#Login Register
The Vigilant Citizen Forums

Ukraine a 'failed State'? Nudelman's neocon plant resigns

04-10-2016, 07:19 PM #1
Status: Offline Posts:1,315 Likes Received:1987
After weeks of political crisis in Kiev, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk has announced his long-expected resignation.

Yatsenyuk made his decision public on Sunday in a televised address, saying he would formally submit his resignation to parliament on Tuesday. 


Although ziopedia labels Yats as 'Ukrainian Greek Catholic' you can trust Jewish sources to crow loudly about their own. 

Quote:Impudent Jew Yatsenyuk, who was successfully serving to thieves, who are at power in Ukraine, is using criminal money to plow ahead towards Ukraine’s presidency.”


DC's Jewish neocon power base put 'Yats' in in the first place after rabid nation destroying communist Jew financier Soros helped fund the so called Orange Revolution. 

Paid to shoot mercenaries from the US, Israel and elsewhere went in to stir up 'civil instability' that was lapped up by the zio media to push the western political zio and neocon agendas.

The State Department's most senior politician is Victoria 'Nuland'. 

Quote:Nuland is Jewish and is the daughter of Yale bioethics and medicine professor Sherwin B. Nuland, the family’s original surname being Nudelman. She graduated from Choate Rosemary Hall in 1979 and has a B.A. from Brown University. Nuland is married to historian Robert Kagan, with whom she has two children. Nuland speaks Russian, French, and some Chinese. Victoria Nulands real name should be VICTORIA NUDELMAN KAGAN but that sounds so Rabbinical and Khazar doesnt it So she goes by Victoria Nuland


Nudelman infamously phone tapped plotting with the US ambassador to Ukraine to overthrow the government and implant her man 'Yats' whilst 'throwing her weight around' with her truly pathetic self-aggrandised Talmudic based 'F*ck the EU' statement. 


Ukraine is now basically a failed State, joining the likes of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan after neocon backed 'regime change' to overthrow a regime and implant a zio vassal controlled by the Jewish neocons in DC. 

Quote:Since the collapse of the Viktor Yanukovych regime in early 2014 and the onset of Russian-supported separatism in the east of the country, Ukraine’s socio-economic indicators have plummeted. The new government in Kyiv has scrambled to secure new credit and support to keep the economy afloat while slowly reforming its over-bloated, corrupted public sector in order to become more dynamic and open to competition. The result however, has been drastic. In just one year, the hryvnia, Ukraine’s currency, has lost 60 per cent of its value against the dollar; while its gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by seven per cent. Inflation has risen at a dramatic rate of 34 per cent in only 12 months and Ukrainians now face a 285 per cent increase in gas prices and a 50 per cent increase in electricity costs over the same period of time. On the political level, there appears to be a growing level of frustration within the society. The people are more and more of the opinion that the government is not doing enough to enact much needed reforms to stop widespread corruption, while the war in the east of the country has taken a significant toll on the both Ukraine’s economic and social well-being.

This article is from the previous issue of New Eastern Europe
This post was last modified: 04-10-2016, 07:36 PM by Stride.
The following 1 user Likes Stride's post:
  • Foggy D.

04-11-2016, 06:44 PM #2
Status: Offline Posts:1,315 Likes Received:1987
The neocons that control the US State Department pushed for 'regime change' in Ukraine and to quote Nudelman, we 'invested $5bn' there. ie., the US taxpayer got further into debt to the Jewish Fed Families though outliers like Soros did 'co-invest' via various NGOs. 

Quote:..... a coalition of U.S. neocon operatives and neocon holdovers within the State Department fanned the flames of unrest in Ukraine, contributing to the violent overthrow of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych and now to a military intervention by Russian troops in the Crimea, a region in southern Ukraine that historically was part of Russia.

Though I’m told the Ukraine crisis caught Obama and Putin by surprise, the neocon determination to drive a wedge between the two leaders has been apparent for months, especially after Putin brokered a deal to head off U.S. military strikes against Syria last summer and helped get Iran to negotiate concessions on its nuclear program, both moves upsetting the neocons who had favored heightened confrontations.

Putin also is reported to have verbally dressed down Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan over what Putin considered their provocative actions regarding the Syrian civil war. So, by disrupting neocon plans and offending Netanyahu and Bandar, the Russian president found himself squarely in the crosshairs of some very powerful people.

If not for Putin, the neocons along with Israel and Saudi Arabia had hoped that Obama would launch military strikes on Syria and Iran that could open the door to more “regime change” across the Middle East, a dream at the center of neocon geopolitical strategy since the 1990s. This neocon strategy took shape after the display of U.S. high-tech warfare against Iraq in 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union later that year. U.S. neocons began believing in a new paradigm of a uni-polar world where U.S. edicts were law.

The neocons felt this paradigm shift also meant that Israel would no longer need to put up with frustrating negotiations with the Palestinians. 
Rather than haggling over a two-state solution, U.S. neocons simply pressed for “regime change” in hostile Muslim countries that were assisting the Palestinians or Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Iraq was first on the neocon hit list, but next came Syria and Iran. The overriding idea was that once the regimes assisting the Palestinians and Hezbollah were removed or neutralized, then Israel could dictate peace terms to the Palestinians who would have no choice but to accept what was on the table.

U.S. neocons working on Netanyahu’s campaign team in 1996, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, even formalized their bold new plan, which they outlined in a strategy paper, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The paper argued that only “regime change” in hostile Muslim countries could achieve the necessary “clean break” from the diplomatic standoffs that had followed inconclusive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

In 1998, the neocon Project for the New American Century called for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but President Bill Clinton refused to go along. The situation changed, however, when President George W. Bush took office and after the 9/11 attacks. Suddenly, the neocons had a Commander in Chief who agreed with the need to eliminate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein — and a stunned and angry U.S. public could be easily persuaded. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

So, Bush invaded Iraq, ousting Hussein but failing to subdue the country. The U.S. death toll of nearly 4,500 soldiers and the staggering costs, estimated to exceed $1 trillion, made the American people and even Bush unwilling to fulfill the full-scale neocon vision, which was expressed in one of their favorite jokes of 2003 about where to attack next, Iran or Syria, with the punch line: “Real men go to Tehran!”

Though hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney pushed the neocon/Israeli case for having the U.S. military bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities with the hope that the attacks also might spark a “regime change” in Tehran Bush decided that he couldn’t risk the move, especially after the U.S. intelligence community assessed in 2007 that Iran had stopped work on a bomb four years earlier.
This post was last modified: 04-11-2016, 06:45 PM by Stride.
The following 1 user Likes Stride's post:
  • Foggy D.