Nuland med sina bästa vänner i Kiev.
Victoria Nuland? Vem är det? Det frågar sig många. Men det var hon som (lite tillspetsat) manade fram kriget i Ukraina och (lite tillspetsat) såg till att Sverige hamnade i Nato.
Innan hon går in i tystnaden, låt oss erinra oss åtminstone något av den oreda hon skapat.
Nuland var USA:s och Obamas vice utrikesminister men ansågs tydligen så värdefull att hon fortsatte att arbeta inom det amerikanska utrikesdepartementet under Trump och Biden.
Om CIA står för de smutsiga jobben inom amerikansk utrikespolitik (typ mord, statskupper, tortyr etc) så har Nuland stått för en mer ”belevad smuts”, en ”hök i knytblus” sedan man i Washington insett att det inte fungerar med bara vapen och F-16-plan.
USA:s utrikesminister Anthony Blinken kommenterade hennes avgång med att påpeka ”hennes enastående passion när det gäller det hon mest trodde på – frihet, mänskliga rättigheter, demokrati…” Vad gäller hennes insatser för demokrati kan nämnas att det var till stor del Nulands ”förtjänst” att Ukrainas demokratiskt valde president Janukovytsj störtades 22 januari 2014 i samband med Maidanhändelserna i huvudstaden Kiev, händelser som delade Ukraina i två läger och där Nobels fredspristagare Obama skickade Nuland för att styra utvecklingen åt rätt håll.
Men störtar man en regering måste man ha ett nytt ledarskap. Vem som skulle bli ny premiärminister diskuterades av Nuland och den amerikanska ambassadören George Pyatt.
Plats? I ett rum på USA-ambassaden i Kiev. De två diskuterade olika ukrainska politiker fram och tillbaka. Det blev hennes gode vän Arsenij Jatsenjuk som fick jobbet. Ambassaden ville också ha en amerikan in i regeringen – Ann Jaresko. Hon var visserligen av ukrainskt ursprung men presidenten såg till att hon fick ukrainskt medborgarskap dagarna före tillträdet. Jaresko arbetade som amerikansk riskkapitalist, så hon fick bli finansminister.
Sex antisemiter från det nynazistiska Svoboda (som slogs på Hitlers sida) fick också plats i den nya regeringen. Det var väl inte första gången en premiärminister utsågs på en amerikansk ambassad.
Så såg alltså den amerikanska demokratilektionen ut i fallet Ukraina.
Ryssarna blev rosenrasande på Nuland och det ledde till en – på kort sikt – invasio… förlåt FULLSKALIG invasion ska det förstås vara. Och Sverige gick in i Nato.
Nuland hade tre år tidigare varit med om att störta Libyen i kaos (som ännu består), då som utrikesminister Hillary Clintons speciella sändebud. Hon avfärdade alla förslag till förhandlingar.
Libyenkriget lyckades – det statliga libyska oljemonopolet upphävdes.
Detta är bara några axplock ur Nulands meritlista. Varför avgick hon? Det ryktas att hon inte var nöjd med utvecklingen i Ukraina. Målet med Maidanhändelserna var ju att få in Ukraina i Nato. Och på sikt störta regimen i Moskva. Putin sitter kvar.
Vid militärkuppen i Niger förra året reste hon dit för att tala kuppmakarna till rätta. Om Maidan i Kiev – på kort sikt – var en framgång blev Niger raka motsatsen. Hon möttes med kalla handen. De amerikanska trupperna får dra.
Dags att avgå.
Är det klart att USA-trupperna i Niger ”får dra”? En källa, please!
En ren spekulation från min sida är att hon i desperation över att Ukraina nu ser ut att förlora kriget, var delaktig i att trigga folk i den ukrainska säkerhetstjänsten till att planera terroristattentatet i Moskva. Det attentatet gynnade inte vare sig USA:s eller Ukrainas intressen. Det gav istället sympatier till Ryssland och kanske motiv för Putin att eskalera striderna i Ukraina.
Hat och besvikelse är som vi vet inte alltid rationellt.
Artikel av Gilbert Doctorow som har bra koll på vad som sägs i Ryssland. Victoria Nuland kan mycket väl vara involverad i attentatet i Moskva.
__________
To the uninitiated, I explain first that the FSB is the successor organization to the Soviet Union’s well-known and much feared KGB. However, the FSB today might be better compared with the FBI in the United States. It deals with domestic criminality of all kinds and with threats to Russian civilians such as terrorism. The agency and its head are rarely in the news.
In this respect, the FSB is less visible both at home and abroad than the Foreign Intelligence Service headed by Sergei Naryshkin, a state figure who spent five years of this millennium as chairman of the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of the legislature, and also three years as head of the Presidential Administration. In both positions Naryshkin was very often seen on television performing his duties.
By contrast, Bortnikov spent the past 15 years in his FSB offices out of sight. However, the spectacular attack on the Crocus City Hall concert venue has propelled him to center stage and yesterday he met with the Russian state television journalist Pavel Zarubin for an interview and then allowed himself to be questioned further by a gaggle of other journalists on his way out along a corridor. This spontaneous Q&A was later broadcast on the television news. What Bortnikov had to say was extraordinary and bears directly on whether you and I should now be looking for bomb shelters. Regrettably you will not find any of it in the lead stories of today’s mainstream media. The Financial Times, for example, features an account of Xi’s meeting with CEOs of American businesses to mend ties: interesting, but not very relevant if we are at the cusp of WWIII.
*****
Bortnikov is by definition a member of Vladimir Putin’s inner circle of advisors. He, Putin and Naryshkin are all roughly the same age. At 72, Bortnikov is just several years older.
I was struck in particular by his poise and prudent, carefully weighed choice of words while setting out where the investigation is heading with transparency and a ‘let the chips fall where they may’ unaffected demeanor.
The journalists were all probing the question of who stood behind the terror attack. Bortnikov told them…and us: standing behind the terror act committed by Islamist extremists are the United States, Great Britain and Ukraine.
Bortnikov said that the preliminary findings indicate that the four perpetrators of the slaughter were headed by car to the border with Ukraine where they were awaited on the other side. He very calmly explained that the involvement of foreign powers is being clarified and that he will say nothing out of pure emotion now but will wait for the facts to be solidly collected before being presented.
Nonetheless, it was entirely newsworthy that he named the United States, Great Britain and Ukraine as the likely puppet masters of the terror act. Let us remember that following the bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines, the most significant attack on critical civilian infrastructure globally in the last 50 years, Russian officials did not point the finger directly at any country. There was innuendo but no direct accusations such as we heard from Bortnikov yesterday.
****
Meanwhile, quite apart from Mr. Bortnikov’s chat with journalists, a lot of new elements to the terror attack at Crocus City Hall were posted yesterday on the Russian state television news and analysis program Sixty Minutes. In particular, we learned that in the last days of February and first couple of days of March two of the four attackers were in Istanbul. The departure and arrival of one at a Moscow airport was recorded on video. We were told which hotels they stayed in, and the selfies and other photos taken by one in Istanbul were put up on the screen. It is still not clear with whom they met in Turkey. However, the timing itself is very important, because the point was made that they returned to Moscow to carry out a terror attack on 8 March, International Women’s Day, a sacred date on the Russian calendar. Had they done so on that day, the effect would have been catastrophic for the presidential elections in Russia one week later.
However, per Sixty Minutes, it was determined that Russian state security on 8 March was too tight for the terrorist mission to succeed and the United States decided to pull the plug on that operation. Note that this is approximately the time when Victoria Nuland tendered her resignation at the State Department (5 March). The possible causal link here surely deserves attention by my peers in the U.S. ‘dissident’ community.
In any case, the scenario which was explored later in the day on the Evening with Vladimir Solovyov talk show is that the Ukrainians decided to proceed with the terror attack a week after the Russian presidential elections, when it lost most of its rationale. They did so over the objections of Washington.
*****
From time to time, readers ask why I pay attention to talk shows like Vladimir Solovyov’s. These skeptics tend to ignore that Solovyov invites not just the usual irresponsible academics and journalists who can amuse the public but also some very serious statesmen who are close to the center of power in Russia and exert influence on the conduct of foreign and domestic policy, including in particular committee chairmen and other key personalities from the State Duma.
So it was last night when we heard from a member of the Committee on Relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States (Former Soviet Union). With reference to the never ending terror attacks on civilians in the Russian border region of Belgorod coming from nearby Kharkiv (Ukraine), he said it is time to raze Kharkov to the ground: issue a warning to the population to get in their cars and head West, then blow it all to bits. Kharkiv is, by the way, Ukraine’s second most populous city after Kiev.
In general, the mood of panelists and of the host Solovyov himself is now changing in a cardinal manner: Ukraine is seen as an enemy state and the sooner it is finished off the better. There was talk last night on the need for missile strikes to flatten the presidential palace in Kiev along with all military and other decision making government centers in the capital.
As we have observed repeatedly over the past two years. President Putin has been a voice for moderation and restraint, resisting actions that might precipitate WWIII. That is clearly coming to an end when his own FSB director names the United States and the UK as planners of the biggest terror attack in Russia in 20 years.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Christer Lundgren!
The Guardian rapporterar
Ibland är kommentarer så dåliga så att det räcker att citera dem för att vederlägga dem.
Sven Orup skrev: ”Victoria Nuland kan mycket väl vara involverad i attentatet i Moskva.”
Sven O skrev så men hänvisning till att Victoria Nuland nämns en gång i en text, så här:
”in the last days of February and first couple of days of March two of the four attackers were in Istanbul […] It is still not clear with whom they met in Turkey. However, the timing itself is very important, because the point was made that they returned to Moscow to carry out a terror attack on 8 March, International Women’s Day, a sacred date on the Russian calendar. Had they done so on that day, the effect would have been catastrophic for the presidential elections in Russia one week later.
However, per Sixty Minutes, it was determined that Russian state security on 8 March was too tight for the terrorist mission to succeed and the United States decided to pull the plug on that operation. Note that this is approximately the time when Victoria Nuland tendered her resignation at the State Department (5 March). The possible causal link here surely deserves attention by my peers in the U.S. ’dissident’ community.”
Jan Arvid G!
Ditt påstående att Sven Orups kommentar var ovanligt dålig, indikerande då att det inte finns anledning att misstänka kakmonstret Nuland för inblandning i terroristattentatet i Moskva, var det som var ovanligt dåligt här.
Det finns synnerligen goda skäl att misstänka Nuland. Hon har hela tiden varit en av dom mest russofobiska hatspridarna i USA. Hennes löfte om överraskningar ”Putin is going to get some nice surprises” kan man säga infriades i Moskva. Nulands ”avgång” eller vad det var, stämmer i tiden. USA:s och UK:s varningar till sin ambassadpersonal att undvika stora folksamlingar säger oss att USA visste något om det som hände och deras oerhört snabba påstående att Ukraina inte var inblandat säger oss att dom visste vem som var inblandad, men kanske inte hade full kontroll över deras agerande.
Att hon avgick eller mer troligt fick sparken tyder i detta scenario på att hon gick för långt.
Som tidigare sagts, spekulationer, men inte spekulationer utan grund.
”inte spekulationer utan grund”
Jo.