Global Research
Ukraine’s “Brown Shirt Revolution”: Part of a US -NATO -EU Plan to Break up Russia?
Professor Francis A. Boyle
It is a fact that since 9-11-2001,
the US Government has been in the business of destroying countries and
using NATO as it principle instrument. That was stated more than a
decade ago by then US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and
later by General Wesley Clark.
The Pentagon drew up a list of 7
states that were to be destroyed: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria and they have systematically proceeded
to destroy all of the countries on the list.
The strategy in Ukraine is the
same, US/NATO/EU are promoting the destabilization and the breakup of
Ukraine in order to achieve the NATO goal of moving into Ukrainian
territory closer to Russia.
University of Illinois Professor Francis Boyle spoke on these issues and more in an interview with the Voice of Russia.
While
Russia was distracted into believing that the US wanted a reset US
foreign policy was being planned and dictated by rabid Russia haters
like Zbignew Brzezinski and Richard Pipes. Brzezinski wants to breakup
Russia into approximately 68 parts and has placed his protégés in key US
foreign policy posts. According to Mr. Boyle Brezezinski has staffed
the Obama administration with his acolytes and protégées, including the
US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, a specialist in color
revolutions. At the end of the day the US plan is to see the breakup of
the Russian Federation, that is the goal.
This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Professor Francis Boyle.
He is a Professor in International Law at the University of Illinois
College of Law. This is part 1 of a longer interview. You can find the
rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com
Robles: Hello Sir! How are you this evening?
Boyle: Very fine. Thanks for having me on, John, and my best to your listening audience.
Robles:
Thank you Sir! And thanks for agreeing to speak with us. News of the day
is Ukraine. Now you’ve recently made some statements and done some work
regarding Syria. I’d like to ask for your correlations between what is
going on right now in Syria and what is going on right now in Ukraine.
Do you see a connection? Some people are saying that Ukraine, the push
there was because the US was not allowed to carry out military
operations against Syria. Do you see a relationship between them?
Boyle: Well I
wouldn’t say that is “necessarily” the reason. As we know, Ukraine has
for a long time been a strategic objective of the United States and
trying to get Ukraine into NATO. And this EU plan was simply a first
step in that direction. The EU wasn’t really offering anything to
Ukraine. But it was very clear, if they could move Ukraine closer to the
EU, that would be a step closer to NATO. In fact, I regret to say over
the years, even though I have EU citizenship and carry an EU passport,
the EU now has become nothing but an anteroom to NATO.
So,
I think this really has to be understood in terms of the gradual
movement of NATO further to the east in violation of the pledge that
George Bush Senior and Jim Baker gave to then President Gorbachev that
if he agreed to the reunification of Germany, NATO would move no farther
east, towards Russia’s boundaries.
Robles:
Well, we’ve seen those promises, similar promises were made to
President Gorbachev – the first and last President of the Soviet Union –
those were also ignored. And regarding …
Boyle: The problem was – he never got them in writing.Robles: That’s exactly what I was going to say.
Boyle:
That is incredibly naive on his part not to get them in writing. And I
would point out, right now the United States is trying to do the exact
same thing on the deployment of BMDs (ballistic missile defense) into
Europe and around the borders of Russia saying “you have to accept our
assurances, but we are not going to give you anything in writing.”
You know, it is preposterous. In fact, we had something in writing
and that was the Anti-ballistic Missile System Treaty of 1972 that
prevented all of this. And then Bush Junior pulled out of that treaty.
So, as it stands now, really anything goes, these verbal assurances mean
nothing.Robles: Getting away a little bit from the ABM system now, you mentioned NATO and Ukraine; there is a military objective, if you could tell us about that? And is there a similar military objective for Syria? Or what is the objective of the US Government in Syria?
Boyle:
Since 9/11 2001, as publicly admitted by then Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the United States Government would be getting
into the business of destroying states. And that was later confirmed by
General Wesley Clark, as you know in his memoirs, his meeting there at
the Pentagon where they had the list of seven states they were going to
proceed to take over.
Afghanistan was first, Iraq was second, Sudan was on the list, Libya
was on the list and Syria was on the list, Iran was on the list. So,
they are proceeding systematically down that list of destroying states.
Syria is now near the top, Iran might be next. And it also appears now
the same strategy is being applied to Ukraine to promote the crackup of
Ukraine between east and west and, I would hate to say it, the
dissolution of Ukraine as a state.Robles: Can you repeat that quote again? He said…
Boyle:
Yes Wolfowitz said… I have the citation in my book “The Criminality of
Nuclear Deterrence”, where Wolfowitz said: “We are going to get into the
business of destroying states”. And then, soon thereafter General
Wesley Clark (head of NATO) was in the Pentagon and can confirm they
drew up a list of seven states that they were systematically going to go
after.
So, that’s really, the objective here of Syria, against Syria, is as
they did to Libya: to crackup Syria as a state into its constituent,
religious and ethnic units not only for the United States but also for
the benefit of Israel.
As you know, Israel has been a long
time opponent to Syria. They headed a plan there, the Yi Nolan Plan to
crackup surrounding states in order to better manage them and keep them
under control. So, here you see a congruence of interests certainly
between the United States and Israel.
And
I regret to say it, but pretty much they have cracked up Syria in its
constituent units, as they had done to Iraq. We now have basically three
mini states in Iraq. The same has been done to Afghanistan and also
Libya, where you have, you know it is hard to say there is a meaningful
state there anymore. I have a new book out called “Destroying Libya and
World Order” where I have all these citations in there and an analysis.
And then, I tried to extend this to Syria near the end of the book.
And it does appear we are seeing a
similar pattern of behavior here on Ukraine: to destabilize Ukraine,
promote a crack up, some type of civil war or who knows what. And I
guess the theory is, well if NATO-EU can get western Ukraine – fine! –
they can extend the borders of NATO, the EU that far.
So,
it is a very dangerous situation, because, as you know, Ukraine is of
utmost strategic significance to Russia. And second, Russia believes
that Ukraine is the cradle of its civilization.
Robles: Well it is, that’s not a belief. Ukraine is the mother of Russia.
Boyle: I’ve been to
Ukraine and I’ve been to where Nestor wrote his chronicles, and I have
studied Russian and Ukrainian history, sure, at Harvard. And I went
through the same PhD program at Harvard that produced Zbigniew
Brzezinski before me and Richard Pipes, both of whom were, are ardent
Russia haters, there is no question at all about it. And that is really
part of the problem here in the United States, when it comes to Russian
studies, that so much of it is biased against Russia inherently.
Robles:
Why is that, please, if you could? You’ve been through the system, you
know the system. Why does the US hate Russia so much? Why?
Boyle: Well I spent ten years at the University of
Chicago and Harvard Law School studying Russian history, Russian
literature, Soviet politics, Russian politics. Indeed I even offered
Soviet politics and Russian history on my PhD General Exams at Harvard,
which qualified me to teach both those subjects to undergraduates at
Harvard. But I never learned the language because that was not what I
was intending to do.
And all those years, ten years of
studying, I only had two professors who I thought were fair, reasonable
and balanced when it came to Russia and the Soviet Union. And understand
Harvard and Chicago are two of the leading centers in the United States
for training Russian experts. They train professors and experts,
government officials and things of that nature.
Robles: Diplomats…Boyle: So, and again, you had Brzezinski, I went through the same PhD program that produced Brzezinski and Kissinger. You know Brzezinski is an expatriate Pole who hates the Russians with a passion.
Robles: Oh God yes, yeah…
Boyle: Indeed Brzezinski wants to crackup Russia into its constituent units.
Robles: Right, I think it was 68 autonomous regions, if that’s what it was.
Boyle: It’s more dangerous than that! In that Obama’s mentor at Columbia was Brzezinski. And Brzezinski ran the foreign affairs apparatus for Obama’s campaign and he has staffed the Obama administration with his acolytes and protégés, like McFaul – the recently resigning ambassador.
Robles: I’m sorry, can you expand a little bit on McFaul? You said he is one of Brzezinski’s protégé.
Boyle:
Yes, he is from the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which is a
neo-conservative operation out there, and Brzezinski is one of these
people.
Robles: Was McFaul chosen by Brzezinski?
Boyle:
I think all the high-level appointments in the Obama administration in
foreign affairs have been run by Brzezinski. That is my personal feeling
looking at it. Yes, Brzezinski decided not to take a position himself,
but all these people that have surrounded Obama, not just on Russia, but
other areas, are Brzezinski protégés and indeed that goes back in the
Democratic Party I think since Carter came to power and Brzezinski was
his National Security Advisor. You know, he was the one who started the
Afghan Mujahidin war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and bragged
about it.
So, within the Democratic Party
Brzezinski is considered to be their foreign affairs guru and he was
Obama’s mentor at Columbia, and it is a matter of public record that
Brzezinski was running the foreign affairs apparatus for the Obama
campaign.
Robles: Wow!Boyle: So, I certainly believe he helped staff this administration on foreign affairs matters.
Robles:
People are thinking about a reset and trying to improve relations. And I
don’t think anyone knew that it was all Brzezinski, because people knew
who Brzezinski was a long time ago.
Boyle:
Right. Well, this I think is part of their plan to see the crackup of
the Russian Federation, at the end of the day. Sure, that’s I think what
his objective is.
You
know, if you want to get credentialed as an expert on Russia, you have
to go to somewhere like Columbia or Harvard, or Chicago and get your
Master’s degree or PhD from people like that. At Harvard they also had
Richard Pipes, he was the Reagan’s top guru on the Soviet Union, The
Committee on the Present Danger.
I
had Pipes for imperial Russian history, again, another expatriate Pole
who hates the Russians with passion. Pipes was so bad in his course on
Imperial Russian history, he used to break into sweat when he was
lecturing on Peter the Great or Catherine the Great and had to take a
handkerchief out of his pocket and wipe his brow. So, he is another
fanatic against the Russians, only prominent in the Republican Party.
So, we don’t really have … you know
Professor Cohen at NYU I think is fair, balanced and reasonable when it
comes to Russia. He just wrote something in The Nation on Ukraine. And I
think he wrote a very good book on Russia. But you know, he is really
the exception to a pretty abysmal rule here in the United States when it
comes to training and credentialing what were Soviet and now Russian
experts.
Robles: So, why are you fair-minded Sir?
Boyle:
I try to come at Russia and the Soviet Union with an open mind. I lived
through the Cuban missile crisis and I concluded that probably the most
important issue of my time would be to learn to understand Russia
across the board and the Soviet Union. So, that’s why I spent the ten
years studying at the University of Chicago and Harvard and getting
formally credentialed in these areas.
And
I have to say I was pretty appalled. I did have Professor Edward Keenan
at Harvard who was my teacher, mentor and friend. And he was Director
of the Russian Research Center. And he is very fair, balanced and
reasonable, and Professor Harold Berman at Harvard Law School, again,
very fair, balanced and reasonable. But that was pretty much about it.
I
was invited over twice by the Soviet Government to lecture, once around
the country in 1986 and then in 1989. And I guess they just figured I
was a reasonable American to talk to. And I was open, I met with people
and lectured and I seemed to get along with everyone. We didn’t
necessarily agree about everything, but at least we could try to talk it
out.
But
that’s not what we are seeing now. That’s for sure! As we know from the
Nuland tape here with the US Ambassador in Kiev, she admits they had
spent at least $5 billion right away now trying to promote opposition to
the democratically elected government in Ukraine. Whatever you think of
Yanukovych, he is democratically elected and so far I think he’s shown a
remarkable restraint.
Interview with Professor Francis Boyle.
He is a Professor in International Law at the University of Illinois
College of Law. That was part 1 of a longer interview. You can find the
rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.comRelated content:
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole
responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on
Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect
statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For
publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms
including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment