By Ollie Richardson
When it comes to the topic “Ukraine”, the “civilised” West is panicking. Not because they feel obliged to keep injecting loans into the veins of the junta in Kiev to keep it afloat – this in reality is a minor expense that can be covered by the work of a diamond mine in Niger. But a quick google search today for the words “Azov battalion” reveal an noteworthy trend that on the surface looks like just honest reporting. However, under the cover of this “innocent” presentation there is a fervent desire to cover one’s own tracks. What does this mean? Well, firstly take a look at a few examples of search results from 2018:
Yes, they are all about the same thing – the “Azov” battalion in Ukraine. The titles are all very similar – they use the word “neo-Nazis” and evoke some sort of fear. The most popular sub-topic here is the formation of the “National Druzhina“ gangs in January of this year. In fact, it is exactly this phenomenon that the “impartial” BBC decided to dedicate a near 10 minute report to, which was subsequently published on April 3rd.
A reader might be thinking: “But what’s the problem here? The BBC reported about some neo-Nazis and simply informed us about the ever-present dangers of fascism in the 21st century…” Well, the problem is that the BBC has a diehard habit that only seems to get worse with time – they lie. And they don’t just lie because they don’t know the truth – they impudently and consciously lie. Massively. Like a conveyor belt. But for those who can tie their own shoe laces without external help, this statement is probably the same as preaching to the choir. Here are the facts anyway:
• The BBC says that the visibility of far-right groups in Ukraine is “increasing”
This lie wouldn’t be so tragic if the BBC themselves didn’t publish an article (in Ukrainian) in February, 2017, that proves that the CIA had their eye on Ukraine as late as the 1950’s. In other words, the layperson is supposed to believe that this “far-right” current started to come to the surface ONLY NOW. The truth is that Banderism in Ukraine has existed for decades, but only in 2014 did America bring it to the surface to launch project “anti-Russia”. Already in the 1990’s it was possible to see open and almost normalised elements of Banderism in Ukraine, especially in Western Ukraine. But of course, the BBC isn’t going to mention this because it reveals the fact that where ever Nazism drove its tank treads, the Anglo-Saxons had already showed their face and ensured that the terrain was suitable for an assault on Russia.
• According to the BBC, in 2014 “thousands of people rallied and forced out an unpopular president (Yanukovych)”
Well, the first thing to say here is that if Viktor Yanokovych was “unpopular”, then what about the person who the UK helped to substitute him with – Petro Poroshenko? In 2018 (as of April) Poroshenko’s approval rating is almost in single digits, and the face of another coup that the West initiated – the “Orange Revolution” – Yulia Tymoshenko is in 1st place. In reality, Yanukovych wasn’t “unpopular”, in the same way that Bashar al-Assad isn’t “unpopular” in Syria or Kim Jong-un isn’t “unpopular” in North Korea. This is a lie. The West put Viktor in a corner with the EU-association agreement, and he was forced to make a decision from two bad choices: sign the agreement and spoil the country’s ties with Russia, or to reject the agreement and force the West to mobilise a colour revolution anyway. He chose to suspend signing the agreement, and thus the result was still a coup. At the time the West spread lots of disinformation about some “golden toilet” that Yanukovych allegedly had, and the NGO work (TechCamp) did the rest. “Unpopular”? With the Western elite maybe…
Oh, and of course, the BBC used newspeak to present brainwashed villagers herded to the cities in buses as “thousands of people”. This colour revolution technology was used in Syria too: Takfiri militants in rural areas of North Syria were trained by the NGOs of America & Co. and sent into the cities when the moment was right (Jisr al-Shughour massacre). They were presented by the mainstream media as regular civilians protesting against the “tyrant” Assad. This is the actual story of how Aleppo fell. The civilians themselves weren’t interested in the “revolution”. In fact, the coup in Ukraine nearly failed, since the Christmas tree stunt didn’t work in the way that the junta had planned. However, a few beaten “students” later and… well, what happened next is known.
• “Russia branded it a coup orchestrated by neo-Nazis and fascists. It wasn’t true then, but four years on Ukraine’s far right is on the march….”
Firstly, the truth is that Russia branded it a coup orchestrated by THE WEST, who in turn use neo-Nazis and fascists as proxies! Secondly, the BBC is trying to use the “Azovs” of this world as the scapegoat for the collapse of Ukraine, but they fail to explain where “Azov” actually came from? A spaceship? Or from oligarchs who the West very much like to do business with? What was their leader Andrey Biletsky doing before 2014 – working in a supermarket? No. He was writing books about the Aryan Ukrainian nation.
• “Little appetite to stop it”
The BBC fails to mention that Avakov and Poroshenko have been involved in a little squabble for over a year concerning the 2019 elections. Poroshenko had hoped that Arsen will come over to his side and help him get enough votes. When Poroshenko came under siege by Kolomoisky’s “Mikhomaidan” militants, Avakov negotiated with Petro and slowly pulled the police away from the perimeter of the Presidential Administration, making the President sweat a little. In other words, the police don’t prevent “Azov” formations from causing havoc because of political games between figures who the West unconstitutionally put in power.
• “The owners (of the casino) allegedly have links to Russia”
The BBC seemingly “accidentally” forgot to mention the ties between underground casinos and the junta in Kiev. And what about people? For example, in Odessa on May 2nd, 2014, people who were suspected of being “kolorads” and “Moskals” were burnt alive in the House of Trade Unions? Or the people of Donbass, who are exterminated every single day just because they don’t want to kiss the ass of the late Bandera? Nope. None of this is important for British State TV.
• “There is a growing despondency here about how little has changed”
The BBC seems ashamed to say it directly, but in reality they mean: “The reason why things are so bad in Ukraine is because of these neo-Nazi savages and because of CORRUPTION! Yes, the West tried its best to ‘improve’ Ukraine and to deliver the ‘democratic dream’, but removing the ‘corrupt Soviet foundation’ is very difficult. It’s not our fault, honest. After all, slavic people are inferior anyway.” But the BBC is wrong here, because things HAVE changed: the population was reduced by 10 million; the State debt is close to $80 billion; Ukraine will lose 80% of its gas revenues because of “Nord Stream 2”; there are more elderly people than youth, who chose to flee the country due to a lack of employment, etc. These are all the “gifts” that Britain brought to Ukraine!
• The BBC did not give all the details about the incident in Cherkassy, deliberately simplifying it to prevent people from connecting dots
Power in the region of Cherkassy is divided between two political factions. On one side there is the mayor of the city Anatoly Bondarenko, his former deputy Gennady Shevchenko, and deputies from “Fatherland” and “Self Reliance”. On the other side there is the “Party of Free Democrats”, “Bloc of Petro Poroshenko” and “Svoboda”. Yes, it’s true that they couldn’t agree on a budget, but the BBC don’t mention that it is the former faction led by Mr Bondarenko that ushered in these “National Druzhina” thugs to influence the voting. The neo-Nazis who stormed the hall even tried to force the approval of a new composition of the executive committee. In the end, the deputies voted for self-dissolution.
There are other incidents that contributed to the general atmosphere: the murder of the deputy of the Cherkassy City Council Mikhail Binusov in 2017. He was the Head of the City Department of Housing and Communal Services, Adviser to the mayor Anatoly Bondarenko, Head of the Cherkassy regional branch of “UKROP”. Before the latter’s murder he met with Saakashvili to discuss possible cooperation. Also, it is likely that it was planned to replace Aleksandr Radutsky – the secretary of the City Council who the BBC speaks with in the video – with Mr Binusov. Whether or not Poroshenko killed him is something the BBC should be investigation, but alas…; the detention of members of a regional organised ganged named “Torpedo”, the patrons of which are sat in the government in Kiev; the day after “National Druzhina” visited the Cherkassy City Council, non other than Arsen Avakov came to Cherkassy to meet with Mr Bondarenko to settle some scores.
• According to the British Broadcasting Company: “National Druzhina may well be the extreme-right’s first move ahead of elections next year. But it’s the uncertainty over whose behind them that’s worrying people”
And the neo-Nazi loving SBU attacking newspapers such as “Strana“ and “Vesti“ wasn’t the “first move”? Ah, of course, this information mustn’t be voiced aloud – after all, without the SBU, how will Britain scrub out the Russian roots of Ukraine, substituting it with a sad parody of the Third Reich? As for “whose behind them”, here is a clue: it begins with “Anglo” and ends in “Saxon”.
Conclusion
Why is western media shining a torch on the “Azov” movement, but doing little else? The fact is that today it is simply impossible to hide some things from the public. One of the very first elements of the fourth generation war in Ukraine that reared its ugly face was “Azov”. It’s presence in Donbass, unlike “Russian tanks”, was indisputable and as obvious as day. The role that this militant group plays in Ukraine is similar to the role a group like Ahrar al-Sham plays in Syria. The former is connected to OUN-UPA and Hitler, and the latter is connected to al-Qaeda and the Mujahideen. Both are fully-fledged terrorist organisations. But both are also tools of the West to control certain processes ongoing in foreign countries. They are a part of a wider network that is managed by local NGOs and tasked with occupying land and creating a social chasm. And the mainstream media works overtime to give these groups the PR they need whilst at the same time protecting the interests of their patrons. I.e., if too much information about the ties between the British government and the “Azov” battalion comes to the surface, then the group must be abandoned – like the Kurds!
This is what happened to Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria (the BBC also gave free PR to this terrorist organisation in recent years): Russia managed to put pressure on Turkey to consolidate and defragment the jihadist movement, and in the end the “moderate rebel” concept – used to covertly transfer weapons to al-Qaeda and ISIS – became a suitcase without a handle. Turkey started liquidating jihadist groups one by one (the main reason Aleppo was liberated was because Turkey ordered its proxies to leave the city).
And the same thing will happen in Ukraine – “Azov” is the first to be smeared because too much information about them entered into the global information space. Thus London decided that since it’s impossible to delete this information and to erase people’s memories, it’s easier to steer the narrative into a dead end: Azov is connected to “ambitious” (the BBC used this word deliberately – they mean “corrupt”) Avakov, who will resort to perhaps dirty methods to obtain power. Whilst this is completely true, it is the equivalent of looking at the situation through a microscope, ignoring (consciously) the wider context. And it is this wider context becoming common knowledge that the West is afraid of. Yes the body’s kidney is ill, but don’t forget to mention that a mosquito injected a virus into the blood prior.
The world mustn’t know that all roads lead West. Whether it is Poroshenko, Avakov, “Azov”, Kolomoisky, Tymoshenko, Yanukovych, Bandera – all the possible candidates for the West’s scapegoat are connected to the dirty and illicit acts of people like Francois Hollande, John Kerry, John McCain, Barrack Obama, John Tefft, Victoria Nuland, Catherine Ashton, Bernard Henri-Levy, Angela Merkel, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, etc…
At the end of the day, this “blame group or person X, and not us” technique has been tried and tested in Africa for decades. A country is raped and pillaged by the West’s proxy militants and NGOs, a puppet leader is installed, and when the annexed project starts to show signs of serious failure a scapegoat is appointed. If the smell becomes too much, then tainted puppet A is replaced with not-yet-tainted puppet B, and so the cycle continues. The West creates a problem, and then does everything to exacerbate it in order to increase the dependency of the target on the West.
Unfortunately for London not only has information about its role in the destruction of Ukraine come to the surface, but it is overspilling onto the deck of Her Majesty’s Ship. Of course, not everyone has the desire to pick up a proverbial shovel and to do some digging, but the information is available all the same. Cambridge Analytica worked with NATO and UK intelligence agencies to destabilise Donbass? No, of course not. Keep calm and blame “Azov”!
A “Ukrainian order”? Hmm, sounds familiar…
P.S. Regarding the US’ fake ban on giving weapons to “Azov”, at 3:45 in the video below the director of a Ukrainian consulting company Elena Dyachenko thinks that “Azov” will receive weapons anyway. She is smart and understands how the “game” works. In addition, the sole purpose for the NATO “exercises” in Ukraine in 2018, and in general, is to give the UAF and the Banderist “volunteer” battalions the weapons that Washington can’t give them publicly. I.e., this “no to Azov” decision is PR: “we don’t arm ‘extremists’, honest!”
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.