“We’re not concerned about nationalist extremists in Ukraine” – ex-US Ambassador

“We’re not concerned about nationalist extremists in Ukraine” – ex-US Ambassador


Oksana Boyko: Hello and welcome to Worlds
Apart. Ukraine literally means a country lying on the edge, and while this mainly refers
to geography, it is also a pretty accurate description of its the current political situation.
Where is Ukraine heading? To discuss that, I am now joined by John Herbst, the former
US ambassador to the country. Ambassador Herbst, thank you very much for talking to us. John Herbst: My pleasure. OB: Now, Russia and the United States, perhaps
not surprisingly, differ a great deal in how they characterise the events unfolding in
Ukraine. For Russia, it’s a coup d’etat, for the Unites States it’s a democratic
uprising or a democratic revolution, and the images that are being broadcast from Kiev
are also strikingly different. The Russians see swastikas being painted all over central
Kiev and armed men, men in balaclavas storming government buildings, while I think many Americans
are being shown those inspired faces of protesters who are living and breathing democracy. Why
do you think the contrast is so stark? JH: First of all, there are not many swastikas
being painted in Kiev, except perhaps by ‘Titushki’ who are paid-for allies of the government
that is not no longer in power, Mr Yanukovych’s government. OB: That’s not exactly true, because our
reporters are on the ground in Kiev, and actually you can see swastikas all over central Kiev.
I mean we don’t know who actually is behind that but the sheer number is pretty staggering. JH: There’s an old point of analysis which
says ‘cui bono’ – who benefits. The only people who benefited by swastikas are those
who try to discredit the protesters. So the idea that the protesters are busy putting
up symbols of Hitler, I think, is preposterous. OB: What about armed man in balaclavas, because
they, we know for a fact that they’re behind the siege of government buildings, and by
now government institutions, city halls have being taken over by protesters in a lot of
Ukrainian municipalities. What about them? JH: Well that’s true this has happened,
it is also true that this is the reaction to four years of oppressive government by
Mr Yanukovych. Mr Yanukovych was the beneficiary of Mr Yushchenko’s democratic aspirations.
So Yanukovych won a free and fair election in 2010 and unfortunately, since that time
as President he’s put increasing authoritarian strictures on the opposition. OB: So that led the opposition to take up
arms to continue with, to enforce their democratic aspirations? JH: You’re mischaracterising the situation
when you say they took up arms. The point is that Mr Yanukovych, and this is why he
is no longer in power, he authorised the use of live force, including snipers, as form
of crowd control against largely unarmed protesters. This is a crime. OB: Well, I think his argument would be that
it is the protesters who started opening fire against the police and riot police… JH: That would be a lie. OB: …but I think that one thing we can agree
upon that the situation is very, very complex in Ukraine. JH: Yes, it is certainly complex. OB: Yes and the key psychological difference
between the West and Russia, I would argue, is that the West, as usual, hopes for the
best and Russia, as usual, fears the worst. Probably there are democratically inspired
protesters and I think we can also agree, there are some radical forces. The question
is, of course, what is the sheer percentage of each of the group and what I would like
to ask you is: if Russia is proven wrong and this, you know, revolution, this uprising
is all about democracy, then I guess we will all benefit. But what if the West is proven
wrong and those ultra-nationalist anti-Semitic forces prevail? Would that be to the detriment
of all the parties involved? JH: Have you ever heard of George Orwell? OB: Absolutely, 1984. JH: Yes, George Orwell said totalitarian politics
are characterised by the use of smear words like ‘anti-Semitic’ and extreme ultra-nationalist.
We have not seen actions of an ultra-nationalist kind, or for that matter of an anti-Semitic
kind among the protesters. OB: – Well, just the other day a synagogue
was attacked in Ukraine. It’s part of public record, you can go there and check… JH: Who attacked it? OB: Well, nobody knows but it was attacked. JH: That’s right, exactly, nobody knows,
maybe it was ‘Titushki’. Who burnt down the Reichstag? So yes it is quite possible
these were provocateurs. OB: Well, I mean, you can argue about who
actually did that, but one thing for sure is that that in many of these municipalities
protesters are now in control, so they are calling the shots. If a synagogue was attacked
once they arrived in power, then maybe they have something to do with that. JH: I think you’re stretching. You are stretching
for a reason to tar the protesters. That’s unfortunate. OB: Maybe I am indeed stretching but I would
like to draw one historic parallel. Ukraine had pretty strong, used to have pretty strong,
ties with Libya under the Gaddafi regime. Many Ukrainian nurses, Ukrainian doctors,
used to work there. And I remember when the events were unfolding, the Western narrative
was pretty much the same, that it was a genuine democratic uprising. Sure there were some
radical forces within the opposition but once Gaddafi is ousted, those militia will lay
down arms, they will no longer be part of conventional politics, and that obviously
didn’t happen. How can you be sure that those, some of those radicals, some of those
ultra-nationalist forces won’t prevail in this quagmire? JH: The situation in Libya is very different
from the situation in Ukraine. We knew and we understood, even as Gaddafi was in power,
that there were extremists in Libya. You are right that some, that there was a hope that
when Gaddafi left, what would follow would be something beneficial, something democratic,
and that has not happened. But in Ukraine, the situation is vastly different. We are
not worried about Islamic extremists in Ukraine. We are not really worried about nationalist
extremists in Ukraine. If you look carefully, there has been nothing incendiary said by
the Pravy Sektor leaders, nothing incendiary said by Mr Tyagnibok since Euro Maidan appeared,
although there are quotes from Mr Tyagnibok from years ago which are incendiary. We’ve
seen close to model rhetoric coming from people in the Maidan. OB: But people who have been producing that
close-to-model rhetoric, they’ve been taking over government buildings, they’ve been
taking over city halls. I wonder how that would be perceived in the United States, if
Occupy Wall Street protesters were to take over a city hall in Washington DC. How would
that be perceived? Would that still be labelled as a peaceful protest? JH: That would be labelled as disorderly behaviour.
But let’s understand something, something which I haven’t heard you acknowledge. And
that is that the policies of Mr Yanukovych were authoritarian. They were repressive and
it’s natural that people will respond forcefully against authoritarian and repressive policies.
People were finally fed up with those restrictions, as well as, of course, with the massive corruption.
So, I am not justifying the seizure of buildings, I am just explaining to you the circumstances
in which it happened. OB: Well, you seem to be condoning some of
the tactics employed by the protesters. I would even agree with you that Yanukovych
wasn’t the most efficient Ukrainian president ever, even though that country is yet to see
a very effective leadership – let’s put it that way – but I wonder what’s the point
of endangering the Ukraine’s nascent democratic system by siding with protesters so unequivocally,
as the United States has been doing? Because, you know, you can blame all things on Yanukovych
but one would think that democracy is more precious and democratic institutions, democratic
procedures should be valued higher than ousting an unpleasant or even a dictatorial leader
from power, especially when you have elections coming at the end of next year. JH: The United States has also suggested that
the protesters should demonstrate restraint, and I agree with that. They certainly did
things which we perhaps would not have advised them to do. But if you contrast their behaviour
with the behaviour of the Berkuts, as ordered by Yanukovych, the one side was brutal, slaughtering
scores of people. The other side were seizing buildings. There’s no comparison. Now, you
talk about the presidential elections which were scheduled for 2015. We all knew that
Mr Yanukovych was preparing to steal that election, the same way he tried to steal the
elections in 2004 when I was in Kiev. Mr Yanukovych was going to make sure that the most popular
politician at large was in jail. Mr Klitcshcko cannot run in the presidential elections in
2015, and I’m yet to hear anyone in Russia complain. OB: Well, Ambassador you don’t have a crystal
ball. JH: Yes correct, I don’t have a crystal
ball. I do have political analysis and historical analysis. And if you look at that historical
analysis you see Mr Yanukovych tried to steal elections ten years ago. It would not be surprising
if he tried to steal elections in 2015. OB: Well, Ambassador using your logic, taking
your logic, it would mean that we should have pre-emptive protests any time there’s any
suspicion of manipulation of the elections. I think democracy works the other way around.
You first wait for the results, you see whether the person, whoever is elected, and then you
protest. But you seem to be suggesting that you should intervene beforehand. And in fact,
I think this is what we actually saw on the ground with the American officials, and I
would like to ask you about something that you wrote fairly recently. JH: I didn’t say that at all. What I suggested
was your claim, that all the protesters have to do is to wait for the 2015 elections, was
false based upon Yanukovych’s record, first in 2004 and then since 2010. Now, let’s
talk about the initial protest in Ukraine. Let’s talks about the “American role”
in those protests. OB: Can I actually put to you a question,
because in one of your recent op-eds, you called Washington’s approach sensible. You
denied that the United States was meddling in Ukrainian affairs, and that’s despite
the fact that the State Department’s Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Ms.
Nuland, appeared on Independence Square with a bag of cookies for the protesters, but I
think you can take it as, you know, just a difference in diplomatic culture. What I would
like to ask you though, if that doesn’t count as meddling, how would you feel about
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov appearing at one of the American protests
relies, let’s say the Occupy Wall Street rally, and handing out caviar and vodka to
the protesters. How would that be perceived? JH: Well, I think you’re having trouble
understanding that you had a repressive government in Ukraine. There’s not a repressive government
in Washington. OB: Well, I think a lot of people can take
issue with that. JH: Well, wait a minute. You asked me a question.
Well, some people take an issue of it, and the people who take issue of it are people
who represent authoritarian regimes. Your problem perhaps is that you are newscaster
in a country which is authoritarian, and therefore you don’t want to see a democratic country
on your doorstep, a democratic country in Ukraine. OB: Well, in fact I believe that I live in
a democratic country but… JH: – I understand why you have to say you
live in a democratic country. Soviet journalists also had to say that. And we knew it’s not
true then, and we know it‘s not true now. But regarding the United States and the demonstrations
in Ukraine, Victoria Nuland showed up and handed out some cookies. She was expressing
support for the free right to demonstrate. That’s it. OB: But she is an official and her appearing
on that square is taken as an American position on that issue. It’s not about… JH: – She was expressing support for peaceful
protest. Now contrast the American actions with the Russian action. A very important
official in Russia, Mr Glazyev, called for the use of force to clear the square. Mr Yanukovcih
used force. Mr Glazyev was encouraging Mr Yanukovych to murder his own citizens. OB: Well Ambassador, I heard you make that
point before, but Mr Glazyev is a really, well let’s say insignificant figure in Russian
politics. He doesn’t hold a public office; he is not even a member of Parliament. He
is a former politician with very little weight in Russia’s political circles. But Ambassador
Herbst, we have to take a very short break now. I hope we will come back to this discussion,
and what we are going to discuss is how much of the geopolitical manoeuvring in Ukraine
is about Ukraine and how much of it is about Russia. That’s coming up in a few moments on Worlds Apart. OB: Welcome back to Worlds Apart where we
are discussing the events in Ukraine with John Herbst, a former US ambassador to the
country. Ambassador Herbst, you mentioned earlier that my comparison of Ukraine to Libya
was inappropriate, maybe bit of an overstretch, but I think we can definitely compare events
in Ukraine to what was happening there a decade ago in 2004, when you were the US ambassador
to that country. And in one of your public appearances, you reflected on the change of
government at that time. Let’s listen to what you had to say. Recording JH: I remember telling my staff
at the Embassy when Yuschenko won, that this was an important milestone, but this really
was not a victory of the good guys over the bad guys. Because I said, the same sort of
people who make up the party that lost are in the party that won. OB: Ambassador, I think that’s a very astute
observation. I think it is even a bit too straight forward for an American diplomat.
Do you still believe that, you know, the party that lost is pretty similar to the party that
won. JH: I think that there are similarities amongst
the elite in all political parties in Ukraine. There is a large number of oligarchs who care
mainly about their own wealth. I also think, though, that there was one important difference
10 years ago. I think that in the parties that make up the opposition, you know, we’re
talking about the Batkivshchyna party, we’re talking about Udar, they are leaders who really
are committed to an open society and democracy. Mr, Yuschenko certainly was, he had other
flaws. It’s pretty clear that in the Party of Regions there is not such a commitment
to democracy. That’s why you had all the problems of the past three months. There is
one other point too, that is very interesting. The demonstrators on the Maidan understand
what I said – that there are oligarchs in all parties. And that’s one of the reason
why they did not simply accept the points of view expressed, and the positions taken,
by the leaders of the opposition party. Even Yulia Timsochenko, who was and is an oligarch,
was booed by some protesters on the Maidan when she spoke there after she was released
from jail. So this is a new phenomenon that we need to watch. I can’t say I understand
it. But you expressed the fear that the people on the Maidan were radicals. There maybe some
there, we don’t really know, but it is also true they maybe insisting on a more honest
political culture in Ukraine. OB: They maybe insisting on a more honest
political culture in Ukraine – who wouldn’t for that matter – but I think what people
in Ukraine really want is some effective leadership. They want their life to get better and as
we all know, the economic situation in Ukraine is pretty desperate at this point of time.
Now taking you back to your years as ambassador in Kiev, it didn’t take long for the general
public to become disillusioned with Victor Yuschenko’s government, even though, as you
said, he was a democratically elected, he was a very inspiring leader. But he simply
didn’t deliver on the promises he made. How long do you think a new government that
is going to be formed, within the next few months hopefully, how long does it have before
people in Ukraine will take to the streets again? JH: You asked a good question as to how long
the new government has. I think frankly it really depends. If there’s an immediate
economic crisis we, it will not have much time at all. If Ukraine is able to receive
some bridge financing to avoid a crisis, then it might have a year more. OB: Speaking about these financial issues,
as you just mentioned it is estimated that Ukraine may need somewhere around $35 billion
over the next two years to deal with outstanding loans and its social obligations. How much
do you think this newly found Western trajectory of Ukraine is conditioned on the West’s ability
to deliver that money? And I would also suggest that the appetite for such generosity among
the taxpayers in the United States and Europe may not be so great. JH: First of all, we really don’t know how
much money Ukraine would need to get through this crisis. Now, we’ve heard various figures
and the latest is, as you mentioned, $35 billion. I am sceptical that that much money is needed,
but I don’t claim to know. More important than the amount of money are the reforms that
must accompany any loan. Because if the current system continues, a current system where corruption
is rife, any assistance – whether it came from the West, from the IMF, from Russia – would
disappear through corrupt channels. OB: Now, you just mentioned Russia, and I
know that in the early years of your diplomatic carrier you worked as a political counsellor
at the American Embassy here in Moscow. And I think you probably understand how Russian
officials or how Russian politicians operate. Do you think that Moscow’s concerns over
Ukraine’s becoming a part of NATO, or indeed extremists coming to power in Ukraine, do
you think those concerns that Moscow has at the moment – are they legitimate? And if you
were a Russian diplomat, what would your stance be in that case? JH: If I were in any way responsible for Russian
policy, I would like to see Ukraine develop as a democratic, market-oriented society because
only, in my opinion, through transparent non-corrupt market economics can a country develop quickly.
the way China has developed. OB: Well, I think this is exactly what Russia
wants, at least Mr Putin made that claim on a number of occasions, that this is exactly
what Russia want Ukraine to be. JH: I would say this. If Mr Putin thinks that
the Eurasian Economic Union is a path to Russia’s economic prosperity, he does not understand
economics. The way to develop economically is to be open to the global economy. They
way China has been. OB: Well that’s also true, but on the other
hand the European Union is very protective of its markets, and the United States, mind
you, as well. So what is so unorthodox, I should say, about Russia really trying to
protect its markets, which is one of the main reasons why it wasn’t so excited about Ukraine
signing that economic association agreement with European Union? JH: Russia has done very well trading with
the EU. To create an economic union based on Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan is not the path to economic success. It’s the path to economic stagnation. OB: Well, I think Mr Putin argued on a number
of occasions that it‘s not about trading within the former Soviet republics – he also
wants to make sure that Russia trades with the European Union. But I think he believes
that together with Ukraine, with Belarus, with Kazakhstan, Russia, they will all have
more bargaining power, but I would like to transition a little bit to the political side
of things. JH: This is a bridge to nowhere. Russia’s
economy has done well only because it has large amounts of gas and oil that it sells
on the world’s markets. If Russia created a business environment which would reward
entrepreneurs who do not have a “krysha” [roof], Russia’s economy would thrive the
way China’s economy has thrived. The Eurasian Union is protectionism. OB: Well, I think the Russian economy is doing
pretty well. Let’s focus on the Ukrainian economy at the moment, or rather on the political
implications of that crisis. Just the other day, I heard you say in a Bloomberg interview
that: “Mr Putin believes he should be able to dictate what kind of government rules in
Kiev.” And I would like to take issue with that, because I think Mr Putin was pretty
comfortable cooperating with the previous pro-Western government of Mr Yuschenko and
Yulia Tymoshenko. After all, it was under that government that this, very lucrative
for Russia, gas deal was signed. So it seems that Mr Putin is pretty capable of building
bridges with whatever government there is in Ukraine, isn’t it? JH: I think that if Mr Putin had been interesting
in good relations with Mr Yushchenko and his government, he would not have conducted the
gas war in the winter of 2005 and 2006. OB: But we had a similar scandal with Mr Yanukovych
as well. JH: And also with Belarus, Mr Lukashenko,
that’s true. Russia is only too willing to use gas as a method of imposing political
pressure on a country. OB: No, but I think it also contradicts this
very familiar Western claim that Yanukovych was a Russian stooge which is, really, nonsense
to anyone who knows anything about Kremlin politics. Because there was absolutely no
love lost between Putin and Yanukovych. JH: I don’t consider Mr Yanukovych a Russian
stooge. I think that Mr Yanukovych was interested in the welfare of Mr Yanukovych. I don’t
think he was a Russian stooge. And I disagree with analysts in the West who see the current
problem in Ukraine as an East-West problem. The current problem in Ukraine is really a
problem of an authoritarian government that has triggered substantial opposition from
its own people. And the Unites States, since it believes in democracy, has endorsed the
democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people. By the way, when I was in Ukraine and Mr Yushchenko
won the third election of 2004, I encouraged him to go to Moscow on his very first state
visit, rather than go anywhere else. Because I understood how important Ukrainian-Russian
relations are. That was true then, that’s true today. OB: Well, maybe you are in the minority when
it comes to Western political analysis, because you are right that this conflict has been
really portrayed in the West as this very binary, very stark choice between Russia,
on one side, and the West on the other side. I wonder if it’s in a way a product of Mr
Yanukovych’s own strategy, because he was the one who really tried to play Russia against
the West? Has he really succeeded in that? JH: I think Mr Yanukovych tried to take advantage
of differences between Russia and the West, but I also think that the political culture
in Russia makes it very hard to see this as anything but an East-West issue, and that’s
unfortunate. OB: Well, I think that many here in Moscow
would actually say the same about the West. But since we have a just a few minutes left,
I would like to ask you about Russia’s national interest, and obviously Russia does have a
significant interest in Ukraine – the Russian fleet is stationed in the Crimea, Russia would
also be highly reluctant to see Ukraine joining NATO, and so on. I wonder if you believe that
to be in the US national interest, if Russia were to lose that naval base and if Ukraine
was indeed to join NATO. JH: The United States does not have an opinion
as to whether Russia should have a naval base in Sevastopol. We just don’t care. It is
not important. And we think that Ukraine should determine its own future. If Ukraine has a
democratically elected president who treats its citizens nicely, and that democratically
elected president who treats his citizens nicely says, I would like to join the Eurasian
Economic Union, we would say: If that’s what you want, go for it. We think it is a
mistake, but go for it. So, our issue is really democracy and the way Ukrainian government
treats its own people. I think it’s actually in the interests of Ukraine to develop close
economic ties with the European Union. I think it is in the interests of Ukraine and Russia
to develop close economic ties together. And I think that it is in interests of Russia
to develop close economic ties with the European Union. I think that a true blossoming of the
Russian economy, a true blossoming of the Ukrainian economy, would be in the national
interests of the United States. OB: Well it’s touching to see the American
former ambassador to be so concerned with the prospering of the Russian economy, but
let me ask you the final question, which is political. Again, if some of those things
that I already mentioned, Ukraine becoming member of NATO, which it has been encouraged
by some of the Western partners in the past. JH: It has been, that’s true. OB: If Ukraine was indeed to join NATO, if
Russia was indeed to lose that naval base in Sevastopol, I think that would, sooner
or later, provoke a very strong reaction from Russia, and probably that reaction would also
be negative. I understand that having Ukraine under the Western umbrella is very valuable
for many Western countries, it’s a strategic gain, but I wonder whether it’s really worth
spoiling, completely spoiling relations with Russia? JH: I don’t think that would spoil relations
with Russia, because Russia needs to have a good business-like relationship with the
West, including the United States. But there’s an important thing that we need to point out.
You know, when I was in Ukraine, the Russian position was that they had no objection if
Ukraine joined the EU. They did have an objection if Ukraine joined NATO. So the Russian position
has changed and hardened in the past year or so. And that’s unfortunate. OB: Well Ambassador Herbst I have to say that
no one, as of yet, has offered Ukraine EU membership, and I don’t think it’s going
to happen in the conceivable future. JH: That’s true, I agree. OB: But I think we have to leave it here.
I really appreciate you being on the programme, and to our viewers, please keep the conversation
going on our Twitter, YouTube and Facebook pages and hope to see you again, same place,
same time here on Worlds Apart. JH: Thank you.

50 thoughts on ““We’re not concerned about nationalist extremists in Ukraine” – ex-US Ambassador

  1. good interview,smart guy,rt dont bring smart ppl to ur show or ur viewers will know the truth u are trying to hide

  2. Friend of mine just come back from Ukraine. Swastika`s painted everywhere.  This is "Kristall nacht" 2014. Friends family very worried as they live there. You can almost smell the bullshit emanating from this man.

  3. John Herbst is so disingenuous about what the US offers its own citizens that "making the world safe for democracy" & criticizing Russia for its authoritarianism belies the totalitarian regimes & jurisdictions that are now pervasive throughout the North American continent. As many other commentators have opined over the years, the US is very far from being the "open society" that he claims we are. We have a police/security state that's 2nd to none in the Western world. Our Bill of Rights has been shattered by the same "democratic," monopolistic 2 party politics that's indicative of the 1 party state. These jackals are now attempting to repress our 1st Amendment: Freedom of the Press (which has always meant to us, NO government interference in any way, shape or form). NATO's unremitting & stated goals since 1991 have been to incorporate as much of the former Soviet Union into itself as they can & aside from Poland, Ukraine has always been the biggest prize, while the role for Russia is to play global economics under our "rules" of capitalism. The FED & the IMF & the Bank of England (in that order) run the show & the EU is now on the verge of collapsing under their rule. As an American, imo, Ukraine is wise in keeping far away from the EU's promises, propaganda & clutches. For us, we've been going steadily & rapidly down hill since G. H. W. Bush infamously announced in the late 80's, the immanent arrival of the NWO. We must be that shining city on the hill ordained by God because "we defeated Communism." (?!?!?!) Our foreign policy hasn't changed significantly since 1945.

  4. Dear Boyko. Hitler and his Svastika were invented to attack Russia and disintegrate it. Similar with Napoleon. If You understand the goal of the Rothschild's Cabal than You should know how money function in modern society. You know who is the inventor of this model and what the Monetary Union Agreement affects and effects. Proclaimed competition can not function with a monopolized monetary system…it is Domination on production, sales, interests…The fact that money makes money is a suicide. Money is not yeast to leaven. Money is only a communication mean between work and production means. Only this two segments in the chain To Be Creating may leaven.
    Gorbatchow's sale out of Communism has traced the conditions to the 3rd WW. Janukowitch's smuggling, or quite public commerce of arms, rocket fuel, drugs is a fair play agreement with the Rothschilds Cabal.
    I hope that Russia will resist and will win this war with less victims than in the WW 2. 
     

  5. Oksana is ukranian herself – and Mr.Herbst is saying, that he knows better what's good for Oksana. Oksana has every right to be concerned about extremists on a streets of her homeland, but Mr.Herbst isn't concerned. Just, another Libya, who cares…

  6. Great interview. Very objective. It is true that a positive relation between Ukraine and Russia are paramount. Ukraine could be an intermediary. But totalitarianism will usually lead to revolution.

  7. As a US citizen, I have watched (often from afar, from overseas) as the leaders of "my" country have engaged in one horrific crime after another.  Now, Obama and Co. — in other words, the representatives of the supposedly slightly less reactionary wing of the ruling class — have given their open backing to paramilitary fascist gangs which just overthrew the (corrupt and reactionary, but democratically-elected) Ukrainian government. 

    The leaders of the US government really have absolutely no shame.  They have lied and killed and stolen in the interests of corporate power for so long and the fact that they have yet to be punished for this makes them think that they can get away with it forever.  Their world — of extraordinary wealth and privilege — is so radically different from the experiences of working people in the US and elsewhere that I think that they actually believe their own ludicrous, sickening propaganda about "democracy" and "freedom," etc, at least to a certain extent.

    I have news for them — the working class, both within the US and elsewhere, is steadily developing the class consciousness that will be necessary to overturn the whole rotten edifice of world capitalism and imperialism.  When that happens, Obama, John Herbst, etc, etc, etc, — will have to go on trial for their unspeakable crimes against humanity and the peace.  They will have the chance to defend themselves in a legitimate process, yet as their guilt is undeniable, they will spend the rest of their miserable lives in jail. 

  8. Luke Montana, the dumbass posting below me, is probably an NSA hired troll. Ignore the fuck, please.

    Anyways, this guest being interviewed, the US ambassador, must be like the American Minister of Propaganda, because he's spewing bullshit left and right. Maybe he's actually that stupid? Not sure, I think he is some kind of government-hired propaganda agent.

  9. That was a tough interview.
    Mr. Herbst was a refreshing breeze of reason.
    Which wouldn't have happened if ity weren't for Ms. Boyko & worlds apaRT

    Sweet show!
    +1

  10. This guy is pretty straight forward. It's obvious he is paid to run with the American line. We are not going to get any truths here, move along.

  11. Holy crap!! This U.S. oppression shill is totally brainwashed the U.S. is a weak democracy 2party duopoly since 1940. LOL! Hello. Excuse me, the Russian DUMA is a chamber elected in proportionality effective democracy. U.S. Congress is by far dominated by the 2 party system this goes without saying throughout all levels of U.S. gov't. There are only 2 cities in the US that use proportional voting Cambridge, Ma & Minneapolis, MN.

  12. The US didn't find any concern in Al-Qaeda's involvement in the terror war in Syria either though, so I'm not surprised.

  13. putin is not acting because he is scared that he'll go the way of yanukovich, he knows his crimes and his stealing.

  14. Interestingly the US was in the forefront of the creation of the International Criminal Court and yet President Woodrow Wilson refused to be subject to its authority…it always stands outside the court perview for all actions of international crime like invading others countries (Iraq), bombing innocent civilians and further destabilising governments that do not adhere to its 'foreign policy'. And yet it is in the forefront of labelling States dictatorial/terrorist etc.

    Years later the US refused to ratify the Rome Statute despite being a key player in the formation of the ICC.

    This interview only confirms this self deluded 'exceptionalism'.

  15. Well, I live in Poland. Quite close to the Ukrainian border. From a perspective of a person who lives in this geographical region, in all honesty, I must admit that in some regards Russian invasion of Crimea  was a justified move. Just as there are Russians living in Crimea there are Polish living in Lwów. If the situation was reversed, and that minority was being threatened, and Polish Government had any spine (which it sadly lacks, though it may be for the better) we would also push for deploying troops to that particular region to prevent bloodshed. The facists, ultra-nationalists and anti-semites mentioned are a separate factions, that try to provoke further conflict as they can benefit from the chaos. However the great majority of the Ukrainian protesters aren't bloodthirsty fasicsts on the hunt for jews – let's not get ridiculous, shall we?  The grim truth is, that things are heading towards secession in Ukraine, ahead at full speed. And while Crimea and Eastern part of that country can handle joining Russian Federation, the Western part left on it's own is economically doomed. If that would happen I can see no bright future for those living there. Frankly, the reality is, that Poland lacks the spine to help and Ukrainians wouldn't vote to be annexed by our country, Germans don't care, Slovakians can't help couse they are struggling themselves. UE won't be taking in a country that is heading down a death spiral, head first toward a bankruptcy, western sentiment or not, and Russia won't be helping after all the hate they got from the west Ukraine the last few weeks. That's how thing look like right now, looking from this side of the border. Hope it all ends well somehow.

  16. John Herbst or Mr. Herbst OWNED the woman who was interviewing him. She was definitely stretching truths and twisting facts in favor of Russia and the Brutal Ukrainian Berkut. It's so sad. I always side with Russia, when it comes to politics. But it is indeed true, Russia is just as brutal as the United States and people in Russia do have to be A LOT more careful about what they say. This interview clearly proves that. Maybe she is just trying to side with Russia so she can save her job, but that still does not change the fact that Russia is more corrupt than the USA ( it's insane, I know, but it's true ). I still like Russia more, though.

  17. very interesting how the footage of kiev protests that is being show during this interview, doesn,t show the ukranians getting killed like flies by the berkut AKM fire. instead they only show footage of the protesters attacking the police…. don't buy this russian propaganda , look at the videos of the protest here in youtube , get informed from more that one point of view, and find truth in between

  18. Оксана – сильная и светлая личность на стороне правды и добра! Умница! Остро, корректно, по делу. Чётко уделывает всех этих зомбированных лгунов и лицемеров. Счастья и успехов! Никогда до сих пор так не симпатизировал журналисту.

    One of those few Personalities who are not afraid to face the truth using her excellent communication skills and brilliant logic. She's doing really excellent job! Thanks to whole WA team, they're fighting for the better world! All the best!

  19. Victoria Nuland is one of the US gov't workers who are supporting the Ukrainian rebels. Nuland & her husband are Zionist Jews. In other words, Zionist Jews are supporting the Ukrainian rebels, & some of these rebels are attacking Ukrainian Jews.

    John Herbst is a propagandist or a fanatic. Maybe both. As expected from a member of the US kleptocracy, he pushes the superiority myths of democraZy mob-rule. There is NO scientific proof supporting these majority tyranny claims:

    * The majority knows what is good for everyone or most people, & votes on what is good for everyone or most people.
    * The majority vote respects individual rights & responsibilities.
    * An individual voter understands what is good for many people.
    * An absolute majority determines elections, not a relative majority.
    * Most or all voters spend enough time, effort, & resources for each day & throughout the year to at least adequately understand the voting options on ballots.
    * Election processes & results cannot be cheated by central banksters, major corporations, lobbyists, political action committees, LLC donations, lucrative speaking tours, insider deals, revolving doors, gov't contracts, cronyism, nepotism, favoritism, propaganda, unfair election regulations, etc.
    * Etc.

    DemocraZy mob-rule is today's superstition or fanatical religion that justifies sabotaging & openly attacking other nations for the benefit of the offensive nation(s).

    He also pushes propaganda that high-consumption economics is the salvation for the world. In reality, if everyone on this planet of 7+ billion people consumed as much as the average American or European, then the world's natural resources will be quickly exhausted & excessively damaged & polluted. Such a devastated environment will be very bad for mankind.

  20. WOW !!! WOW !!!  http://www.klagemauer.tv/?a=showportal&keyword=englisch&id=2445
    such citizens I do not want to imagine the united Europe
    If I is in Austria. Demontsranty morning were dead by troops
    !!! ????  !!!  AND  !!! ????  Breaking: Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton discuss Ukraine over the phone
    Breaking: Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton discuss Ukraine over the phone

    have hacked phones of Estonian Minister of Foreign Affairs Urmas Paet and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton and leaked their conversation to the web. The officials discuss their impressions of what's happening in the country after the revolution. The gist of it is that Ukrainian people have no trust in any of the leaders of Maidan.
    However the most striking thing of all is the fact which concerns the use of force during the revolution, particularly the snipers who killed both protesters and officers of the riot police. Mr. Paet reveals astonishing information which confirms the rumours that the snipers were employed by the leaders of Maidan.

  21. Peaceful protestors do not carry guns, Mototov Cocktails, Bats and other weapons.

    It is beyond dispute that the Maidan turned into a riot as a result of Right Sector Ultra Nationalists.  Porcokotors funded by various US interests.  We only need to list to the Nuland Tapes and look at teh US involveemnt in Ukraine over the last two decades.  Accoring to the US its democratic when it suites their narrative and undemocrtaic when it goes agsint their geopolitical ambition.

    Ukraine is reaching out to Europe not the US, Europe not the US should be taking ten lead in discussions.  The US should butt out and let Europe guide event.  The US is the problem not the solution. 

    .

  22. The US state dept., just like the CIA, NSA,  the NGOs,  Harvard, Yale, etc. are all just tools of  America's ruling class….. he talks about a country where the supreme court says the police can check your asshole at any time as being free

  23. …..Your fight on Terror is also a Fetish argument hiding your Corporatocratic interests Mr. Ambassador………..you are playing Western Europe's asses…..What for….!? TO DO WHAT THIS TIME IN THE NAME OF YOUR CORPORATIONS AND PLUTOCRATIC POLITICAL SCENE…?????..

  24. It's useless to speak to him, Oksana. The message is obvious- "Whatever the US do is right, whatever Russia does is always wrong. We the superior nation".

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *