keeping and peace enforcement operations on Europe’s unstable periphery. It was moreover pledged to future rounds of enlargement on the basis of an “open-door” approach defined by rigorous accession criteria. Not least, the Alliance was committed to a process of internal reform and adaptation that sought to strengthen its European pillar and accentuate its character as an inclusive, collective security forum. NATO’s fiftieth anniversary observances in Washington during April 1999 marked an important culmination for these trends, formally welcoming Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as new members and promulgating an ambitious new Strategic Concept.11

2. NATO, Russia, and Ukraine.

The Russian Federation articulated strong objections to NATO’s enlargement decision. In part to placate these discontents, and in part to sustain the momentum of enlargement by making the process more inclusive, NATO paralleled its accession talks with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic with an attempt to craft special relationships with both Moscow and Kyiv. NATO’s ties with Russia and Ukraine may be depicted as a triangle, with each leg representing a significant set of bilateral interactions. But the relationship as a whole has a larger importance, and is integral to the effort to recast NATO’s post-Cold War responsibilities.

The Russian Federation has been in a state of perpetual crisis since the breakup of the USSR in 1991, and its international stature has declined radically. Russia nonetheless retains all the objective attributes of a great world power. With 80 percent of former Soviet territories it remains the world’s largest state, and largest single national repository of strategic raw materials. It is the world’s second ranking nuclear power, and despite the much publicized decline of its conventional forces, is still a major conventional military power. Russia has inherited the Soviet Union’s status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and possesses a critical geostrategic situation, at the core of the Eurasian heartland.

Ukraine has a population of 52 million, renowned agricultural potential, important coal, mineral, and timber resources, a substantial industrial infrastructure, and an important geographical position between the Russian Federation, the Black Sea, and central Europe. Though its experience of independence has been difficult and to some extent disappointing, it is widely viewed as a pivotal state in a region undergoing fundamental transformations.

NATO’s ties with the Russian Federation, burdened by a legacy of rivalry and distrust, are of particular salience. The Alliance’s agenda for a transformed Euro-Atlantic security order cannot be fulfilled without Russian engagement. Ukraine defines a “European Choice” as the central pillar of its foreign policy, but it is constrained by a legacy of backwardness, and by a complex relationship with its Russian neighbor. Though it is a troubled polity, as a major regional power Ukraine is too important for the Alliance to ignore.

At the very origin of the Atlantic Alliance, NATO’s first Secretary General Lord Ismay is reported to have quipped that it was founded “to keep the Russian out, the Germans down, and Americans in.”12 None of these observations are relevant to the Alliance’s role today. Europe is no longer dependent upon the United States for core security in the way that it once was. Russia is not capable of projecting a geostrategic threat comparable to that once posed by the Soviet Union. A stronger and more purposeful Germany, willing and able to play its natural role as a bridge between East and West, would serve everyone’s best interests. As analysts like Wallerstein correctly point out, under the altered circumstances of the post-Cold War, the traditional premises of collective defense and containment are no longer sufficient to support the imposing edifice of Atlanticism.

Revolutionary changes in the security environment have not made the Alliance irrelevant, but they have posed new priorities. The fundamental challenge of the current era is not deterrence, but rather engagement on behalf of a greater Europe and Euro-Atlantic community “whole and at peace.” NATO has come toward that challenge by launching a process of internal reform, redefining core missions, and committing to enlargement. The cultivation of special relations with Russia and Ukraine, former enemies situated well outside of the Alliance’s traditional area of competence, is an integral part of the effort. If these relationships develop and prosper, the Alliance’s potential as a collective security forum can be realized to the full, and its vocation as a “zone of peace” will be greatly expanded. With Russian support, the enlargement process can go forward gradually and consistently, without becoming a source of geostrategic friction. Not least, a NATO-Russia partnership could become a critical pillar of a new world order actually worthy of the name. Positive association will provide incentives for Russia’s ongoing domestic transformation, and eventually allow the doors of the Alliance to be opened to Russia itself.

NATO’s effort to create and sustain special relationships with Russia and Ukraine faces significant challenges, but much is at stake. Should the effort fail, Europe risks to see the emergence of a new line of division between East and West that will inevitably become a source of strategic tension. Success will mean a major step toward the promise of a more peaceful world order for which victory in the Cold War once seemed a harbinger.

Ukraine Between East and West

1. A Pivotal State?

Western policy toward Ukraine has moved through several phases. Speaking in Kyiv during August 1991, on the very eve of the Soviet breakup, U.S. President George Bush cautioned Ukrainians that “freedom is not the same as independence,” and that Americans “will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based on ethnic hatred.”13 After 1991, relations were dominated by the problem of the arsenal that Ukraine had inherited from the USSR, which briefly made it the world’s third-ranking nuclear power. Kyiv’s reluctance to cooperate with the nuclear non-proliferation regime (to sign the non-proliferation treaty and the START I agreement, to associate with the Lisbon Protocols, and to commit to a process of denuclearization) created considerable tension.14 In the wake of Ukraine’s bout with hyperinflation in 1993-1994, pessimistic evaluations and predictions of imminent breakdown were widespread.15

With the U.S. shift toward a more assertive Russian policy after the “Zhirinovskii Shock” of December 1993 (when the Liberal Democratic party led by ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovskii won the largest tally in voting by party list for the lower house of a new Russian parliament), and especially following the election of new Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma in June 1994, Ukraine’s stature improved considerably. Kuchma committed Ukraine to denuclearization, sought to revitalize a domestic reform agenda, and strove for balanced relations between Russia and the West.16

From 1994 onward Ukraine has enjoyed the status of privileged partner, and the commitment “to see an independent, secure, democratic Ukraine survive, succeed and prosper” has been inscribed as a vital interest.17 Ukraine has come to be perceived as a “pivotal” state–one of a handful “whose futures [are] poised at critical turning points, and whose fates would significantly affect regional, and even international, stability.”18 As “the linchpin of stability in post-communist Eurasia,” it has become a centerpiece of Western policy.19

The case for casting Ukraine as a pivotal rests upon four premises. The first is that the consolidation of Ukrainian sovereignty is essential to prevent the recreation of something like the former Soviet superpower around its Russian core. Russian national security policy clearly articulates the goal of voluntary re-association of former Soviet states.20 As long as Kyiv maintains a commitment to full sovereignty, however, the premise of “geopolitical pluralism” in post-Soviet Eurasia is likely to prevail.21 “The West,” notes Taras Kuzio, “has increasingly come to understand and appreciate the strategic significance of Ukraine as the main post-Soviet country capable of preventing the re-emergence of a new Russian-dominated union.”22

Second, the point at which Russia comes to understand that Ukraine cannot be either won over, subverted, or subordinated to some kind of renewed association is also the point at which Moscow will be forced to abandon imperial fantasies and commit to the arduous but essential tasks of democratization and domestic reform. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the fundamental political struggle underway within post-communist Russia “is over whether Russia will be a national and increasingly European state or a distinctly Eurasian and once again an imperial state,” and “it cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes and empire.” 23 Ukraine’s progress in consolidating sovereignty is thereby defined as the key determinant of the geostrategic orientation of its menacing Russian neighbor.

Third, a stable Ukraine is perceived to be important in its own right, as a large and potentially powerful state that cannot be allowed to become detached from a process of modernization and development in the region as a whole. Ukraine borders on no less than seven central and eastern European states, all of which confront comparable challenges of democratization, adaptation to the world economy, and institutional reform. Its transformation is an integral part of post-communist transition in the central European corridor stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas. Ukraine has been associated with the Central European Initiative since June 1996, it is an associate of the Forum of Black Sea Cooperation, and it pursues close bilateral relations with its regional neighbors. Ukraine’s historical and cultural ties with Poland and Russia make it a potential bridge between East and West.24 “In time,” writes Adrian Karatnycky, “a stable and democratic Ukraine, linked to democratic Europe, could act as a conduit for democratic ideas to the east; a Western-oriented Ukraine, with its large Russian population, could engage Russia to the West.”25

Finally, Ukraine is increasingly perceived to be critically situated in the emerging battle to dominate energy transport corridors linking the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian basin to European markets. The economic viability of Caspian resources has yet to be conclusively demonstrated, but considerable competition has already emerged over the construction of pipelines. Whether Ukraine will provide alternative routes helping to diversify access, as the West would prefer, or “find itself forced to play the role of a Russian subsidiary,” remains to be seen.26 Its relevance in the effort to exploit the Caspian energy knot is not in doubt.

A heightened perception of Ukraine’s strategic importance has been manifested in intensified military-tomilitary contacts with both the U.S. and its key allies. Since 1996 Ukraine has been the third leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid, after Israel and Egypt, in addition to receiving considerable World Bank and International Monetary Fund support, and the largesse has borne fruit. In 1993-1994, with its economy in tatters, separatist movements on the rise, and relations with the Russian Federation in a downward spiral, the potential for a Ukrainian civil war, or external conflict with Russia, was widely assessed as acute.27 Today, the threat of overt hostilities seems to be minimal. Ukraine has moved peacefully through two democratic electoral cycles. >From June 1996 it has been governed on the basis of a democratic constitution. In September 1996 Kyiv began to issue its own national currency (the hyrvnya), and in January 1997 it published a National Security Concept that emphasized the goal of integration with the Western post-Cold War security system. 28 Ukraine retains considerable support from a potent diaspora, and it has established a strong international profile.

2. Ukraine’s Dilemmas of Sovereignty.

Despite these accomplishments, Ukraine remains a troubled polity, whose prospects for long-term stabilization are cloudy. Although the country possesses great potential wealth, its legacy from seventy years of Soviet power has been heavy.

Ukraine’s economy was closely integrated with the Soviet command system, and it has inherited almost all of the flaws associated with that system in full measure. The agricultural sector continues to suffer from a bitter experience under Soviet power, including a cumbersome collective farm structure that has proven difficult to dismantle. Much of Ukraine’s industrial infrastructure is outmoded and non-competitive, energy-intensive, and highly polluting. A significant portion of Soviet military-related industries were located in Ukraine, and this sector, which was formerly highly protected, has been hit hard by the loss of Soviet markets. The years of independence have seen chronic disaffection and demoralization among the industrial work force. There is also a near total energy dependence upon former Soviet suppliers, particularly the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan.29

Under post-independence Prime Minister Vitold Fokin Ukraine adopted a go-slow approach to reform, on the premise that its first priorities must be the consolidation of independence and nation-building. The result was a virtual economic meltdown in 1993-1994, including hyperinflation and collapsing living standards. In September 1994 Kuchma worked out a Systematic Transformation Facility with the IMF, and in the early years of his tenure applied it with some success. The recent past has seen considerable slippage, however, and overall Ukraine’s economic transition has been abysmal, including a 60 percent decline in GDP since 1991. Privatization has not been decisively advanced, large state budget deficits have become chronic, state subsidization of non-profitable enterprises remains the norm, and living standards continue to decline. Dislocations occasioned by economic hardship will remain a possibility, and some analysts foresee little economic future for Ukraine beyond the status of an “agricultural periphery to a more advanced Russia.”30

Lacking any real experience of independent statehood prior to 1991, Ukraine has also confronted the difficult challenge of building and sustaining a national identity. Underdeveloped national consciousness has been manifested by an aggravated and sometimes antagonistic regionalism. 31 The most serious tensions have derived from a divide between Ukraine’s westernmost districts, committed to an agenda for a strongly delineated Ukrainian national idea, and the heavily Russified eastern and southern regions whose population has tended to favor closer association with the Russian Federation. According to the census of 1989, 22 percent of Ukraine’s population is of Russian descent. A significantly higher percentage may be classified as Russified Ukrainians, for whom the Russian language (or a Russian-Ukrainian melange) continues to serve as a primary vehicle of communication (nearly 50 percent of the Ukrainian population cites Russian as its first language). Fully aware of the potential problem represented by their country’s large Russian minority, the governments of Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma have striven, with some success, to propagate an agenda for an inclusive Ukrainian civic nationalism. 32 Strongly contrasting regional identities persist, however, and in the event of a severe national crisis could become fonts of instability.

The Russian factor in Ukrainian domestic politics is focused in several distinct areas. First in order of extent is the Donbas, the densely populated heart of eastern Ukraine and its mining, metallurgical, and chemical complexes. The five districts of eastern Ukraine contain 34 percent of the country’s population, but they are responsible for over 45 percent of total industrial production. Only 32 percent of residents list Ukrainian as their mother tongue, compared to 66 percent who name Russian. In the core districts of Donetsk and Luhansk, native speakers of Ukrainian number 3 percent and 7 percent respectively. Since 1992, a local political agenda has been cultivated calling for the elevation of Russian to the status of an official language, dual citizenship arrangements, open borders, and closer association with the Russian Federation.

Southern Ukraine also contains districts with a significant Russian profile. The Black Sea littoral around the cities of Odesa and Kherson was originally settled by Russians in the era of Catherine the Great, and given the designation “New Russia,” a term of reference that has found resonance with contemporary Russian nationalists.

The Crimean Peninsula, historically a part of Russia and only annexed to Ukraine at the behest of Nikita Khrushchev in 1954 (to honor the three-hundredth anniversary of Russian-Ukrainian association) is probably the most significant focus for Russian nationalism inside Ukraine. Approximately 70 percent of Crimea’s population of 2.7 million is Great Russian, 22 percent Ukrainian, and 8 percent indigenous Crimean Tatars. Russian nationalism has been powerfully manifest in Crimea, and has found an echo within the Russian Federation, particularly around the status of the port city of Sevastopol. The Russian national movement in Crimea has not, however, been overtly supported by the Russian state. Elections in the spring of 1994 brought the pro-Russian Republican Movement of the Crimea to power behind president Iurii Meshkov, but Moscow refused to rally behind the movement’s separatist agenda and looked away as Kuchma pushed Meshkov aside and abolished the Crimean presidency in March 1995.

Western Ukraine presents a strong contrast to the Russified east and south. Focused on the city of L’viv, whose baroque central square is regaled by a statue of the Polish national poet Adam Mickiewicz, dominantly Uniate Christian, attached historically to the central European cultural zone, and only brought within the confines of the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War, western Ukraine functions as the motor of an assertively anti- Russian Ukrainian national consciousness. Under Gorbachev, the Ukrainian Popular Movement in Support of Perestroika (Rukh) based in western Ukraine became the driving force of an Ukrainian independence movement. Since Kuchma’s election in 1994 over Rukh candidate Viacheslav Chornovil the movement has split, with one wing evolving into an almost purely western Ukrainian regional party, calling for an aggressive Ukrainianization of national institutions and greater distancing from the Russian Federation.

Ukraine contains other, smaller pockets of local and regional identity. The Zaporizhzhia district north of the Sea of Azov has a large, politically mobilized Cossack population. The Trancarpathian region (the Zakarpatska district) contains a complex ethnic mix, including a large Ruthenian minority that has resisted Ukrainianization. Chernivtsi district, formerly part of the Habsburg domains and only detached from modern Romania during the Second World War, also defends an autonomous regional identity and central European vocation. None of these smaller sub-regions is likely to threaten national unity on its own. The multiple fault lines that fracture Ukraine, however, could become considerably more unstable against the background of a generalized national or regional crisis.

A yearning for order and lost security are powerful forces pushing a portion of Ukraine’s electorate toward extremist alternatives. By 1996, one-third of the Ukrainian population was asserting support for a “Pinochet style” regime and some cities even saw the birth of Pinochet fan clubs. In the parliamentary elections of 29 March 1998, the Communist party of Ukraine became the country’s largest party with 28 percent of the vote, in a parliament (Verkhovna Rada) dominated by parties of the left, and in the 1999 presidential vote communist candidate Simonenko carried 40 percent of the national tally.33 Kravchuk and Kuchma have responded to these trends in approximately the same manner as their Russian counterparts, by crafting a presidential regime in which the executive branch possesses extraordinary power that it uses to override a hostile but effectively impotent parliamentary assembly. Like Russia, Ukraine is structured as a corporatist regime, where powerful collective entities and interest groups, working hand in glove with the presidential entourage and “party of power,” combine to constitute a power elite. Kuchma has been successful in neutralizing opposition through a combination of cooptation and divide and conquer tactics. His personal entourage has come to consist almost entirely of old friends and associates from Dnipropetrovsk, and his regime has become renowned for pervasive corruption. Kuchma’s reelection was marred by abusive use of the national media on behalf of the incumbent and coerced bloc voting, and procedures were criticized by OSCE and Council of Europe observers.34 If democratization remains a watchword of Western strategy, the case of Ukraine might give security planners pause.

3. Relations with Russia.
Of all the challenges that independent Ukraine confronts, its relationship with the Russian Federation is the most significant, both for its own future and for the future of central and eastern Europe.35 Ukraine, like Europe as a whole, cannot be secure if confronted by a hostile Russia. But Moscow will not easily be persuaded to abandon all pretenses to a “privileged” relationship with its former eastern Slavic dependency.

Economic relations between Russia and Ukraine are significant for both sides. Levels of interdependence at the moment of independence were high. Ukraine, for example, furnished over 65 percent of Soviet metallurgical capacity and 40 percent of agricultural resources, while nearly 80 percent of Ukrainian energy resources derived from Soviet sources. Dependence on Russian energy sources was to some extent balanced by the fact that the main pipeline connecting Russian natural gas fields to the European market transits Ukraine, but Kyiv is also heavily reliant upon transit revenues. Since independence, Russia has not shied away from using Ukraine’s energy dependency, the substantial debt that it has brought in its train, and general commercial dependence, as a source of strategic leverage. Kyiv has sought to reduce that leverage by negotiating higher transit fees for natural gas transfers, converting Odesa into a Black Sea oil terminal to allow diversification of supply, and rationalizing a highly inefficient oil refining capacity. The result of Russian pressing and Ukrainian resistance has been a considerable amount of strategic friction.

The issues of sovereignty over Crimea and control of the former Soviet Black Sea fleet based in Sevastopol have been particularly troublesome. On 28 May 1997 the Ukrainian-Russian intergovernmental Black Sea Accords granted Moscow outright possession of 50 percent of the fleet, allowed it to purchase an additional 32 percent of the Ukrainian share in exchange for Ukrainian debt relief, and granted Moscow a twenty year lease (with the option to renew for an additional five years) over naval facilities in Sevastopol, with Ukraine retaining possession of one bay.36 On 31 May 1997 a Ukrainian-Russian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership extended mutual guarantees of territorial integrity. These agreements were in principle a breakthrough in Russian-Ukrainian relations, providing a blueprint for resolving the thorny issue of the fleet in the context of de jure Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea. Despite the best of intentions, however, some things have been left unclear. The question of Sevastopol has great emotional resonance with Russian national opinion and has become a cause célèbre for the nationalist rightwing and its allies in the State Duma. It would be surprising if at some point in the future it was not raised again. There are also important strategic issues at stake, which technical agreements over access cannot resolve. Some kind of permanent naval basing in Crimea is vital to a continued Russian naval presence in the Black Sea. There is significant in-place military shipbuilding capacity in Sevastopol that Moscow will be loath to give up. And Crimea remains an important source of leverage in bilateral relations.37

Less concretely, but perhaps most fundamentally, a potent strain of Russian national sentiment continues to regard Ukraine as an inseparable part of a larger family of eastern Slavic nations, artificially separated from the Motherland by hostile Western powers seeking “the weakening of Russia’s strategic and economic situation in Eurasia.” 38 The most consistent expression of an alternative agenda in contemporary Russia is the geopolitical school, which portrays the entire Eurasian land mass as an organic whole within which Russian hegemony and the elusive “Russian Idea” have been historically sanctioned sources of unity and order. According to the argument, the disbanding of the Soviet imperium, inspired by the vain idea of “joining” the West, has led to a national catastrophe that only a renewed Eurasian orientation can reverse.39 Ukraine is regarded as an integral part of the eastern Slavic cultural space and of the Eurasian heartland. It is indeed a “linchpin” of regional order, but one that Russia is urged to reclaim as part of a long-term strategy to reassert itself as a protagonist in world affairs. So long as Ukraine remains economically fragile and socially unstable, such aspirations will have an objective foundation. It has been easy to make the case for Ukraine’s pivotal status as the “keystone” in the central European arch of post-communist states in transition, but difficult to define a convincing agenda for progressive change.40 Until considerably more progress toward democratic consolidation and economic reform has been made, the possibility of civil unrest, regional conflict, and backsliding on the issue of sovereignty cannot altogether be ruled out. Though the dire forecasts of 1994 have not come to pass, Ukraine’s global balance of eight years of postcommunist transition is negative, and dramatic improvement is not in sight.41

Ukraine’s fragility creates a certain imbalance in Western strategy, which rests upon a rhetorical commitment to democratic consolidation, but which must deal with a weak state not always amenable to external direction. Alexander Motyl suggests that, although Ukraine’s transition has not been notably more troubled than those of other post-communist polities in the central European corridor, it must nonetheless be described as “a mess.”42 A central question for Western policy is whether it is prudent to place so much strategic weight upon an arch in such a state of disrepair.

4. Ukraine and the West: The Role of NATO.

Despite its many problems, Ukraine clearly aspires to draw closer to the West. Russia is and will remain too weak to use coercive means to force any kind of “regathering” of purportedly Russian lands. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) has revealed severe limitations as a forum for regional cooperation, and with Western encouragement Ukraine has become an active member of the so-called GUAAM Group (Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova) inside the CIS seeking to balance Russian influence. Bilateral relations between sovereign state actors are likely to continue to dominate the international relations of post-Soviet Eurasia. On this level, the Russian Federation can hope to exercise considerable leverage in defense of its national interests. It cannot realistically aspire to block an ongoing process of engagement with Western institutions.

Ukraine’s relationship with these institutions, and particularly the European Union (EU) and NATO, is mixed. Kyiv has repeatedly stated that its long-term strategic goal is integration with Europe. But Ukraine is a weak state, ill-prepared to contemplate full membership in European forums in the foreseeable future. The EU, with its agenda for enlargement already overloaded, has purposefully kept Ukraine at a distance.43 NATO has stepped into the breach, and in the process become Ukraine’s key institutional link to a larger European reality.

NATO has sought to address the dilemma of engaging a strategically vital but structurally fragile Ukraine by crafting a special relationship, parallel with but not identical to that defined for Russia by the May 1997 NATORussia Founding Act.44 The idea seems originally to have been put forward by the Ukrainians themselves, inspired by the fear “that Ukraine would be the compensation Russia received for acquiescing in NATO’s inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.”45 It was enthusiastically greeted by the Alliance, and has been pursued in a pragmatic, purposeful, and generally successful manner.

The Ukraine-NATO Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, concluded on 9 July 1997, differed from the Russian prototype in important ways. Unlike the Founding Act, it involved no formal or informal concessions from either side, and in its original form created no standing body equivalent to the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. It was in essence a political declaration that pledged the signatories to consultation and cooperation, without specifying what forms these initiatives would take.46

NATO’s special relationship with Ukraine has been enthusiastically pursued by both sides. In May 1997 a NATO Information and Documentation Center was established in Kyiv, where it has become a focal point for explaining the benefits of association with NATO to the general public. In December 1997 a Memorandum of Understanding on civil emergency planning was concluded, defining terms of cooperation in disaster preparedness and relief. Enthusiastic participation in PfP exercises has been a cornerstone of the relationship. Over 5000 Ukrainian officers have taken part in PfP activities to date, a number of interoperability directives have been fulfilled with PfP financial assistance, and a PfP Training Center is under construction at Yavoriv.47 A NATO Liaison Office in Kyiv facilitates PfP activities, and in March 2000 the Ukrainian parliament approved the PfP Status of Forces Agreement and its additional protocol, as well as the Open Skies Treaty promoting transparency in arms control. The dynamic of NATO-Russian relations has mandated the creation of an institutional focus for cooperation, designated the NATO-Ukraine Commission and broadly paralleling the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. Achievements have been acknowledged by the January 2000 visit to Kyiv by NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson, and by a March 2000 session of the North Atlantic Council conducted in the Ukrainian capital.

The NATO-Ukraine Distinctive Partnership has been free from most of the political tensions that have marred NATO-Russian relations. Ukraine has expressed a commitment to political neutrality that for the moment precludes aspirations to full membership, and Russia has not articulated strong objections to cooperation at lower levels.48 Moscow and Kyiv have in fact shared certain understandings concerning the role of NATO in the region, including opposition to the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territories of new member states, support for the evolution of the Alliance from a military organization devoted to collective defense toward a political forum devoted to collective security, and an agenda for the gradual construction of a pan-European security system into which NATO can be incorporated as a significant, but not necessarily dominant part.49

Neither dialogue with the EU nor the Ukraine-NATO Charter can serve as panaceas for Ukraine’s unresolved problems, or be considered as ends in themselves. The NATO-Ukraine Distinctive Partnership has been successful because it has unfolded within clearly defined limits. By cultivating a special relationship with Ukraine with excessive zeal, the Alliance would risk to reinforce Russia’s sense of alienation and exposure, thereby conjuring up the very kinds of assertive behavior it seeks to prevent. By pressuring Kyiv to function as the keystone of a NATO-led containment posture (or giving the impression that something like this is occurring) it could exacerbate instability within Ukraine itself, and East-West division internationally. In the absence of egregious Russian misconduct, NATO’s strategic challenge is not to “win” Ukraine, but to provide reliable security assistance to a weak polity struggling to reinforce its sovereignty and a focus for the aspirations of a “European Choice.”

Ukraine is and will remain militarily exposed. It has surrendered its nuclear arsenal at Western insistence and is under pressure to foreswear the manufacture of medium range (300-500 kilometer) ballistic missile systems.50 Much of the country is a broad plain that lacks natural defensive barriers and is open to invasion from three sides. Though Kyiv was successful in establishing viable national armed forces in the wake of the Soviet breakup, subsequent military reforms have been half-hearted. Today’s Ukrainian armed forces are chronically underfunded, severely demoralized, plagued by a disproportionate number of officers in the ranks, and still not effectively subordinated to civilian control. Downsizing continues (750,000 Soviet soldiers were stationed in Ukraine in 1991, by 1998 force levels were at 360,000, and current plans call for a draw down to 320,000). Given the weak national economic base, the Ukrainian armed forces nonetheless remain large and unwieldy, “characterized by inertia and a general adherence to the status quo.”51 Ukraine has for the time being been denied the option that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have pursued–to reduce and restructure its national forces to complement rather than replicate NATO’s capacity in the context of a realistic prospect for eventual full membership.52

Meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine can only be provided by NATO, but there will be serious political and operational constraints to any large-scale use of Alliance forces in the Eurasian steppe. Moscow has committed itself to a national military strategy that emphasizes reliance upon tactical nuclear weapons in a phase of conventional weakness.53 Assertive military commitments in areas immediately contiguous to the Russian border will therefore pose considerable risk. Moscow is willing and able to assert meaningful pressure in close proximity to its frontiers, and in the central European corridor it can be counted upon to do so if vital interests are perceived to be at stake. Zero-sum competition for Ukraine’s heart and mind is therefore a dangerous game. “Washington’s inclusion of the region near Russia’s borders as vital US security interests or targets for expanding US influence,” writes Sergo Mikoyan, “will make managing regional conflicts in these areas more difficult, if not impossible.”54

A good example of such difficulties was provided by the August 1997 joint military exercise scheduled to be conducted under Partnership for Peace auspices and designated “Operation Sea Breeze.” The operation was originally scripted, at Ukrainian request, to depict a landing by alliance forces on the Crimean coast near Sevastopol in response to a secessionist threat. After vehement Russian protests, objections from the Crimean regional parliament, and demonstrations in the streets, the exercise was called off and rescripted.55 Deploying and sustaining ground forces in a hostile environment in southern Ukraine would be difficult under the best of circumstances. In the real world, impetus to undertake such a deployment would break down quickly in the face of strong political objections.

Bolstered by U.S. forward deployments, NATO forces have the capacity to respond to a Ukrainian request for assistance in the direst emergencies. This capacity is important and needs to be maintained and cultivated–the centrality of NATO in planning for military contingencies in Eurasia remains intact. In the absence of a real and present Russian threat, however, efforts to recast Ukraine as a geopolitical barrier are neither prudent nor necessary.

Russia has not manifested any desire to retake Ukraine by assault, and the ramifications of any such attempt would be devastating. Although they are complex and sometimes contentious, social and cultural relations between Russians and Ukrainians within Ukraine and across the Russian-Ukrainian state boundary, with the partial exception of western Ukraine, are also essentially benign. Worst case scenarios involving communal or interstate violence are always possible, but highly unlikely.

Post-communist Ukraine is too fragile domestically to function as “an embattled outpost of the West.”56 Attempts to mobilize Ukraine against Russia would contribute to domestic division and make the task of nationbuilding more difficult. They are also likely to provoke unpalatable international consequences. Russian responses to Ukrainian attachment to NATO need not be limited to central Europe. The Russian periphery is vast, and an important strain of geopolitical analysis emphasizes the need for an eastern orientation and the cultivation of strategic alliances with India, China, and the Islamic Middle East. “Winning” Ukraine at the price of reinforced strategic partnership between Russia and China would not be a good bargain for the West.57

NATO’s best option is to reiterate support for the consolidation of sovereignty within Ukraine and the other new independent states and to engage on behalf of military modernization and security cooperation, but to avoid creating illusions about the prospects for full association until such time as national standards can be realistically achieved, and the regional security environment, including relations with Russia, has stabilized. This is best stated straightforwardly, rather than disguised behind false premises. Association with NATO is a positive option for Ukraine and the West, but full membership is for the moment neither practicable (Ukraine is nowhere near being ready to meet NATO membership criteria) nor politically desirable.

The most serious threats to stability today are located within Ukraine itself, in the potential for social and political unrest provoked by economic stress and political frustration. Cooperation in the security sector should not blind Western strategists to the long-term importance of encouraging democratization, development, and the growth of civil society as prerequisites for national consolidation. NATO’s policies toward Ukraine should be designed first of all to support these goals.

The economic instrument of power will be crucial. Efforts to encourage appropriate international aid and assistance, promote investment, and sponsor Ukraine’s integration with the world economy have often been frustrating, but they cannot be abandoned. In comparison with the extent of IMF, World Bank, governmental and private assistance set aside for the Russian Federation, Ukraine’s needs are modest and they can be met. Incentive packages tied to continuing reform effort will be an important impetus for positive change. Military support, including miliary-to-military contacts, nation assistance, and security assistance programs, can also make a contribution. The U.S. has taken the lead in this regard, concluding military support agreements with a number of new independent states including Ukraine in July 1993, Azerbaijan in July 1997, Kazakhstan in November 1997, and Georgia in March 1998. The U.S. and Ukraine have conducted senior leadership visits and exchanges as well as port calls; organized student visits between U.S. and Ukrainian military schools and colleges (under the IMET program); and pursued a partnership program between the Ukrainian National Guard and the National Guard of California. Ukrainian officers attend officers training programs at the George Marshall Center in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, and over the past five years Ukraine has been an important contributor to U.N. and CIS peacekeeping operations. Together with Azerbaijan and Georgia it is preparing a specialized peacekeeping battalion. These varied initiatives reflect a serious commitment to help with a painful process of military downsizing and modernization. If sustained, they will also help to keep Ukraine anchored to the West as a security partner.58

The Russian Federation

1. The New Russia.

The Russian Federation that emerged in 1992 from the ruin of Soviet power was stripped of nearly all the elaborately constructed defenses that its Soviet predecessor assumed as a natural right. The USSR was a force unto itself in international affairs, and it left behind few if any real allies. Soviet military power was the product of an extraordinary mobilization that could not be maintained indefinitely. Under the successor regime of Boris El’tsin the Russian armed forces were drawn into domestic political struggles as an ally of the “party of power,” partially discredited as a result, starved for funds, and in effect allowed to languish by a mistrustful leadership for whom international stature was not a high priority. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the central European buffer bought so dearly during the Second World War was swept away. Simultaneously, declarations of independence in the Baltic states, Ukraine, Moldova, the Transcaucasus, and Central Asia led to the surrender of nearly all the territorial acquisitions of Russia’s imperial and communist leaders from the seventeenth century onward. Viewed in conventional terms and from Moscow’s perspective, the break up of the USSR was a strategic disaster that left Russia ill-prepared to engage with a victorious and assertive Euro-Atlantic community.

El’tsin’s reform-oriented supporters originally sought to address the growing imbalance of power through bandwagoning association with a triumphant West. According to new Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, Russia’s transition would make it an integral part of an enlarged community of Western states stretching “from Vancouver to Vladivostok,” committed to a strategic partnership with the U.S., but without sacrificing the prerogatives that geostrategic weight, cultural tradition, and economic potential made its just due.59 These were extravagant hopes, and they would soon be proven vain. Suspicion of Russia’s intentions and concern for its long-term potential were too deeply rooted in the West to dissipate overnight. Russia was too big and too troubled to integrate into existing Western institutions without fundamentally changing their nature. At the same time, Russia’s reduced stature made it difficult for her to attract substantial concessions in exchange for strategic allegiance. For its own part, Moscow yearned for a symbolic parity with the leading Western powers that her underlying power indices did not justify nor in fact permit.

Russia’s unprecedented rapid retreat from great power status has reduced her importance in the context of Western grand strategy, but with over 20,000 nuclear warheads, the great northern kingdom remains too potent to ignore.

2. Russia and NATO.

The strategic evolution of the Atlantic Alliance has been at the core of Russian concern over current Western security policy. Between 1948 and 1989, central Europe was transformed into something like a prepared battlefield for the third world war. In spite of intense militarization, however, the Soviet Union’s western marches were relatively stable. NATO’s intentions, declared and in fact, were strictly defensive. Moscow’s greatest concern was not a conventional military threat, but rather the potential spill over effect of instability within the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet glacis in central Europe, built around the 20-plus divisions of the Groups of Soviet Forces in Germany, was formidable, and an adequate guarantee against external aggression. On these terms, and despite chronic wrangling, Moscow could coexist comfortably with a hostile but essentially passive NATO.

The original aspirations of Soviet reformers in the Gorbachev era were summed up by the popular phrase “the Common European Home.” 60 So certain was Gorbachev of the declining relevance of force in an interdependent world, of the need for cooperative forums for the pursuit of mutual security, and of his country’s European vocation, that he was willing to accept widely disproportionate arms reduction agreements and unilateral concessions in order to bridge the East-West divide.

Moscow’s inability to realize these aspirations during the first decade of post-Soviet reform may be ascribed to two causes. First, and most essential, is the travail of transition within Russia itself. The corrupt, demoralized, quasi-authoritarian, and war-torn regime that El’tsin has bequeathed to his successors has little that is positive to offer. Until such time as its internal demons are put to rest it will be condemned to watch from the sidelines as the European project unfolds.

Western policy also shares some of the responsibility for Russia’s failure. Though the West has maintained a rhetorical commitment to “partnership” with the new Russia, it has not sustained pro-active policies sufficient to overcome Russia’s suspicions about the real intentions of its former Cold War rivals. The Russians’ institution of choice as the foundation for a new European security order was the OSCE, where the Russian Federation is fully represented and U.S. influence is to some extent diluted, and whose idealistic charter (the 1990 Charter of Paris) is grounded in the premises of mutual security.61 NATO’s activist agenda from 1990 onward effectively precluded the possibility for the OSCE to evolve in this direction. In place of an inclusive but weak and unthreatening OSCE, whose main function would be to provide a forum for dialogue and consensus building, the Western community elevated an ambitious, U.S.-led, only partially representative, and militarily potent Atlantic Alliance bearing the legacy of adversarial relations inherited from the Cold War.

Moscow could not have been expected to rejoice in the perpetuation of what it has consistently viewed as an unrepentant Cold War rival. It nonetheless took up a seat at the NACC in December 1991, and, with some reluctance, joined the PfP in June 1994. The precipitating event in the transformation of Russian threat perceptions was the emergence of the agenda for NATO enlargement.

So far as the decision to enlarge can be reconstructed, it seems to have derived from a meeting of U.S. President William Clinton with Lech Walesa of Poland and Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. during April 1993; to have been embraced by a small group of presidential advisors and pushed through the interagency process behind the scenes; and to have been promulgated as policy without any kind of public debate or consensus in place at the January 1994 NATO ministerial in Brussels. The decision was affected by a U.S. desire to address the concerns of key European allies, but driven forward by U.S. domestic political concerns.62

The decision to expand the Alliance also contained important symbolic and strategic implications. Territorial adjustments and shifts in spheres of influence normally follow decision in warfare. The absorption by NATO of what had once been a Soviet-dominated buffer zone seemed to be a clear vindication of the West’s claim to “victory” in the Cold War. Russia’s position has been that its own leaders took the initiative to end the Cold War, and that a tacit agreement not to enlarge NATO into the area of the former Warsaw Pact was an integral part of the negotiations that allowed for the peaceful unification of Germany. Part of the strategic logic of enlargement has always been that of deterrence against the potential revival of a Russian threat, interpreted in Moscow as a regeneration of a familiar containment posture designed to hem Russia in and keep her weak. No great power can be expected to rejoice when a potent military coalition draws closer to its historically exposed frontiers. Not surprisingly, the strategic implications of enlargement were regarded by Russian elites with dismay, and opposition to the initiative became a rare point of consensus across a badly fragmented political spectrum. It is not clear that any amount of Russian agitation could have reversed the momentum of enlargement once the process had been set in motion. In the event, Moscow’s immediate reactions reflected the general confusion and lack of direction that have characterized nearly all aspects of her tortured post-communist transition. In August 1993, during his first visit to Warsaw as Russian President, El’tsin stated publicly that Polish membership in NATO would not run counter to Russian interests (an assertion that was subsequently reiterated by Foreign Minister Kozyrev).63 The rest of the foreign policy establishment, however, was quick to correct the presidential “misstatement.” Thereafter Russian officials were consistent in condemning enlargement as a threat, a betrayal of the trust that made possible a peaceful winding down of the Cold War, and an attempt “to consolidate victory in the Cold War” at Russia’s expense.64

What to do about the accession process once it had begun was quite another matter. The various counter measures that were suggested–to break off arms control negotiations, to adopt a more demanding stance in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) talks, to increase support for Cuba and other anti-American regional powers, to cultivate strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China, to use economic instruments and other sorts of pressure to block a second round of accession possibly including Ukraine and the Baltic States–were by and large rejected as unfeasible, or as steps toward self-imposed isolation.65 As a result of Russia’s critical weakness the battle of enlargement had in effect been lost in advance, and “to wave one’s fist in anger after the fight is over is nothing more than an empty gesture.”66 The only viable course of action, summarized by Kozyrev’s successor Evgenii Primakov as “keeping damage to a minimum,” was to go on record as opposed to enlargement while simultaneously accepting a limited engagement with NATO in the hopes of maintaining some kind of leverage and influence.67 On this less than promising foundation, Russia moved to discuss the entangling commitment of what would become the NATO-Russia Founding Act.68

Serious negotiations on the Founding Act began in January 1997, and concluded with the signing ceremony of 27 May 1997. Despite Russian efforts to make the agreement as formal as possible, the Act was not a legally binding document, but rather “the fruit of compromise resulting from reciprocal concession” containing “numerous ambiguities.”69 The document itself consists of a preamble and four thematic sections devoted to principles, mechanisms for consultation, areas for cooperation, and political-military issues.70 The preamble states the longrangegoal of building a new NATO reaching out to a democratic Russia, and underlines that henceforward neither party will view the other as a political enemy. In the section devoted to principles, explicit mention is made of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Final Act, and additional OSCE documents, thus placing NATO-Russian cooperation in the larger framework of ideas and institutions associated with a nascent cooperative security regime.

The key mechanism for cooperation defined by the agreement is the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council (PJC), which is tasked to convene monthly on the ambassadorial level and bi-monthly on the level of foreign and defense ministers. The weight that the PJC is expected to carry is however left unclear, and it is expressly stated that neither side will have the right to exercise any kind of veto-power. The document names a wide range of areas where cooperation is deemed to be possible, including conflict prevention, joint peacekeeping operations, exchanges of information, nuclear security issues, arms control, conversion of military industries, disaster assistance, and the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism. The precise responsibilities of the Council in regard to these themes is not specified.

The final section addresses the military-security issues occasioned by NATO’s eastward expansion, including its impact on the conventional balance of forces in Europe, prospects for the permanent basing of NATO forces on the territory of new members and a related build-up of military infrastructure, and the issue of nuclear weapons. A number of implicit trade-offs and compromises paved the way for agreement in these domains. The question of conventional force limits was left to be fixed by the ongoing CFE negotiations. An American “three nos” pledge (no need, no intention, no plan) was offered to placate concern about the stationing of nuclear weapons. This amounted to little more than a pious declaration of good intentions, but both sides were willing to live with it on the basis of a shared conviction that “any such stationing would make very little military sense.”71 NATO managed to insert a statement of approval for the modernization of military infrastructure, deemed necessary to permit the deployment of large contingents. Russia achieved some face-saving concessions, but in the end NATO gave up almost no option in which it was seriously interested, maintained a strict definition of the Act as an informal and non-binding arrangement, and reiterated the assertion that Russia was receiving nothing more than a consultative voice. If damage limitation was Moscow’s first priority, the results must have been disappointing.

The essence of the Founding Act has been described as “the commitment to develop consultation, cooperation and joint decision-making, including an enhanced dialogue between senior military authorities.”72 In the first year of its existence the PJC made some progress toward achieving these goals. The foci of interactions were the regular sessions of the PJC and Joint Military Commission, accompanied by numerous high-level consultations between ambassadors, foreign and defense ministers, and chiefs of staff. The PJC convoked expert groups and working sessions on a wide range of issues such as peacekeeping, civil emergency planning, nuclear issues, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, retraining of retired military personnel, air traffic safety, and arms control. A NATO Documentation Center on European Security Issues was opened in Moscow in January 1998, and negotiations on reciprocal Military Liaison Missions were concluded successfully. During June 1998 a conference was convened in Moscow to commmorate the first anniversary of the Founding Act and explore areas for further collaboration.

Association under the aegis of the Founding Act did not disguise Russia’s more fundamental opposition to NATO enlargement. Nor were Russian representatives entirely satisfied with the limited prerogatives that the PJC offered them. Even prior to Kosovo, Russian evaluations of the work of the Council were primarily skeptical. Complaints were raised of the purely “titular” function of Russian representatives at the military liaison mission, and of Moscow’s exclusion from Alliance planning and decision-making.73 The disillusionment associated with these frustrations should not be underestimated. Gregory Hall describes Russia’s “consistently and resoundingly negative” reactions to the limitations of the PJC as the basis for a decisive “shift in orientation away from the West.”74 The PJC nonetheless seemed to be demonstrating its relevance as a forum for dialogue and association. Foreign Minister Primakov evaluated the experiment cautiously but fairly in remarking that: “The past year has shown that we are able to cooperate on the basis of constructive engagement and confidence, and we have achieved quite a lot.”75

If the PJC was both promising and in some sense necessary, it was also inevitably fragile. In the course of 1999 the frail sprouts of Russia-NATO collaboration were nearly swept away by the storm provoked by NATO’s military intervention in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo.

3. Russia, NATO, and the Kosovo Crisis.

The emergence of the Kosovo Liberation Army as the armed wing of Kosovar Albanian resistance to Serbian oppression in 1997-1998 should not have come as a surprise. A decade of egregious violations by the government of Slobodan Milosevic had left Kosovo’s Albanian majority deeply embittered, and the failure of the strategy of passive resistance crafted by shadow president Ibrahim Rugova was patent. Western capitals were nonetheless caught unprepared as violence in the province escalated through the summer and autumn of 1998. Original U.S. condemnations of the KLA as a “terrorist” organization were quickly set aside in favor of a campaign of coercive diplomacy designed to force Milosevic to pull in his horns.76 When this campaign failed to produce the desired result, the U.S. and its NATO allies, acting through the Alliance, sought to impose settlement with a campaign of graduated bombing strikes. Milosevic’s reaction to the air strikes was to up the ante by moving to expel the Albanian population from Kosovo en masse, thereby provoking a major humanitarian disaster and directly challenging NATO’s credibility. The Alliance, perhaps unintentionally, found itself locked into a large-scale air campaign with disruptive strategic implications.

Russian objections to NATO’s intervention in the Kosovo conflict were concerned more with the precedent established than the outcome on the ground. Although Moscow has often positioned itself as a supporter of Serbian positions in the protracted Balkan conflict, it has not been willing to make meaningful sacrifices, or to court substantial risks, in support of its erstwhile ally.77 In Kosovo, however, the example of unilateral intervention by NATO, on behalf of one side in a civil conflict within a sovereign state, without UN or OSCE approval, in the name of an extremely broad and easily manipulated “doctrine” of humanitarian intervention, and in defiance of Russia’s expressed preferences, posed special challenges.

In the first phase of the conflict Russia distanced itself from the NATO initiative, pillorying the U.S. as a “new goliath” for whom “force is again the only criterion of truth,” and suspending all relations with the Alliance under the terms of the Founding Act in protest.78 With the appointment of Viktor Chernomyrdin as Russian special mediator on 14 April 1999, however, hostile rhetoric was moderated. Together with the European Union’s senior Kosovo envoy, Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, Chernomyrdin played a critical role in the negotiations that brought an end to the conflict on the basis of UN Resolution 1244 on 10 June. But Russian concerns about the implications of the NATO action remained intact. Moscow’s engagement in the mediation process, and willingness to participate in the KFOR were born, like acquiescence in NATO enlargement, less of enthusiasm than of a desire to limit damage.

Despite its diplomatic efforts, Moscow’s request for a separate occupation zone inside Kosovo was turned down. In reaction, an expanded Russian airborne company was brought in from Bosnia-Herzegovina on short notice on 11-12 June to occupy Priština’s Slatina airport in advance of the arrival of the KFOR contingent. The tense standoff that followed was resolved diplomatically, but the incident could easily have given rise to an armed confrontation between Russian and NATO forces–a measure of the risks involved in the strategic cat and mouse game being played out in the Balkan conflict zone. Russia emerged from the Kosovo conflict highly concerned for its strategic implications, frustrated by what it perceived as marginalization in the peacekeeping operation, and with relations with NATO in tatters.

Russia’s retrospective objections to Western policy in Kosovo have been consistent and intense.79 The decision to intervene militarily is first of all excoriated as an example of the low regard in which Moscow is held in Western capitals. The issues in Kosovo were not unambiguous. If Serbian repression was extreme, it came in response to real provocations, and in no way could the U.S. or its major allies be said to have had vital interests at stake. Unilateral intervention, in defiance of Russia, was the result nonetheless.

The Kosovo conflict is also portrayed as an integral part of a policy continuum where Russia’s own national interests are at stake. The core issue is “what Europe itself will become in the new century, with whom and in what direction it will evolve.”80 Moscow’s greatest fear is the emergence of a consolidating western Europe subordinated to the U.S. and expanding against Russia–an enlarged Euro-Atlantic community from which the Russian Federation would be effectively excluded. In order to avoid such an outcome, maintaining leverage within the central European corridor is vital. Russia is a traditional Balkan power, and it has close cultural and political ties to the region. Moreover, deeply rooted instabilities guarantee that local actors will continue to search for external sponsorship. Southeastern Europe is one of the only European regions where Moscow can still aspire to play the role of a major power, and engagement in the region has become a critical foundation for its entire European policy. NATO’s intervention in the Kosovo conflict, inspired by what Viktor Kremeniuk has called the effort “to create a Europe where Russia has no place,” is therefore interpreted as a major challenge.81

The precedent of unilateral action outside of the UN framework was particularly disturbing. The Security Council veto remains one of the few levers of power that a weakened Russia is able to call on to shape the international environment to its advantage. Well prior to the Kosovo crisis the U.S. had consistently maintained that as a regional security forum NATO should not be constrained by an absolute requirement for a UN mandate, and that under special circumstances independent action might be unavoidable. The U.S. position was not consistently supported even by its closest allies, however, and it was usually assumed that such action would only be forthcoming in the most extreme cases. In the case of Kosovo, much of the pressure for independent action was selfimposed by the extraordinary ultimatum presented to Serbia at the Rambouillet negotiating sessions.

Moscow has also portrayed the Kosovo conflict as a “trial run” for a strategic worst case scenario–the use of NATO forces, operating from forward bases in central Europe obtained as a result of the enlargement process, as an instrument for military intervention in a conflict on the Russian periphery, or even within the federation itself. In the wake of Kosovo, NATO was widely depicted in Russian strategic discourse as “the primary and by far the most serious threat not only to Russian national interests but also to the very existence of the Russian Federation as an independent and sovereign state.”82

The efficiency of NATO’s air war against Yugoslavia only served to reinforce Moscow’s heightened sense of threat perception. Though Yugoslavia’s conventional forces do not seem to have been degraded by the air campaign to the extent originally announced, and though without Russian mediation the war could have been much more protracted and difficult, NATO had demonstrated its capacity to function effectively as a war-fighting alliance.83 The conduct of the air war was operationally impressive, and the Alliance’s overwhelming technical edge left Serbia virtually defenseless. If Operation Allied Force was intended to intimidate, it must certainly have achieved its purpose.

Russian reactions to the Kosovo crisis have been conditioned by national weakness and limited options. Moscow did not have the capacity to prevent a decision for the use of force. Once that decision had been made, its goal became to limit damage and avoid isolation. NATO’s own strategic miscalculations were of some service in this regard. The original choice for limited bombing strikes was premised on the assumption that after two or three days of punishment, Milosevic would make discretion the better part of valor and cave in to Alliance demands. When this scenario did not play out, Russian influence in Belgrade became a significant asset in the search for a negotiated solution. Chernomyrdin’s ability to pressure Belgrade was critical to the endgame that brought the war to a close, but even here Russia was able to glean precious little advantage. Its core demand for a zone of occupation was refused, the role to which it was assigned under KFOR was modest, and it was made clear to all that NATO would call the shots on the ground inside the occupied province.

4. The Aftermath of Kosovo.

In August 1998 Russian financial markets collapsed, shattering hopes for a long awaited economic recovery. In March 1999, NATO began its air war against Yugoslavia, and in the following summer Russia launched a new military offensive against the rebellious province of Chechnya. On New Year’s Eve 2000, El’tsin resigned as Russia’s President, and in March 2000 acting President Vladimir Putin was formally elected to a five year mandate. Putin’s popularity had soared on the wings of public support for the crackdown in the northern Caucasus, widely perceived as a long overdue gesture of national reassertion. The conjuncture of these events–the discrediting of El’tsin’s reform cause as a result of fiscal collapse, the aggravation of threat perception provoked by Kosovo, the accession of a younger and more dynamic ruler, and Russia’s harsh self-assertion in Chechnya–has given rise to a new climate of relations between Russia and the West with sobering military and strategic implications.

In the months following the Kosovo imbroglio the Russian Federation issued the texts of a new National Security Concept and National Military Strategy. Although they had been in the making for some time, the texts coincided with the reformulation of priorities associated with post-Kosovo re-evaluations.84 Both documents reflect a competitive, “statist” interpretation of Russian national interests and represent a clear rejection of the liberal policies that inspired Russian security policy at the outset of the El’tsin era.85

The first variant of a national security policy issued by the Kozyrev Foreign Ministry in February 1992 placed the emphasis upon Russia’s aspiration to join the “civilized” West.86 The 1993 version of a Russian military doctrine abandoned the traditional Soviet negation of first-use nuclear options, but it did not single out external threats for special mention.87 El’tsin’s 1997 national security concept was more outspoken in asserting the need for a “multipolar” world order, but the concept presumed Russia’s role as a major power acting in concert with its peers. The 1997 Concept down played external threats, and emphasized the primacy of internal dilemmas born of poor economic performance, social frustration, and the slow pace of reform.88 In sharp contrast, the revised Concept, approved by Acting President Putin on 10 January 2000, highlights external threats, and specifically cites NATO unilateralism as a threat to world peace.89

The most challenging assertion to emerge from the texts is a new emphasis upon the role of Russia’s nuclear forces, both as a foundation for deterrence and as a means for prevailing in theater contingencies where vital interests are perceived to be at stake. In the 1993 Military Doctrine, first use of nuclear weapons was accepted in the case of attack by a nuclear armed adversary, or by a state allied with a nuclear power, and in the event that the “existence” of the Russian Federation was put at risk. The 2000 version sanctions the first use of nuclear weapons to “repulse armed aggression” by a conventionally armed adversary, even if that adversary is not bound to a nuclear armed ally. These assertions are unfortunately not merely rhetorical flourishes. Russia maintains a large tactical nuclear arsenal, and in June 1999 Russian military exercises simulating a response to conventional attack against the Kaliningrad enclave culminated with a Russian counter-attack spearheaded by tactical nuclear strikes.

President Putin was propelled into power by the “short, victorious war” in Chechnya, he has publicly committed to a doubling of the military budget, and he has stressed the importance of rebuilding Russian military power. The road back to military credibility will be a long one, but in the wake of Kosovo, the commitment seems to have been made.

Putin’s military initiatives have been accompanied by renewed commitment to pragmatic cooperation with the West, by a reassuring rhetoric of accommodation, and by an effort to reestablish a Russia-NATO connection. Russia remains significantly engaged with NATO in both SFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina (with a commitment of 3,250 troops) and KFOR in Kosovo (where it commits some 1,200 troops), and it has cautiously revived its dialogue with the Alliance under the aegis of the Founding Act.90 A visit to Moscow by Secretary General Robertson in February 2000, including a meeting with President Putin, concluded with a joint statement pledging to “pursue a vigorous dialogue on a wide range of security issues.”91 Progress promised to be slow, and lack of clarity about long-term goals remained intact. On 5 March 2000, Putin provocatively remarked to the BBC’s David Frost that he “would not rule out” the possibility of Russia’s eventually joining NATO, moving Robertson to respond that “at present Russian membership is not on the agenda.”92

Expectations must be modest, but there is a viable agenda for renewed NATO-Russia collaboration. At present, much of Russia’s military hierarchy perceives the Alliance as a threat. Expanded military-to-military contacts can help dilute such perceptions and groom a new generation of Russian officers more accustomed to collaboration. Official representation for NATO in Moscow would represent an important step forward. With its own substantial military traditions and priorities firmly in place, Russia is not likely to embrace PfP in the way that its Ukrainian counterpart has done. It would however benefit from a renewal of dialogue in areas such as nuclear safety, civil emergency procedures, peace operations, and officer retraining. There is a great amount of work to be done in fixing common understandings concerning doctrinal issues, regional threats, and world order concerns.93

Cooperation is proceeding in other areas as well. Negotiations leading toward a revision of the CFE treaty were sustained despite the distractions of Kosovo and Chechnya, and on Putin’s watch they have been brought to a successful conclusion (though the war in Chechnya has prevented Russia from coming into compliance with new flank limits, and blocked U.S. ratification).94 The Russian Duma has also been brought around to ratify the START II strategic arms control treaty, though with the significant condition that the U.S. give up the effort to revise the 1972 SALT I Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Putin has repeatedly asserted his desire to improve relations with Europe, and there is no need to doubt his sincerity. The European Union is Russia’s largest trading partner, with over 45 percent of total trade, and commercial transactions are on the rise. It is also the single most important source of direct foreign investment in Russia. Russia ranks sixth among EU trading partners, and in key sectors such as energy its role is critical.95 Over half the grants made under the EU’s TACIS program are earmarked for the Russian Federation, and many (in the areas of military training, nuclear safeguards, chemical weapons conversion, and crime prevention) are security related. The EU signed a Partnership and Cooperation agreement with Russia on Corfu in 1994, and in 1998 a Russia-EU Partnership Council was created. As a member of the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the EAPC, and the PJC, Russia is already integrated into Europe’s overlapping institutional structure and does not risk isolation. Moscow cannot afford a decisive break with the West, and it is not in her interest to pursue or provoke one.

The halcyon days of “strategic partnership” are nonetheless a thing of the past. Kosovo has substantiated a focused threat that Russia will seek to neutralize with a long term commitment to rebuilding the foundations of national power, including military power. Chechnya has weakened the Western commitment to assist Russia, and outstanding issues such as the American commitment to national missile defense and the NATO enlargement agenda remain divisive. U.S. engagement on behalf of the new independent states is a source of continuing aggravation and concern. Transatlantic friction could also come into play, should Russia turn back to the old Soviet effort to leverage divisions within the Alliance to its own advantage.96

NATO’s war in Kosovo and Russia’s second round of fighting in Chechnya have probably put paid to any hopes of making the Russian Federation a functioning part of a recast Euro-Atlantic security system in the near future. The line of division that separates the Russian Federation and the West, including the “grey zone” in central Europe, but also the faultline between the U.S. European and Central Commands stretching through the Caucasus and Caspian Sea into distant Central Asia, will remain a volatile and conflict prone shatterbelt where a traditional politics of force and intimidation may have a future as well as a past.

Numerous countervailing tendencies make it unlikely that inevitable friction will sweep out of control. Russia is nowhere near to being in a position to contemplate the use of force outside the immediate vicinity of its frontiers. The interests of its dominant oligarchy do not include suicidal confrontation with great power rivals that it cannot hope to overcome. Military exposure may be rhetorically decried as intolerable, but military effectiveness is a function of many attributes, including social cohesion and morale, leadership, economic viability, technological sophistication, and national purpose, that post-Soviet Russia has not been able to sustain. The currently preferred option of increased reliance on the nuclear option is an essentially defensive expedient. In cases where Russian and Western interests have clashed, Moscow has been careful to avoid confrontation. Weakness and a concomitant lack of alternatives have pushed it, almost inexorably, toward policies of accommodation.

The most salient short-term threats to Russian national interests lie along the Federation’s southern flank. The most pressing long-term security dilemma may well concern relations with China in the Far East. On the European front, although flash points are not lacking, security challenges are likely to be much less pressing. Indeed, one might argue that despite its current weakness, Moscow confronts fewer direct challenges on its western marches at the present moment than ever before in its long history.

The West should take account of the relatively benign regional security environment in crafting its own policies. The harsher edges of Russia’s current strategic discourse give no cause for alarm–exaggerated selfassertion and distancing rhetoric are typical defensive mechanisms for weak states confronted by the real and imagined pretenses of the strong. The Putin leadership has made clear its desire to pursue a pragmatic relationship with the U.S. and its European allies. The case of Chechnya, though tragic, does not threaten the West. Russia will continue to angle for influence in the post-Soviet space, but is not in a position to use force to achieve its goal. The nuclear card in her current security doctrine bespeaks weakness, not strength. Even the NATO enlargement agenda, if pursued gradually and in the context of a positive and expanding NATO-Russian relationship presided over by a dynamic PJC, need not become confrontational. The vision of a Europe whole and at peace, embedded in a stable Euro-Atlantic community and open to cooperation with its neighbors, is a positive vision for Moscow as well.

NATO’s Relations with Russia and Ukraine: Promise and Limits

Three years have passed since the conclusion of the NATO-Russia Founding Act and NATO-Ukraine Agreement on Distinctive Partnership, enough time for the respective special relationships to demonstrate both strengths and limitations. The agreements have clearly contributed to the overarching goals that inspired them: “to engage with Russia and Ukraine … to help them through their post-communist transition rather than abandon them to it, and to demonstrate to former adversaries that membership in European institutions was neither a dream nor a false promise.”97 The agreements are not sufficient unto themselves, however, as mechanisms for helping Kyiv and Moscow turn the corner of transition, or to integrate with the West. The NATO-Ukrainian partnership has been dynamic and successful, but on a limited scale. NATO-Russia ties have been troubled, though in the end, even under the severe strains of the Kosovo crisis, they have not snapped. The framework provided by the NATO-Russia Founding Act and NATO-Ukraine Charter is vitally important to the effort to forge a new Euro-Atlantic security order, but much more will be required if the process is to be seen through to a successful conclusion. The NATO-Ukraine relationship functions well within the parameters defined by Ukrainian neutrality. Kyiv needs Western assistance to promote the modernization of its armed forces, and leverage to sustain sovereignty against subtle Russian pressure. It needs reassurance in the face of the severe dislocations provoked by a difficult post-communist transition, and access to European institutions to sustain popular morale in a time of hardship. NATO has been able to offer technical assistance, positive engagement in Euro-Atlantic security structures, and long-term prospects for closer association. Its engagement with Ukraine helps reinforce geopolitical pluralism in post-Soviet Eurasia, wards off the perception of an emerging security vacuum, and makes the Alliance a relevant actor in a vital geostrategic area.

The limits to NATO-Ukrainian cooperation derive both from Ukraine’s domestic weakness, and concern for possible Russian reactions. The threat of domestic instability will remain on Ukraine’s agenda for some time to come, and in the best of circumstances Kyiv will require a decade and more to prepare for accession to Western institutions. The Russian factor is more troublesome in the short term. In the wake of the first round of NATO enlargement, Foreign Minister Primakov spoke dramatically of a “red line” equivalent to the former Soviet border, beyond which NATO could not be allowed to penetrate. Pragmatic cooperation has already breached that line, but there is no sign that Russia has any intention of abandoning its strong opposition to Ukrainian membership in NATO. For the time being, and in view of NATO’s desire to avoid confrontation with the Russian Federation, the NATO-Ukraine relationship must remain limited to nation assistance and security coordination, useful but not decisive in defining a new European security architecture.

The NATO-Russian relationship got off to a promising start, with strong backing from Russian President El’tsin. In the wake of Kosovo, and under the new direction of Putin, relations have become clouded. Putin has nonetheless initiated an attempt to rebuild the foundation of cooperation suspended during the Kosovo operations, and it is vital for the effort to succeed. NATO-Russian relations are hampered by a legacy of hostility and mistrust, Russia has little to offer the Alliance that is not of essentially symbolic value, and the search for accommodation severely constrains NATO’s range of available options. The work of the PJC has been uneven and its real achievements are modest. Nevertheless, some kind of formal relationship with the Russian Federation is absolutely necessary if a comprehensive Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security structure is ever to take form. Russia is a once and future great power, it is led by an astute and purposeful leader, and it has the capacity to disrupt Western security planning if its interests are not taken into account. Cultivating positive ties with Moscow will be difficult, but the effort must be made.

Whether Russia itself will be amenable to such a relationship remains to be seen. Policy council in Moscow is divided, between optimistic evaluations of the potential for collaboration with the West, and pessimistic assessments, particularly well represented within the military hierarchy, that stress the limits of such aspirations and the need for more autonomous national policies. NATO has excluded bringing the Russian Federation inside the Alliance’s decision-making cycle, and it has not hesitated to act in defiance of Moscow if circumstances are perceived to require it. These choices reduce the amount of leverage that the Alliance can hope to assert upon a hesitant Russian partner. Under Putin Moscow seems to be returning to the familiar Soviet strategy of weakening NATO by playing off inevitable transatlantic disagreements. Frustration over the course of events in Kosovo, opposition to Washington’s national missile defense program, and recent debate over the European commitment to strengthen the European Security and Defense Identity provide grist to the mill of these efforts. If the Founding Act can be made to function in accordance with its original charter, it will provide space for a more self-confident Russia “to play upon allied rivalry or discord,” and for the NATO allies “to enlist the Russians by one means or another in stratagems to influence the outcome of debates.”98 Resulting friction will be a part of the price that the Alliance must pay to keep Russia engaged.

Rebuilding NATO-Russian relations on the basis of the Founding Act represents the immediate task at hand. Russia cannot simply be brought whole into Western institutions, nor is it clear that it would desire to move in that direction even if it could. Constructive engagement with the West is the only reasonable option. But NATORussian cooperation is fated to remain tentative and fragile. There is a danger, which the Kosovo crisis exposed, in trying prematurely to institutionalize a relationship that lacks underlying substance. That substance needs to be created, by emphasizing a wide variety of interactions and building on small, positive initiatives.

The materials for constructing a more hopeful relationship are at hand. The momentum of NATO-Russian collaboration is hardy, and will be furthered. The goal, in the words of U.S. Ambassador to NATO Alexander Vershbow, should be “as much cooperation between NATO and Russia as possible.”99 The successful conclusion of a revised CFE treaty despite the Kosovo episode is a sign of the prospects for pragmatic cooperation in areas where both sides share mutual interests. Russian participation in SFOR and KFOR works well on the tactical level and provides a positive example of collaborative effort. To fully realize the promise of Russian cooperation with the West, however, major impediments, such as the issue of further rounds of NATO expansion, will need to be resolved. Progress in working toward negotiated solutions for unresolved flash points in the Baltics, Ukraine, Moldova, the Balkans, and the Black Sea and Transcaucasus region will likewise be critical. NATO’s relations with Russia and Ukraine are too frail to bear the weight of these overlapping agendas left to their own devises. They are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the emergence of the kind of Euro-Atlantic collective security system that the Alliance favors. As such, however, they are absolutely vital. NATO’s cooperation with Russia and Ukraine should be pursued without unrealistic expectations, but diligently, consistently, and for the long haul.

1 Immanuel Wallerstein, “Foes as Friends?,” Foreign Policy, No. 90, Spring 1993, p. 156.
2 Werner J. Feld, The Future of European Security and Defense Policy, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1993, p. 8.
3 “NATO’s Core Security Functions in the New Europe: Statement Issued by the North Atlantic Council Meeting in Ministerial Session in Copenhagen on 6 and 7 June 1991,” NATO Communiques 1991, Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Pres, 1992, pp. 22.
4 Cited in P. E. Tyler, “Pentagon New World Order: US to Reign Supreme,” The International Herald Tribune, 9 March 1992, pp. 1-2. After premature release, this document was repudiated by the administration of George Bush.
5 “Rome Declaration on Peace Cooperation,” in NATO Communiques 1991, Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press, 1992, pp. 26-27.
6 Ibid.
7 The idea for the NACC had its origins in a joint declaration by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher on 10 May 1991. See “Partnership with the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe,” in NATO Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, June 1991, pp. 28-29.
8 “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Transition,” AUSA Background Brief, No. 81, April 1999, p.7.
9 Jeffrey Simon, “Partnership for Peace (PfP) After the Washington Summit and Kosovo,” Strategic Forum, No. 167, August 1999.
10 Current Membership Action Plan participants are Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
11 The Alliance’s Strategic Concept,” NATO Review, No. 2, Summer 1999, pp. D7-D13.
12 Cited in Geir Lundestad, “ ‘Empire’ by Integration: The United States and European Integration, 1945-1996,” in Kathleen Burk and Melvyn Stokes, eds., The United States and the European Alliance since 1945, Oxford: Berg, 1999, p. 34.
13 Remarks by the President in Address to the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Washington, D.C.: Office of the White House Press Secretary, 1 August 1991.
14 Nadia Schadlow, “The Denuclearization of Ukraine: Consolidating Ukrainian Security,” in Lubomyr A. Hayda, ed., Ukraine in the World: Studies in the International Relations and Security Structure of a Newly Independent State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998, pp. 271-283.
15 See F. Stephen Larrabee, “Ukraine: Europe’s Next Crisis?,” Arms Control Today, Vol. 24, No. 6, July-August 1994, pp. 14-16.
16 Paul Kubicek, “Post-Soviet Ukraine: In Search of a Constituency for Reform.” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 1997, pp. 103-126, and Kataryna Wolczuk, “Presidentialism in Ukraine: A Mid-Term Review of the Second Presidency,” Democratization, Vol. 4, No. 3, Autumn 1997, pp. 152-171.
17 “Ukraine at Five: A Progress Report on U.S. Policy,” speech by Strobe Talbott, Acting Secretary of State, to The Washington Group 1996 Leadership Conference, Washington, D.C., 11 October 1996, p. 2, cited from
18 “Introduction,” in Robert Chase, Emily Hill, and Paul Kennedy, eds., The Pivotal States: A New Framework for U.S. Policy in the Developing World, New York: W.W. Norton, 1999, p. 4. The authors limit their attention to the “traditional” Third World, but the concept is relevant to states such as Ukraine.
19 John Edwin Mroz and Oleksandr Pavliuk, “Ukraine: Europe’s Linchpin,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75, No. 3, May-June 1996, p. 62.
20 Derek Mueller, Jeronim Perovic, and Andreas Wenger, “The New Approach to Russian Security in the Context of the Programme for Change,” Aussenpolitik , No. 1, 1998, pp. 28-31, and Leonid Maiorov and Dimitri Afinogenov, “Vazhneishie napravleniia integratsii,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, 5 February 1998.
21 On geopolitical pluralism see Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Plan for Europe,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 74, No. 1, January-February 1995, p. 31.
22 Taras Kuzio, “Ukraine and NATO: The Evolving Strategic Relationship,” The Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2, June 1998, pp. 2-3.
23 Brzezinski, “A Plan for Europe,” p. 31, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Premature Partnership,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 2, March-April 1994, p. 80.
24 The Polish-Ukrainian relationship has been in this regard somewhat neglected. See Ian J. Brzezinski, “Polish- Ukrainian Relations: Europe’s Neglected Strategic Axis,” Survival, Vol. 35, No. 3, Autumn 1993, pp. 26-37.
25 Adrian Kartnycky, “The Ukrainian Factor,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 71, No. 3, Summer 1992, p. 107.
26 James Sherr, “Ukraine’s New Time of Trouble,” in Charles Dick and Anne Aldis, eds., Central and Eastern Europe: Problems and Prospects, Camberly: Conflict Studies Research Center Occasional Paper No. 37, December 1998, p. 115.
27 See the summary of U.S. intelligence assessments predicting severe social and political instability in Ukraine in Daniel Williams and R. Jeffrey Smith, “Dire U.S. Forecast for Ukrainian Conflict,” The International Herald Tribune, 26 January 1994.
28 For the text see Uriadovyi Kur’ier, 4 February 1997, pp. 5-6.
29 Gwendolyn Sasse, “Fueling Nation-State Building: Ukraine’s Energy Dependence on Russia,” Central Asian and Caucasia Prospects Briefing No. 17, London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs, April 1998.
30 John Jaworsky, Ukraine: Stability and Instability, McNair Paper 42, Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Security Studies and National Defense University, August 1995.
31 Andrew Wilson, Ukrainian Nationalism in the 1990s: A Minority Faith, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997 develops the argument expertly.
32 William Zimmerman, “Is Ukraine a Political Community?,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1996, pp. 43-55.
33 Nadia Diuk, “Ukraine: A Land In Between,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 1998, pp. 97-111.
34 “Kutschma klare Wahlsieger in der Ukraine: Internationale Beobachter registrieren zahlreiche Verstösse,” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 29 November 1999.
35 John Morrison makes the apt observation that the Russian-Ukrainian relationship represents for eastern Europe what the German-French relationship represents for western Europe. John Morrison, “Pereyaslav and After: The Russian-Ukrainian Friendship,” International Affairs, Vol. 69, October 1993, p. 677.
36 James Sherr, “Russia-Ukraine Rapprochement?: The Black Sea Fleet Accords,” Survival, Vol. 39, No. 3, Autumn 1997, pp. 33-50.
37 E. Cherkasova, “Sevastopol: Eshche raz o territorial’noi probleme,” Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, No. 9, 1999, pp. 108-114.
38 Aleksei Bogaturov, “Rossiia i ‘geopoliticheskii pliuralizm’ zapada,” Svobodnaia mysl’, No. 12, 1994, pp. 83-84.
39 The most cogent statements of the position are by Aleksandr Dugin, Misterii Evrazii, Moscow: Arktogeia, 1996, and especially Osnovy geopolitiki: Geopoliticheskoe budushchee Rossii, Moscow: Arktogeia, 1997.
40 For the “keystone” metaphor see Sherman W. Garnett, Keystone in the Arch: Ukraine in the Emerging Security Environment of Central and Eastern Europe, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment, 1997.
41 See Dominique Arel, “Ukraine: The Muddle Way,” Current History, Vol. 97, No. 621, October 1998, pp. 342-346.
42 Alexander J. Motyl, “Making Sense of Ukraine,” The Harriman Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, Winter 1997, pp. 1-7.
43 See the account in Sherr, “Ukraine’s New Time of Troubles,” pp. 128-131.
44 For the text see “Charter On a Distinctive Partnership Between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Ukraine,” NATO Review, No. 4, July-August 1997, pp. 5-6.
45 Margarita M. Balmaceda, “Ukraine, Russia, and European Security: Thinking Beyond NATO Expansion,” Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 45, No. 1, January-February 1998, p. 23.
46 Olga Alexandrova, “The NATO-Ukrainian Charter: Kiev’s Euro-Atlantic Integration,” Aussenpolitik , No. 4, 1997, pp. 325-336.
47 Jeffrey Simon, “Partnership for Peace (PfP): After the Washington Summit and Kosovo,” Strategic Forum, No. 167, August 1999, pp. 1-9.
48 Lidiia Leont’eva, “Aspekti psikhologichnoi borot’bi: U konteksti konteptsii natsional’noi bezpeki Ukraini,” Viis’ko Ukraini, 7 August 1997, p. 17.
49 Taras Kuzio, “Nato Enlargement: The View From the East,” European Security, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 1997, pp. 48-62.
50 Roman Popadiuk, American-Ukrainian Nuclear Relations, McNair Papers No. 55, Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Security Studies, October 1996.
51 John Jaworsky, “Ukraine’s Armed Forces and Military Policy,” in Hayda, ed., Ukraine in the World, pp. 223-247.
52 Stephen A. Cambone, “NATO Enlargement: Implications for the Military Dimension of Ukraine’s Security,” The Harriman Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, Winter 1997, pp. 8-18.
53 Vladimir Belous, “Key Aspects of the Russian Nuclear Strategy,” Security Dialogue, Vol. 28, No. 2, June 1997, pp. 159-171.
54 Sergo A. Mikoyan, “Russia, the US and Regional Conflict in Eurasia,” Survival, Vol. 40, No. 3, Autumn 1998, p. 116.
55 Dmitri Zaks, “Russians Bristle at NATO Sea Breeze,” The Moscow Times, 26 August 1997.
56 Anatol Lieven, “Restraining NATO: Ukraine, Russia, and the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1997, p. 70. The argument, supportive of engagement with Ukraine but tempered by restraint, is developed at greater length in Anatol Lieven, Ukraine & Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace, 1999.
57 Bruce Russett and Alan C. Stam, “Courting Disaster: An Expanded NATO vs. Russia and China,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 113, No. 3, 1998, pp. 361-382.
58 Col. Stephen D. Olynyk, USAR (Ret.), “The State of Ukrainian Armed Forces,” The Officer, November 1997, pp. 25-28.
59 Andrei V. Kozyrev, “Russia and Human Rights,” Slavic Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 282-296.
60 G. Vorontsov, “Ot Khelsinki k ‘obshcheevropeiskomu domu’,” Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, No. 9, 1988, pp. 40-45.
61 Charles Krupnick, “Europe’s Intergovernmental NGO: The OSCE in Europe’s Emerging Security Structure,” European Security, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 1998, pp. 30-51.
62 Jonathan Eyal, “NATO’s Enlargement: Anatomy of a Decision,” International Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 4, 1997, pp. 706-710, and James M. Goldgeier, Not Whether But When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1999.
63 Kozyrev asserted that “Russia will have no objection if NATO does not take an aggressive stance in respect of Russia. This [Polish membership in the Alliance] is a matter of Poland and NATO.” Cited from Vasilii Safronchuk, “NATO Summit Seen As Shame for Russia,” Sovetskaia Rossiia, 9 July 1997, p. 3.
64 See S. Rogov, “Rasshirenie NATO i Rossiia,” Morskoi sbornik , No. 7, 1997, pp. 15-19.
65 Igor Maslov, “Russia and NATO: A Critical Period,” Mediterranean Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1, Winter 1997, pp. 1-15, and Aleksei Podberezkin, “Geostrategicheskoe polozhenie i bezopasnosti Rossii,” Svobodnaia mysl’, No. 7, 1996, pp. 90-97.
66 Iu. P. Davidov, “Rossiia i NATO: Posle bala,” SShA: Ekonomika, politika, ideologiia, No. 1, 1998, p. 3.
67 Primakov’s remark is cited rom S. Kondrashev, “U nas svoe litso, i my nigde ne skatyvalis’ k konfrontatsii,” Izvestiia, 23 December 1997, p. 3. See also Alexander A. Sergounin, “Russian Domestic Debate on NATO Enlargement: From Phobia to Damage Limitation,” European Security, Vol. 6, No. 4, Winter 1997, pp. 55-71, and for a summary of the preferred Russian strategic response N. N. Afanasievskii, “Rossiia-NATO: Kurs na sotrudnichestvo,” Orientir, No. 7, 1997, pp. 9-11.
68 For a lucid and thorough evaluation of Russian reactions to NATO enlargement see J. L. Black, Russia Faces NATO Expansion: Bearing Gifts or Bearing Arms?, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.
69 Youri Roubinskii, “La Russie et l’OTAN: Une nouvelle étape?,” Politique etrangérè, Vol. 62, No. 4, Winter 1997, p. 553.
70 For the text in English and Russian see “Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security Between NATO and the Russian Federation,” European Security, Vol. 6, No. 3, Autumn 1997, pp. 158-168, and “Osnovopolagaiushchii Akt o vzaimnykh otnosheniiakh. Severoatlanticheskogo dogovora,” Krasnaia zvezda, 29 May 1997, p. 3.
71 Hans-Henning Schroeder, ” ‘… it’s good for America, it’s good for Europe, and it’s good for Russia …’: Russland und die NATO nach der Unterzeichnung der ‘Grundakte’,” Osteuropa, Vol. 48, No. 5, May 1998, p. 447.
72 Fergus Carr and Paul Flenly, “NATO and the Russian Federation in the New Europe: The Founding Act on Mutual Relations,” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 15, No. 2, June 1999, p. 99.
73 Articulated in A. Kvashnin, “Rossiia i NATO zainteresovany v rasshirenii voennogo sotrudnichestva,” Krasnaia zvezda, 4 September 1998. See also the critique in P. Ivanova and B. Khalosha, “Rossiia-NATO: Shto dal’she?,” Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, No. 6, 1999, pp. 5-15.
74 Gregory B. Hall, “NATO and Russia, Russians and NATO: A Turning Point in Post-Cold War East-West Relations?,” World Affairs, Vol. 162, No. 1, Summer 1999, p. 25.
75 Cited in Kav’er Solana, “NATO-Rossiia: Pervyi god stabil’nogo provizheniia vpered,” Novosti NATO, Vol. 2, No. 2, April-May 1998, p. 1.
76 R. Craig Nation, “US Policy and the Kosovo Crisis,” The International Spectator, Vol. 33, No. 4, October 1998, pp. 23-39.
77 See V. K. Volkov, “Tragediia Iugoslavii,” Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, No. 5, 1994, pp. 22-31, and R. Craig Nation, “La Russia, la Serbia, e il conflitto jugoslavo,” Europa, Europe, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1996, pp. 171-192.
78 A. Matveyev, “Washington’s Claims to World Leadership,” International Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 5, 1999, p. 53.
79 See the evaluations in Dmitri Trenin, ed., Kosovo: Mezhdunarodnye aspekty krizisa, Moscow: Moskovskii Tsentr Karnegi, 1999.
80 V. Kuvaldin, “Iugoslovenskii krizis i vneshnepoliticheskaia strategiia Rossiia,” Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, No. 9, 1999, p. 22.
81 See Kremeniuk’s intervention in “Balkanskii krizis i vneshnepoliticheskaia strategiia Rossiia,” SShA-Kanada: Ekonomika, politika, kul’tura , No. 10, October 1999, p. 42. This round table discussion provides a interesting survey of Russian perspectives on the Kosovo conflict.
82 Viktor Gobarev, “Russia-NATO Relations After the Kosovo Crisis: Strategic Implications,” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 1999, p. 11.
83 For the controversy over the effectiveness of NATO’s air war inside Kosovo see “The Kosovo Cover-Up,” Newsweek, 15 May 2000, pp. 22-26.
84 For the texts see “Voennaia doktrina Rossiiskoi Federatsii: Proekt,” Krasnaia zvezda, 9 October 1999, pp. 3-4.
85 Celeste A. Wallander, “Wary of the West: Russian Security Policy at the Millennium,” Arms Control Today, Vol. 30, No. 2, March 2000, pp. 7-12.
86 See the text in International Affairs, No. 3, April-May 1992.
87 See the text in Izvestiia, 18 November 1993, pp. 1-4.
88 “Kontseptsiia natsional’noi bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii,” Rossiiskaia gazeta, 26 December 1997, pp. 4-5.
89 “Kontseptsiia natsional’noi bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii,” Nezavisimaia Voennoe Obozrenie, 14 January 2000, and “Russia’s National Security Concept,” Arms Control Today, Vol. 30, No. 1, January/February 2000, pp. 15-20.
90 Susan LaFraniere, “Russia Mends Broken Ties With NATO,” The Washington Post, 17 February 2000, pp. A1 and A23, and Michael Wines, “Russia and NATO, Split Over Kosovo, Agree to Renew Relations,” The New York Times, 17 February 2000, p. A11.
91 “Join Statement On the Occasion of the Visit of the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, in Moscow on16 February 2000,” NATO Review, Vol.48, Spring/Summer 2000, p. 20.
92 Cited from
93 Dmitri Trenin, “Russia-NATO Relations: Time to Pick Up the Pieces,” NATO Review, Vol. 48, Spring/Summer 2000, pp. 19-22.
94 Colonel Jeffrey D. McCausland, “Endgame: CFE Adaptation and the OSCE Summit,” Arms Control Today, Vol. 29, No. 6, September/October 1999, pp. 15-19.
95 Heinz Timmermann, “Russland: Strategischer Partner der Europeischen Union? Interessen, Impulse, Widersprüche,” Osteuropa, No. 10, 1999, pp. 991-1009.
96 See Iu. P. Davydov, “Rossiia-NATO: O poiskakh perspektivy,” SShA-Kanada: Ekonomika, politika, kul’tura, No. 1, 1999, p. 21.
97 NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, “Rebalancing NATO for a Strong Future,” ROA National Security Report; The Officer, March 2000, p. 1.
98 Michael Brenner, Terms of Engagement: The United States and the European Security Identity. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998, p. 88.
99 “U.S. Ambassador to NATO On NATO-Russian Relations,” Security Issues Digest, No. 91, 10 May 2000, p. 4. [pdf]

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a broadcaster funded by the U.S. Congress that provides news, information, and analysis to countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East “where the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed”.[3] RFE/RL is supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a bi-partisan federal agency overseeing all U.S. international broadcasting services.[4]

Founded as a propaganda news source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe, RFE/RL received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency until 1972.[5][6] During the earliest years of Radio Free Europe’s existence, the CIA and the U.S. Department of State issued broad policy directives, and a system evolved where broadcast policy was determined through negotiation between the CIA, the U.S. State Department, and RFE staff.[7]

RFE/RL was headquartered at Englischer Garten in Munich, Germany, from 1949 to 1995. In 1995, the headquarters were moved to Prague in the Czech Republic. European operations have been significantly reduced since the end of the Cold War. In addition to the headquarters, the service maintains 20 local bureaus in countries throughout their broadcast region, as well as a corporate office in Washington, D.C. RFE/RL broadcasts in 28 languages[8] to 21 countries[9] including Armenia, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.[10]

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
RFE Logo.png

RFE/RL official logo
RFE Broadcast Regions crop.jpg

RFE/RL Broadcast Region 2009
Abbreviation RFE/RL
Motto Free Media in Unfree Societies
Formation 1949 (Radio Free Europe), 1953 (Radio Liberty), 1976 (merger)
Type private, non-profit Sec 501(c)3 corporation
Purpose/focus Broadcast Media
Headquarters Prague Broadcast Center
Location Prague
Official languages English; programs are also available in Albanian, Armenian, Arabic, Avar, Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Bosnian, Belarusian, Chechen, Circassian, Crimean Tatar, Dari, Georgian, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Pashto, Persian, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Tajik, Tatar, Turkmen, Ukrainian, Uzbek
President Kevin Klose (since January 26, 2013);[1] Dennis Mulhaupt is Chair of RFE’s corporate board (since October 2010).[2]
Parent organization Broadcasting Board of Governors
Budget $83,161,000 (FY 08)
Staff 497


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media? II

Update re: “Is ‪#‎Harper‬’s ‪#‎PMO‬ using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit ‪#‎cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?” via @FMPsportsguy status update here: We also published a follow up summary between this update related to Harper’s Ministers titled “Are #Harper’s Ministers using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?” here:

@opHarper @jasonfekete good work, here is answer from ethics commisioner to regards to complaint #cdnpoli - (@FMPsportsguy) March 08, 2014

If you notice the inquiry by FMPsportsguy was specifically delivered to the “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner” who then replied that the Treasury Board website would be the first point of inquiry. So it seems like it will be up to us to sift through the information that is contained on the Treasury Board website that was referenced above to see what applies. We also have to consider how this campaigning fits within the current Elections Act as well as Pierre Poilievre’s Fair Election Act. For now, here are the links to the page and the sections that seem to apply in this case. It is worth noting that in section n “Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks” was rescinded and replaced by “Policy on Acceptable Network and Device Use” updated 2014-03-06, these links will be posted below

Communications Policy of the Government of Canada

18. Internet and Electronic Communication

The Internet, social media tools and other means of electronic communication are powerful enablers for building and sustaining effective communication within institutions and with their clients across Canada and around the world.

An important tool for providing information and services to the public, the Internet facilitates interactive, two-way communication and feedback. It provides opportunities to reach and connect with Canadians wherever they reside, and to deliver personalized services.

Institutions must maintain an active presence on the Internet to enable 24-hour electronic access to public programs, services and information. E-mail and Web sites must be used to enable direct communications between Canadians and government institutions, and among public service managers and employees.

Institutions must advance Government of Canada on-line initiatives aimed at expanding the reach and quality of internal and external communications, improving service delivery, connecting and interacting with citizens, enhancing public access and fostering public dialogue.

Institutions must ensure that Internet communications conform to government policies and standards. Government of Canada themes and messages must be accurately reflected in electronic communications with the public and among employees.

To ensure congruence with other communication activities, an institution’s Web sites, sub-sites and portals must be reviewed regularly by the head of communications, or his or her designate, who oversees and advises on Web content and design.

Web site managers, at headquarters and in regional offices, must consult with communications staff on the editorial and visual content of Web pages, including design and presentation, to ensure publishing standards and other communication requirements are met.

Collaboration is also required between communications and information technology specialists to ensure effective planning and management of electronic information services. Managers and employees responsible for the operational and technical aspects of an institution’s Web-based systems work in consultation with communications staff who provide strategic advice on Web content and the use of technology for communication purposes. (Also see Web site references in Requirement 23, Advertising, Requirement 24, Partnering and Collaborative Arrangements, Requirement 26, Marketing and Requirement 27, Publishing.)

Institutions must:

  1. manage their Web sites and portals in accordance with the Treasury Board’s Standard on Web Accessibility and Standard on Web Usability;
  2. identify on-line information and services, including e-mail messages, in accordance with the Federal Identity Program Policy;
  3. ensure electronic communications conform to the requirements of the Official Languages Act and to the Treasury Board’s Policy on Official Languages, Directive on Official Languages for Communications and Services and Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks;
  4. be connected to the Government of Canada’s Internet and intranet portal sites, the Canada Site and Publiservice, managed by Service Canada;
  5. ensure that Internet-published information on policies, programs, services and initiatives is regularly updated, accurate, easy to understand, and accessible in multiple formats for persons with disabilities;
  6. ensure that printed material for public dissemination is published concurrently on the Internet;
  7. ensure that social media icons displayed on Government of Canada Web sites link to official social media accounts;
  8. when social media icons are displayed to allow the sharing of Government of Canada content through users’ personal accounts, ensure that a disclaimer is displayed in proximity to the icons, that states that no endorsement of any products or services is expressed or implied;
  9. ensure that the address of the official departmental social media account appears on other communications products, such as television or print;
  10. incorporate mechanisms into on-line services for receiving and acknowledging public feedback;
  11. ensure that information about their external public consultations and citizen engagement activities is posted on their Web sites and information, including Web links, is submitted to the Consulting With Canadians Web site maintained by Service Canada (For further policy direction, see Requirement 9, Consultation and Citizen Engagement.);
  12. respect privacy rights and copyright ownership in all on-line publishing and communication – in compliance with the Privacy Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Copyright Act;
  13. ensure that information published on Web sites, prior to posting any changes or updates, is recorded and archived to assure long-term retention and the preservation of institutional memory – with timely and consistent processes for doing so established in consultation with the managers of an institution’s information holdings; and
  14. abide by the Treasury Board’s Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks, Policy on Management of Information Technology, Policy on Information Management, Policy on Government Security and Policy on Privacy Protection.


Note the Date Modified: 1998-02-24 and the next comment will have the “Replaced By” link…

Rescinded – Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks

This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the “Contact Us” page.

Policy Framework

Related Links:

Legislation and Regulations

Replaced By


Once again note the Date Modified: 1998-02-24 which does not accurately reflect the actual date modified…

Rescinded – Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks

This policy is replaced by this or these policies


Once again the Date Modified: 2014-03-06 does not reflect the correct date of the modification. The “Effective Date” section is as follows and the table of contents are below…

1. Effective Date
1.1 This policy takes effect on October 1, 2013.
1.2 It replaces the Policy on the Use of Electronic Networks of February 12, 1998.
1.3 All policy requirements will be effective October 1, 2013, with the exception of 6.1.3. which will come into effect April 1, 2014.


Policy on Acceptable Network and Device Use
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. Effective Date


The Policy on Acceptable Network and Device Use will ensure that employees use Government of Canada electronic networks and devices in an acceptable manner and provide employees with open access to the Internet including Web 2.0 tools and services.



The above policy changes noted are something that should be explored and examined immediately as they relate to use of government resources with regards to campaign solicitations and partisan activities.

Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement:

Are #Harper’s Ministers using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media?

Follow up 13Mar2014: Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media? II

There are even more burning questions that are ever growing and now expanding into a full blown firestorm and we are now demanding immediate answers and actions before any further attempts by the Conservative Party of Canada, aka: Harper Party, at passing, or shall we say ramming, Minister of Democratic Subversion Pierre Poilievre’s so called Fair Elections Act into legislation.

Once again we must ask ourselves a couple of valid questions and below we will once again utilize Twitter to begin our quest and gather more evidence in support of our initial question and summary Is #Harper’s #PMO using taxpayers $$$ to Solicit #cdnpoli Election Donations via Social Media? located here: Be sure to participate in our poll.

  1. Are Stephen Harper’s appointed Ministers subverting and/or violating Elections Canada rules by using taxpayers funds to manage and solicit illegal election donations via social media in preparation for 2015?
  2. Why are the Opposition Parties allowing it to happen and not demanding a Regime change and immediate elections?

It is worth noting that not all of Harper’s appointed Ministers are engaging in this actively but it seems as if the majority are. In addition there are several Harper Party Ministers that utilize more than on Twitter account and very few of their profile summaries differentiate between the “official” and personal accounts and most contain links to their campaign websites as opposed to the “official Government of Canada website portals. Below, while not all inclusive, we will provide an overview of Tweets and ReTweets as well as utilizing redirection links that are obfuscated via the and short url services.

In addition we are concerned that the government issued devices that we are paying for, such as Blackberry’s, smartphones, computers, laptops and tablets are being utilized for partisan activities, not to mention the time frames in which they are performing these partisan activities is taking away from necessary ministerial functions. In other words, they are campaigning while siphoning off the dole. So basically they are utilizing “company” time while “on the clock” for personal activities, which in the private sector could and usually are grounds for termination or other disciplinary measures. Below you will find examples of questionable conflicts of interest and please note that majority of the archiving was done 21Feb2014 with a few exceptions and that the images contain text archives from the accounts from as far back as possible.

Chris Alexander @MinChrisA

aka: @calxandr

Chris Alexander does not seem to be utilizing Twitter appropriately but the official profile summary does contain the official Government of Canada web portal link and there is a distinction between the two profiles where his personal account profile summary contains the link to his campaign site.

Archived content from Chris Alexander  @MinChrisA 08Mar2014
Archived content from Chris Alexander

Leona Aglukkaq @leonaaglukkaq

Leona Aglukkaq does not seem to be utilizing Twitter appropriately and her profile summary links to her campaign website not to the official Government of Canada web portal.