Vladimir Suchan: Logo Politikos
As we know, President Putin has asked the Russian Federal Council, the Upper House of the Russian Parliament, to call off the March 1 resolution allowing the head of state to use the armed forces on the territory of Ukraine.
Poroshenko likes it and the West too can hardly want to “punish” Russia for this move or to introduce more sanctions. This sudden and, yes, unexpected move comes just a week or so after more Russian troops were moved back and now even unapologetically–to the borders with Ukraine.
The most effective criticism of this new Putin’s move from the West is that it “shows and merely confirms” that Putin’s will is the will of the Russian “parliament,” that is, that the parliament is not real, but only Putin’s own collective rubber stamp.
Needless to say, this criticism is not one that is easily dismissible or refutable even though Russian politics has not developed the same kind of political theater, which Western “democracies” have.
Still it would be really interesting–it would be quite a curve ball, if the Russian Upper House were suddenly to deny Putin’s request since the powers granted to Putin on March 1 contain a language that explicitly says the right to use military force on the territory of the neighboring Ukraine will last “until the normalization of the social and political situation in that country.”
As of now, no one can argue with a straight face that the political situation in the Ukraine has been normalized in any considerable sense.
Having said, I still believe that the Upper House will do exactly what Putin has asked it to do and would not prove Western critics of Russian “authoritarianism” wrong on this account. We don’t know if Putin is getting anything in return for this move. In the case of the absence of any proof to the contrary, it is hard to assume that this move is not one-sided. At the same time, it is hard to exclude the negative, especially, if it is not visible or apparent to a public eye.
In this situation, the fact remains that June 27 is an artificially created critical date in the calendar which the West, the EU, and the European Council strangely chose to commemorate in a special ceremony after all these years the cause of the long 20th-century World War over who will rule the world (known as World War I) in Ypres (the site of the notorious chemical attack). And nearly all the pending decision of this Western Central Committee for how to rule the world will be taken over Ukraine and … apparently in one form or another against Russia. In a word, June 27 and the few days after (or just before it) will mark a certain threshold behind which there might be our joint abyss or a trajectory reminiscent of the paths of those meteorites who came too close to earth before moving on back into the abyss of space. Russia clearly tries to be on its best possible behavior and to affect the decisions in the most favorable way, as she sees it. However, as a rule, decisions of such importance are hardly made in the last second. Very likely, the dice was already cast, and the bloodthirsty masters of mankind have already made up their Cyborg-like mind.
So why June 26 was chosen as the date on which “to commemorate World War I” by the Western rulers, who have suddenly rediscovered “democrats” in followers of fascist Banderites in Ukraine? The official explanation is terse and not much sensible: “The Heads of state or government of the European Union (EU) member states during their meeting next week will commemorate the outbreak of the First World War (WWI). The EU leaders will meet on June 26 in Ypres, a Belgian town located in the Flemish province of West Flanders, for a commemoration ceremony to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the WWI, according to the agenda unveiled by the EU.”
The fact is that the main battles of Ypres took place in periods, which skip June: 1) October 19 – November 22, 1914, 2) April 22 – May 15, 1915, 3) July 31 – November 6, 1917, 3) April 9 – April 29, 1918, 5) September 28 – October 2, 1918. The chemical attack of Ypres launched by the German Army took place on April 22, 1915. Lethal chlorine gas was used and 150 tons of it. Moreover, World War I started on July 28 and not on June 26 or 27.
What is clear though is that the Western masters did choose to make their possibly fatal decisions (and mistakes) by draping themselves in the dark symbolism of World War I, which destroyed most of the then existing empires, except for three: the British, the French, and the rising American one.
The only possibly significant event tied to Ypres, World War I, and June 26 (more or less), I could find is the publication of an official statement from Germany’s War Command that addressed the German use of poison gas on April 22, 1915. The statement argued that the Allies’s outraged reaction to German chlorine gas was hypocritical; the French had been manufacturing and employing gas in battle well before the Second Battle of Ypres: “What hypocrisy when the same people grow indignant because the Germans much later followed them on the path they had pointed out!” The French were, in fact, the first to employ gas during World War I–in August 1914; they used tear-gas grenades containing xylyl bromide, which was an “irritant,” but not lethal.
So what to make of this? The most coherent explanation would be that the US, NATO, and the Kiev regime might have, I repeat, might have prepared a version of their false flag chemical attack, which al Nusra (now the official al-Qaeda in Syria) tried to pull out near Damascus in the East Ghouta on August 21, 2013, in order to enable the US to turn its armed forces effectively into al Qaeda’s Air Force and to win the battle of Damascus and thus for Syria for the supposedly “moderate opposition” led by al Qaeda’s terror divisions and death squads.
And if symbolism matters, then Western leaders seem to commemorate not just World War I in general at this concrete historical juncture, but Western hypocrisy, as it relates to war, in particular.
In a word, this week or so is a time when the probability of a massive provocation supposed to be a “game changer” is very high. In this light, and that means seriously, one also needs to read and review some of the earlier reports of the Ukrainian army deploying units and elements of its WMD troops in the east of the country.
http://vladimirsuchan.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-do-western-leaders-want-to.html