Tuesday, 22 July 2014

SNIPPETS #47: 'Dear Mr Putin'.

SNIPPETS is published in the National Interest. No action should be implied or inferred. The opinions expressed remain those of the author entirely.
by Benn Yogarni
Channel Nine News (Brisbane) 4pm Frigasday 18th Juli 2014:
"US President Obama has called the downing of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine 'a terrorist act' ". 
LEGAL VERSUS ILLEGAL REGIMES: In 2012 the Ukrainian people legally elected the government of Victor Yankovic. Two year later he was toppled in a fascist coup by UK/US trained forces, the so-called ‘Maidan’. Within months an illegal election was held at the behest of the UK/US coupists and thereafter recognised by the UK/US forces under various guises – NATO, the EU, the UN etc.

DEATH FOR DISSENTERS: Those who refused to recognise this chain of illegality were condemned virtually to death as the subsequent actions of the ‘elected’ President the chocolate baron and billionaire Petro Poroshenko showed. Hundreds were killed for refusal to accept his criminal regime. The ‘war’, in effect a pitiless massacre of the dissenters, continues.

REAL TARGET- PUTIN: Any attempt by Russia to aid the dissenters is threatened by the UK/US forces with ‘sanctions’ aimed at toppling their real target, the government of Vladimir Putin. These are the facts so far. How can it be resolved? How could it have been handled differently?

INTERNATIONAL LAW: It is regrettable the Russian government has been ill-advised in terms of international law. Soon after the election of Poroshenko there were D-Day ceremonies which Mr Putin wished to attend he was required by the UK/US forces to ‘meet’ Poroshenko. The UK/US media made much of this. Mr Putin did not seem to realize he had walked into a trap.

Under International Law the previous President, Yanukovic is STILL legally President of Ukraine till his term expires in 2016. By meeting Poroshenko the EU/NATO ‘powers’ tricked Mr Putin into officially ‘recognising’ the new and illegal regime, giving it legitimacy it does not have. What are the precedents? There are many.

1. In 1949 the forces of Mao Zedong seized power in China. The UK recognised them as the new government as the British traditionally recognises governments not regimes. In other words ‘who’s running the shop?’ The US does the opposite. They did not recognise Mao’s regime for 23 years, until 1972. Yes, a regime was in place for 23 years but denied legal recognition by the US and its allies. Instead they recognised tiny Taiwan/Taipei/Republic of China as the ‘official’ China it retained its seat at the UN under US protection.

2. In 1996 the Taliban forces toppled the bankrupt rule by the pro-US Rabbani government in Afghanistan. Rabbani fled to the Panshir Valley where he was given safe haven by Shah Achmed Massoud’s Northern Alliance. For five years the Taliban government 95% of Afghanistan but the US and its proxies refused to ‘recognise’ them . Only three countries – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE did so. Same groups who now fund terror groups in Syria and world-wide.

Instead the US retained the Rabbani government as ’government’ of all of Afghanistan – a total fiction but legal. In 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan at the request of that legal entity and simply ‘reinstalled Rabbani to power - all legal under international law. All subsequent US ‘actions’ in Afghanistan were therefore legal. Rabbani’s chief adviser took office as the next President, M. Karzai.

3. In 1975 the Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia. The UK/US forces immediately recognised them as the government which they were. In 1979 the Vietnamese Army invaded and toppled the Pol Pot regime. Despite the Cambodian genocide the Western forces, this being the Cold War, continued to recognize Pol Pot’s regime and fund it for several years.

4. Las Malvinas/The Falklands Islands: for hundreds of years a colonial possession of Great Britain yet very close to Argentina and previously territory of the Spanish Viceroy of La Plata, precursor to the Argentine Republic. Seized by the British Navy and held till 1982 when the Argentine Army retook it. Despite all logic the world rallied behind the UK/US forces when they recaptured the Islands in a massively expensive military exercise. Logic does not prevail over International Law.

5. During WWII circumstances required that German forces enter a number of neighbouring states in Europe. In each they made common cause with similar groups within those countries enabling them to install friendly or ‘puppet’ regimes. These ruled the lands but after five years, with the overall war situation going against Germany, their allies were deposed by the returning, paid hirelings of the Western Allies.  Many of Germany’s loyal friends were thereafter purged, gaoled even executed as ‘war criminals’ for their actions. These had ruled in fact but not in Law.

How is that possible? From 1939-45 the defeated pro-UK regimes simply fled to the UK/US where they ‘ruled’ legally if not in fact. In 1945 they returned at the point of UK/US bayonets. They then began to prosecute all the 1939-45 regimes as illegal and criminal. Poroshenko’s stooge regime may last a similar length or even longer but its end will be the same. All those heroes now merrily slaughtering innocent Russophiles must arrested, tried and executed as the common criminals they are. PP is a criminal and so are all his illegal orders, no matter that the UK/US forces support him, in fact they direct him. As in their many previous aggressions they also are culpable just not detainable. PP’s time is short, like Satan’s, so is furious to murder all dissenters before his brief stay in office is terminated.

6. The SS were one of the largest military formations in Germany 1933-45. By 1945 they numbered 900,000 members. At Nurmberg they were arbitrarily declared a ‘criminal organisation’ i.e. along the lines of the Italian Mafia. All their members have been hunted down arrested prosecuted even murdered for the past 69 years. A legal government entity but under International Law illegal. Like Poroshenko’s ‘national guard’ units now in Eastern Ukraine.

7. In 1964 the Republic of Rhodesia was unilaterally declared. Whites there did not wish to submit to black rule. They fought for 15 years and lost 27,000 lives but in 1980 the British government restored rule to a colonial governor, Lord Soames. He formally handed over power to Robert Mugabe. The 15 years republic was erased from history. Today children learn in school ‘Zimbabwe got independence from Britain in 1980’.

LESSONS LEARNT: From these few precedents we see the correct course of action open to Mr Putin.
1. Recognise Victor Yanokovic as the legal President. Demand his reinstatement.

2. Refuse to recognise or negotiate with the illegal Poroshenko regime. Hold to that path and refuse to allow Western pressure to force you to do what they know is illegal. It is your complicity they seek.

3. The UK/US forces may threaten sanctions but as North Korea has pointed out on occasion even the threat is itself is ‘an act of war’. Under International Law any act of aggression not done in self defence is a war crime. E.g. the illegal attack on Iraq in 2003. This is why Bush and Co pursued for so long the alleged ‘WMD’. This was to void any attempt under International Law to try them as war criminals. By threatening Rus with sanctions for supporting the Eastern Ukraine dissenters the UK/US forces are threatening aggression. The sanctions themselves ARE aggression. Any appropriate response from Rus is legal. E.g. asset seizures of Western companies. Freezing of their assets and equal travel bans.

4. If it comes to it, the demands of Poland for ‘action’ by the NATO forces could be seen as legal precedent for attack and therefore justification for a legitimate defence i.e. Rus action against the Polish regime itself. Incitement to violence is just as illegal as the violence itself. Look at the many Muslims clerics being prosecuted across the West.

5. The Eastern Ukraine rebels need to simply swear allegiance, not to their rebel republics which lack any legal recognition and are therefore a liability, but to President Victor Yanokovic. Under International Law his government still exists; their republics do not. No more than the Taliban regime from 1996-2001 despite its rule over 95% of the Afghanistan.

Once Mr Yanokovic recognises the two republics he could declare them ‘autonomous regions'. Thereafter their defence can be conducted legally. Then his government can legally call for Rus assistance against the real ‘rebels’ the Poroshenko junta. The war would be a legal Defence of the Realm. This could not be portrayed as aggression from Russia, as it is currently in the biased Western media,  but as legitimate ‘aid to a foreign power’. It would also aid the treatment of East Ukr people’s who could now be treated as POW’s not ‘terrorists’ and their families as refugees.

They would receive aid from the ICRC and other aid groups, allowing their media to break the media blackout now in place by the proUK/US media moguls. Geo Bush was able to detain 100’s of Afghans POW’s without trial, as 'Illegal Enemy Combatants' at Guantanamo Bay since 2001 simply because the US did not recognise the Taliban government as a legal entity. Don’t make the same mistake. Demand the ICRC visit all East Ukr POW centres and force PP to respect International Law in regard to their treatment.

6. Expand the War. It is all very well for PP to target pro-Rus zones for massive assaults. Under a re-constituted and Internationally recognised Yanukovic regime it would be correct to enforces his rule of law over the entire legal entity, i.e. retake the ‘rebel’ West Ukraine regions. If Poland wants US troops on the Rus border how  about Rus troops along Ukraine’s Western boundaries, there at the invitation of President Yanukovic?

7. Why take as a fait accompli anything the UK/US wish to foist on you? Kick them in the teeth! Is the only thing they respect. As an Irishman whose forebears were forced to flee the Australia in the 1890s I can testify to that. It is crucial we retain this perspective: the UK/US forces seek war with Rus for your stymying them in Syria, and preventing their invasion of Iran. They therefore created tensions in Ukraine to this end. Do not be drawn into their trap but instead trap them using the Law.

Believe me, Sir, this can be resolved legally. The UK/US forces know this. Get your lawyers onto it!    

No comments:

Post a Comment