Print this page
Monday, 30 July 2018 22:38

Russian interference? How about Clinton and Obama's Libya, Ukraine, Syria disasters

Written by
Rate this item
(2 votes)

clinton foreign policy

by Ron Chapman

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts or evidence.”

  • President John Adams

The three greatest recent human rights disasters are: Ukraine, Syria, and Libya.  In each nation countless tens of thousands have been killed, wounded, or displaced.  America played a key role in all three. 

In the case of Syria, 370,000 named victims with estimates of 470,000 total dead. Nearly 1.88 million have been injured and 13.5 million displaced by the war.   This of a pre-war population of 22 million.  The war has raged seven years beginning in March 2011. 

In Ukraine, the UN estimates 10,100 killed in Eastern Ukraine where Russian, Ukrainian, and militia forces have engaged.  This conflict began February 6, 2014. The estimate currently stands at 27,421 wounded while one million Ukrainians have been displaced. 

In Libya, the civil war began in March 2011.  The estimates are as follows:  30,000 dead, 50,000 wounded, and the number of refugees is not known and hard to calculate because that nation has been overrun by refugees from other nations seeking to be smuggled into Europe. 

Millions of people’s lives have been impacted by American interference in these nation’s internal affairs. 

Americans express anger over the reported “Russian Interference” in our 2016 election.   However, we fail to acknowledge the sins we have committed.  America has a long history of interference in Latin American domestic politics, but recently our reach has touched far beyond our hemisphere. 

Let’s consider American involvement with these three human tragedies:  Syria, Libya, and Ukraine.

In Syria America has been secretly seeking to replace Assad BEFORE the outbreak of violence marking the so called “Arab Spring”.  A 2006 memorandum by William Roebuck of the embassy in Damascus stated:

“We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as...the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements and signals that the USG (US Government) can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.”

Did America have a plan for eventual “regime change” in Syria as in Libya? Roebuck, would go on to take the position of Charge d'Affair in the Libyan embassy under Obama. During his time in Syria, he actively considered the advantages of promoting religious sectarianism in Syria.  The only purpose for that is to de-stabilize the nation.

When the violence erupted, the United States immediately sought to help the “rebels” without regard for who they were.   Official contributions began in 2013.  However, evidence indicates that way before that time the CIA had been up to something in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens was killed in September 2012 and there is evidence that his mission there concerned loss of control over Ghaddafi’s weapons going to Syria.

No question here, the United States interfered in the internal affairs of Syria to overthrow the Assad Regime

The story of Libya was told last week.  There is no question that the overthrow of Ghaddafi was desired by Secretary Clinton and perhaps even President Obama.  She was entirely too gleeful over his murder stating: “We came, We saw, he died!”  

American military force and American diplomacy pressured our allies and the UN to move beyond the simple “NO FLY ZONE” that had been initially proposed to “…by all means necessary”.  Why?  The United States openly interfered in the internal operations of a nation that did not threaten us

As for Ukraine, that is a truly revealing story.  The Ukrainian President turned his back on the efforts of the European Union to establish a “Free-Trade” deal and turned instead to Russia.  In response, violent civil unrest erupted in the capital Kiev.  Some died.  Was this spontaneous or orchestrated?

Fevered negotiations took place and during these conversations a phone call between Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State under Clinton, and Goeffrey Pyatt, the ambassador to Ukraine, openly discussed their involvement in establishing the government in Ukraine: “We want to keep moderate democrats together.”  Nuland continues her conversation then states: “It would be great, I think, to help glue this thing together and have the UN help glue it and, you know, F**k the EU.”  You can’t make this up!   Americans are actively involved in the domestic political affairs of Ukraine?  (Do a search to hear entire phone call.)

On February 21, 2014 an agreement was signed by President Yanukovych and the opposition for early elections to decide the fate of Ukraine.  Russia agreed to this as well. This was planned to end the violent demonstrations. However, Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), an extremely violent far right-wing para-military organization, distrusted the process and stated: “The revolution will go on!”

Despite the agreement, suddenly protests exploded and some police and protestors were killed.   Interesting to note, a doctor on the scene working for the protestors noted that she cared for wounded and killed police and protestors.  She stated that it appeared they were shot in the same way with the same weapons…snipers??  This has since been confirmed. Was this the work of Pravy Sekton?

Whatever the case, the Parliament was occupied by protestors, the government overthrown, and Yanukovych fled.   Although the United States endorsed the aforementioned “agreement”, the U.S. broke that “agreement” by recognizing the rebels and supporting the new government as legitimate. That is why Putin is angry.  We broke an “agreement” the result of which placed people in charge of Ukraine who hated Russia. 

These three events, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, are part of the legacy of the Obama Administration with Secretary Clinton leading the charge in each case.  It is difficult to take seriously the pontifications of Americans who are appalled by “Russian Interference” when our own very recent record is examined.

One might legitimately argue: “What goes around, comes around!”

Ron Chapman is an award winning columnist, Professor of History at Nunez Community College and a businessman. He lives in Chalmette


buzz news 3


Read 3065 times Last modified on Wednesday, 01 August 2018 20:25