Stratfor spy chief admits it: the US behind the coup in Ukraine!

I find it hard to believe nobody posted this already... This is tsunami-level of news!

The United States plotted the coup which took place in Ukraine in February 2014 in response to Russia’s policy in Syria, says George Friedman, the founder and CEO of Stratfor, known as "Shadow CIA".

MOSCOW, December 19 (Sputnik) – The United States is behind the February coup in Kiev, which came in response to Russia’s stance on Syria, said George Friedman, the founder and CEO of Stratfor, a global intelligence company.

Russia has repeatedly said that the coup in Kiev was organized by the US, Friedman told Kommersant newspaper. Indeed, it was the most overt coup in history, the political analyst stressed.

The United States decided to act following Russia’s successes in the Middle East, a key region for the US. Americans saw that Russians could influence what was happening in the Middle East, Friedman said. Russians are one of the many challenges in the region that the US faces, he stated. The US thought Russia’s activities were an attempt to harm Washington, the political analyst told the newspaper, adding that events in Ukraine should be viewed in this context.

Rest of the article on Sputnik news

And here's a translat-o-matic of the full original interview by Kommersant with Friedman:

In Moscow, has visited the famous American political scientist George Friedman. Led them to a private intelligence agency Stratfor analytical in the United States is often called a "shadow CIA". In an interview with "Kommersant", he told about what the United States pursues goals in Ukraine, and explained why these goals are incompatible with the interests of Russia.

- In its analytical work you're talking about the fragmentation of Europe. What is it manifested?

- During the Cold War borders within Europe have been preserved. It was understood that, if you start to change them, it will lead to destabilization. Once the Cold War ended, began redrawing borders of Yugoslavia. Later, in fact, changed the borders in the Caucasus. More recently, 45% of Scots voted for independence. To seek independence Catalans.

Against this background, I do not think Ukrainian situation (when one part of the country tends to converge with the EU, while the other tends to Russia) something completely unique. Ukrainian situation fits into the centrifugal tendencies that we have been seeing in Europe. Indeed, until recently, no one thought that the British-Scottish question, like settled 300 years ago, there again acutely. In other words: Ukrainian crisis is connected with Russia, but not only. He is also associated with the processes in Europe, the crisis of Europe itself.

- European politicians say that it is the actions of Russia in the Ukrainian direction destabilize Europe.

- Europeans are very proud of the fact that they call their "exceptional": that they got rid of wars and more than half a century live in a world of stability and prosperity. But until the early 1990s Europe, in fact, was occupied by the Soviet Union and the United States. And then there was Yugoslavia, then the Caucasus. The European continent has never been a truly peaceful.

- But US officials, as well as management of EU member states, to explain a strict policy of the Russian Federation that, annexing the Crimea, Russia for the first time since the Second World "redrew the borders by force."

- Americans know that this is nonsense. The first example of changing the borders by force was Yugoslavia. And Kosovo was only the culmination of this process. And the United States is directly involved in these events.

- What is the goal of US policy in the Ukrainian direction?

- We Americans are the last 100 years has been very consistent foreign policy. Its main goal: to not give any Power to amass too much power in Europe. First, the United States sought to prevent Germany to dominate Europe, then let strengthen the influence of the USSR.

The essence of this policy is as follows: as long as possible to maintain the balance of power in Europe, helping the weaker party, and if the balance is about to be significantly disrupted - to intervene at the last moment. So the United States intervened in the First World War after the abdication of Nicholas II in 1917, to prevent the efforts of Germany. And during WWII US opened a second front only very late (in June 1944), after it became clear that the Russian prevail over the Germans.

The United States is considered the most dangerous potential alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.

- And now the United States who, in your opinion, holding back?

- Now they are doing the blocking of a number of potential regional hegemons - Serbia, Iran, Iraq. In this case, the US authorities have resorted to diversionary attacks. For example, in the battle, when the enemy is about to win you, you can hit him in the side, to bring out of balance. US does not seek to "win" Serbia, Iran or Iraq, but they need to create havoc there, to prevent the too harden.

- And with regard to Russia what tactics they use?

- The fragmentation of Europe accompanied by a weakening of NATO. In European countries, in fact, armies do not. The United States under the North Atlantic Alliance is the only strong in military terms the country. The weakening of Europe relative power of Russia has grown significantly.

Russian strategic imperative - to have as deep a buffer zone on its western borders. Therefore, Russia is always especially applies to Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic States and other countries in Eastern Europe. They are of great importance for Russia's national security.

At the beginning of this year in Ukraine was slightly pro-Russian, but very shaky government. It suited Moscow: Russia do not want to completely control the Ukraine or occupy it - enough that Ukraine will not join NATO and the EU. The Russian authorities can not tolerate a situation in which western armed forces will be a hundred kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh.

United States were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and tried not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow to contain Russia.

Russia calls the events of the beginning of the year organized by the US coup. And it really was the most blatant coup in history. (!!!)

- You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?

- All together. Openly supported the US after human rights groups in Ukraine, including money. A Russian special services, these trends have missed. They did not understand what was happening, but when they realized they could not take action to stabilize the situation, and then misjudged the mood in the East of Ukraine.

- That is the Ukrainian crisis - is the result of confrontation between Russia and the United States?

- Here you have two of the country. One wants Ukraine was neutral. And the other - to Ukraine was part of a line of containment of Russian expansion. We can not say that one party is mistaken: both are based on their national interests. Just these interests can not be compared with each other.

(...)

Americans, as I have said, it is important to prevent the emergence of hegemony in Europe. But recently they have started to seriously worry about the potential of Russia and its intentions. Russia is beginning to move from the defense position that she has held since 1992, to the restoration of its sphere of influence. The matter is a fundamental mismatch of national interests of the two great powers.

- That the actions of the Russian Federation could alert the US?

- Russia has begun to take certain steps that the United States considered unacceptable. Primarily in Syria. There are Russian Americans have demonstrated that they are able to influence the process in the Middle East. And the US and Russian without enough problems in this region.

Russian intervene in the process in the Middle East including, as they had hoped to get a tool to influence US policy in other areas. But they miscalculated. United States thought it was Russia's attempt to harm them. It is in this context it is worth to consider the events in Ukraine. Russian, apparently, simply have not calculated how seriously the US perceive their actions or that they can easily find countermeasures. US same in this situation looked at Russia and thought what she wants less - instability in Ukraine.

- Do you think Ukraine in retaliation for Syria?

- No, not a place. But Russian intervene in the process in Syria, while the United States addressed the problems in Iraq, have been negotiating with Iran ... In Washington, many people have the impression that Russian want to destabilize the already fragile US position in the Middle East - a region that is key importance for America.

In Washington, on this account were two points of view: that the Russian just playing the fool, or that they have found a weak point of the US and trying to take advantage of it. I'm not saying that Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict was the cause of the Ukrainian crisis, it would be a stretch. But this intervention has led to what many in Washington have decided that Russian - this is a problem. And that in such a case? Not to join with them in the same confrontation in the Middle East. It is better to divert their attention to other problems in other regions.

Now I'm all a bit oversimplified, it is clear that all the more difficult in practice, but a causal relationship was. As a result, the bottom line is that the strategic interests of the United States - to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon. And in the strategic interests of Russia - not to allow the US to its borders.

- What, in your opinion, the meaning of US sanctions? Russian authorities say that the US wants to bring about regime change.

- The purpose of sanctions is to with minimal damage to the US and several large EU hurt Russia in order capitulated to US demands.

Sanctions demonstrate the power of the United States. And the United States willing to use that power to countries with nothing on it to respond adequately. It is also an opportunity to "build" the Europeans. I do not think that the main purpose of the United States is regime change in Russia. The main goal was to limit the room for maneuver of the Russian authorities that we are witnessing. But it played a role, other factors such as the decline in the Russian economy, falling oil prices.

- In Russia, many say that oil prices dropped due to the US conspiracy with the Gulf countries.

- Trouble is always easier to explain someone's deliberate actions. But a number of countries, including China, India and Brazil, have reduced forecasts for the rate of growth of their economies. Europe has generally zero growth. In this case, the oil is now a revolution, the amount of available oil grow.

The fall in oil prices was inevitable. What else did you expect? But you have built its economic strategy, focusing not only on high oil prices, but in general on energy exports. It made you vulnerable! We had to use the last 10-15 years, high income from selling energy resources to diversify the economy, but your government did not.

- Can we expect to improve US-Russian relations after the next presidential election in the US?

- In Russia, too personify American politics. In the US President - this is only one of the institutions of power, it is not is sovereign. Obama also bound hand and foot, as its predecessors. If the Middle East are gaining momentum rapidly categories such as "Islamic state", it does not matter whether the US President Democrat or Republican - he will have to hit them blow.

And no American president can not afford to sit idly by if Russia becomes more and more influential. Russia's actions in the Middle East, for example, in the case of asylum Edward Snowden were perceived in the US as against US interests. Any US president would have to react to it. I have about three years ago in one of his books predicted that as soon as Russia starts to gain momentum and demonstrate it, there was a crisis in Ukraine. It was obvious.

- How realistic do you think Russia's rapprochement with China?

- China has now itself a lot of problems - declining growth, high inflation and unemployment. Do not expect gifts from Beijing. A tube construction in China, to which the Russian authorities will have to spend significant amounts is unlikely to have anything like a tangible effect on the Russian economy.

- How do you see the further developments around Ukraine?

- Russia will not make concessions in the Crimea, is obvious. But I believe that it could face serious problems with the supply of the peninsula. Yet Moscow can not retreat from some of its requirements with regard to Ukraine. It can not be allowed to appear in Ukraine Western military. This is a nightmare in Moscow, and this limits its room for maneuver.

The US will need to make a strategic decision, not now but in the future, either to intervene more actively in events in Ukraine, which is fraught with difficulties, or to build a new alliance - within NATO or non-NATO - with the participation of Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, for example, Turkey. This is already happening, slowly but occurs. And it will be something that Russia does not accept the "cordon sanitaire". The US is not that you need to have control over Ukraine, it is important that it is not controlled by Russia.

Much will depend on Kiev. Kiev authorities - the weak point of Ukraine. If it will break - which is now surprisingly not observed, Russia will try to wrap this up in their favor.

But the main question - whether Russia itself resist. It is now faced with many factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union: it is - the lack of effective transport system; it is - a skeptical attitude towards the capital in many regions of the Caucasus to the Far East; but the main thing - it's the economy that functions only under certain circumstances - namely, high energy prices. Do you have only one product, and it is now the global market in excess of.

Interview by Elena Chernenko and Alexander Gabuev
Details: www.kommersant.ru...

Wow... That's some brilliant analysis, no matter how it's favoring the US side. It simply can't be faked. And the Antisec leaks have revealed how pervasive and well-informed is Stratfor worldwide. Absolute bombshell.

Now all the Western propagandists are in big, big trouble...

Stratfor is never right about anything. They like to just make stuff up. I though they had been called out on it enough that they had gone under awhile ago. I guess not. I think most silly thing is trying to tie Syria to Ukraine.

a reply to: Echtelion

One has to wonder just how much of a handle he has on things when he has stated 3 glaring errors in that interview:

1. That the US only entered WW1 after the fall of the Russian Tsar to prevent German victory - total bollocks, as by that point, Germany was already losing the war and in the simple maths of the attrition of Trench warfare, coupled with the blockade meant that it could not outfight France and the British Empire. American troops didn't even turn up to fight until the Summer of 1918.
   
2. That the Allies (not the US - over 50% of the forces in Overlord where British Empire troops) only opened a second front in Europe to prevent the Russians steamrolling Germany - Normandy had been planned for at least 2 years (the first plans drawn up in 1942) prior to it's actual happening, at which point it was not clear at all Russia would be able to push back the Germans and in fact, the Russians had been begging the Western Allies to open a second front since 1941
   
3. That the "Scottish question" was totally unexpected - it wasn't. It's been on the cards since, well, 1707. There was a referendum on the issue back in the 1970's and is the basis for devolution in the late 1990's.
   

So, on the basis of just three glaring errors even a schoolboy should be able to get right, I have to call into question pretty much everything else he has to say.

EDIT: To change the fact Overlord wasn't a US only operation and in fact was primarily a British operation

I can't take seriously any thread on this site to do with Russia and the USA simultaneously.

At the very least, both sides have such ardent supporters as to spin lies as effectively as Democrats vs Republicans.

At the very worst, both sides have paid propogandists at work.

"It's bull#, and it's bad for ya" -George Carlin

originally posted by: MrSpad
Stratfor is never right about anything. They like to just make stuff up. I though they had been called out on it enough that they had gone under awhile ago. I guess not. I think most silly thing is trying to tie Syria to Ukraine.

How silly? Happened at the same time... not very far, and another buffer zone with a lot of Russian influence. Plus the ties between Pravy Sektor the Chechen Muslim Jihadists, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been demonstrated, not just by Russian sources.

I mean you can just believe whatever you may please, and pretend knowing more than Keith Alexander or something. But Stratfor aren't the Weekly World News or Sorcha Faal, everybody knows that. You're just trolling, I think.

a reply to: Echtelion

The interview says absolutely nothing about the US and a coup in Ukraine.

Are you making things up or is your primary source Sputnik?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The interview says absolutely nothing about the US and a coup in Ukraine.

Are you making things up again or is your primary source Soutnik?

That's because your mind wanders in these intricate ways that make you avoid what's right under your nose... or read beyond a few paragraphs.

a reply to: stumason

The essence of this policy is as follows: as long as possible to maintain the balance of power in Europe, helping the weaker party, and if the balance is about to be significantly disrupted - to intervene at the last moment. So the United States intervened in the First World War after the abdication of Nicholas II in 1917, to prevent the efforts of Germany. And during WWII US opened a second front only very late (in June 1944), after it became clear that the Russian prevail over the Germans.

Well, those are not glaring errors but his interpretation of some facts.
1. USA entered WW1 in 1918, after collapse of RE and closing Russo-German front - check.
2. USA started sending troops to Europe in 1944 after obvious retreat of Germany from USSR - check. Indeed opening of second front was discussed from 1941, just read correspodence Stalin/Roosevely/Churchill militera.lib.ru...
Переписка Председателя Совета Министров СССР с Президентами США и Премьер-Министрами Великобритании во время Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг. В 2-х томах: Том I. Переписка с У. Черчиллем и К. Эттли (июль 1941 г. — ноябрь 1945 г.). — М.: Госполитиздат, 1958. — Тираж 150 000 экз.; Том II. Переписка с Ф. Рузвельтом и Г. Трумэном (август 1941 г. — декабрь 1945 г.). — М.: Госполитиздат, 1958. — Тираж 150 000 экз. ( I had a hard copy of this 2 tomes)
But the fact is that second front opened when it opened in 1944 operation Normandy.
3. Scotland. The question was closed in 1717 and just reopened in mid 90-ties 20-th century. Ask someone 30 years ago about this in UK he would say you are insane.

Btw for Brit not to see that this is exactly what UK was doing in Europe 18-20-th century is , well you need to look at UK better . Your cousins doing same thing,they just have not just a narrow an English channel La Manche, but whole Atlantic strait.

As for Stratfor, they are not "all know agency" , but know how to monetize their findings better than this ATS site.

a reply to: Echtelion

Uhm no.

Your title makes a claim that is not true.

Highlight exactly where Friedman said the US was behind it. There is nothing in his interview that suggests / states what your title claims. What I do see is Sputnik insinuating he made the comment in the first paragraph and then changes it by stating Friedman says the Russians claim the US was behind the coup.

originally posted by: TheBlackTiger
I can't take seriously any thread on this site to do with Russia and the USA simultaneously.

At the very least, both sides have such ardent supporters as to spin lies as effectively as Democrats vs Republicans.

At the very worst, both sides have paid propogandists at work.

"It's bull#, and it's bad for ya" -George Carlin

Now that's a much better perspective than the desperate pro-West (and sometimes pro-Russia) absurdity I too often come across on this site.

I too have been wondering whether this wasn't just all a big global game from behind, and this sudden new Cold War wasn't just some profitable scheme for the big pockets on both "sides". It's a possibility.

THOUGH, you have to also be honest on what happened 100 years ago in Europe... that this, too, was an instance of global capitalist industrial gangs playing poker with the lives of millions upon millions of people. Only for one of the main bastards, Wilhelm II, to flee like a coward after the genocide he had just caused.

If a nuclear war erupts soon, won't be John McCain and Victoria Nuland also flying to one of those deep underground bases in the same way, without thinking of inviting you?

originally posted by: kitzik
Well, those are not glaring errors but his interpretation of some facts.

No, they are glaring errors.

originally posted by: kitzik
1. USA entered WW1 in 1918, after collapse of RE and closing Russo-German front - check.

Russian Empire collapsed in March 1917. Even with the freeing up of the German tropps on the Eastern front, this would have made little difference. The Germans were already suffering from the blockade by the RN and they simply lacked the manpower to "outkill" the Allies. American forces didn't even turn up to fight until 1918, by which time the Germans were in near collapse.

originally posted by: kitzik
2. USA started sending troops to Europe in 1944 after obvious retreat of Germany from USSR - check.

No, they didn't. US troops were in Europe from 1942. Significant air assets were bombing Germany quite early on and US and British forces invaded Italy in 1943, which necessitated a build up many months before hand.

originally posted by: kitzik
But the fact is that second front opened when it opened in 1944 operation Normandy.

No, the second front was opened in 1943 with the invasion of Sicily and Italy. Go look it up.

originally posted by: kitzik
3. Scotland. The question was closed in 1717 and just reopened in mid 90-ties 20-th century. Ask someone 30 years ago about this in UK he would say you are insane.

Oh really? Then how come there were questions being asked often enough in 1979 to require a referendum? How come the SNP has been around since the 1930's? I live here chap and I have Scottish relatives, don't presume to tell me what you think the lay of the land is.

originally posted by: kitzik
Btw for Brit not to see that this is exactly what UK was doing in Europe 18-20-th century is , well you need to look at UK better .

Britain has always sought to maintain the status quo as it was the best guarantor of peace - a strong France or Germany was always going to be a threat to the UK, especially as France had been trying to squish England/Britain for the best part of a millennium. In fact, the only reason that the British Empire even existed was to try and contain all the other powers from gobbling everything up and strangling our trade, which as an island nation were are totally reliant on. Again, don't presume to tell me about UK history or even global history or Geopolitics, or you'll get schooled.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Echtelion

Uhm no.

Your title makes a claim that is not true.

Highlight exactly where Friedman said the US was behind it. There is nothing in his interview that suggests / states what your title claims. What I do see is Sputnik insinuating he made the comment in the first paragraph and then changes it by stating Friedman says the Russians claim the US was behind the coup.

Uhm, yeah...

Russia calls the events of the beginning of the year organized by the US coup. And it really was the most blatant coup in history. (!!!)

- You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?

- All together. "

What next.. need a drawing?

originally posted by: Echtelion
THOUGH, you have to also be honest on what happened 100 years ago in Europe... that this, too, was an instance of global capitalist industrial gangs playing poker with the lives of millions upon millions of people. Only for one of the main bastards, Wilhelm II, to flee like a coward after the genocide he had just caused.

The First World War had nothing to do with "global capitalist industrial gangs" and more to do with several world powers pitched against each other in a silly web of alliances - there had been an arms race for about 20 years prior to the War as well - none of them thought the War would turn out like it did when it started and before long, they were to deep in the crap to pull out.

a reply to: Echtelion

No - Friedman never stated the US was behind the coup as your title claims. There is nothing in the complete interview that states it.

Where did your post above come from? Ive searched both of your sources for it and am not finding it. Or is it from a 3rd source?

a reply to: stumason

Thank you for your lesson lol.

I have relatives in UK from before ww2.

Anyway, about second front we are not going to argue about semantics, you were talking about UK mostly and not USA.
Second front you may say was Al Alamein. For the sake of justice tell the Stratfors what they deserve, they stated some facts with a little bit of their own "interpretation" . I'm really not going to be devils advocate in this case. Think what you want.
Also about Scotland lol.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Echtelion
THOUGH, you have to also be honest on what happened 100 years ago in Europe... that this, too, was an instance of global capitalist industrial gangs playing poker with the lives of millions upon millions of people. Only for one of the main bastards, Wilhelm II, to flee like a coward after the genocide he had just caused.

The First World War had nothing to do with "global capitalist industrial gangs" and more to do with several world powers pitched against each other in a silly web of alliances - there had been an arms race for about 20 years prior to the War as well - none of them thought the War would turn out like it did when it started and before long, they were to deep in the crap to pull out.

What is the meaning of a "world power"? What is "power", or "a power"? This is actually a blurry, shallow rhetoric, of the typical high-school history classes attempting (by design) to flatten and suck out the actual power dynamics animating those "powers".

Britain, Germany, Russia, France were the main capitalist industrial superpowers in the West at the times. (though Russia wasn't a full-fledged industrial economy as Germany and Britain were) And yes, the industrial production processes by which their armies were being built up and armed to destroy each other was capitalistic, for being economies based on the dynamics of accumulation of capital on labor and its production.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: stumason

Thank you for your lesson lol.

It's clearly not over....

originally posted by: kitzik
I have relatives in UK from before ww2.

And? You do realise that was over 75 years ago, so not really relevant.

originally posted by: kitzik
Anyway, about second front we are not going to argue about semantics, you were talking about UK mostly and not USA.

No, I was talking about Operation Overlord, the claimed second front in the Stratfor interview which was apparently to stop the Russians taking Europe, which is total bollocks.

originally posted by: kitzik
Second front you may say was Al Alamein.

No, as that was in North Africa. It was the turning point of the War. Before El Alamein, the UK didn't win a land battle, but after it never lost one, so the saying goes anyway. It was also the enabler for the invasion of Italy, but that came a year later.

originally posted by: kitzik
Also about Scotland lol.

"lol"? I assume then that is a tacit admission you haven't got a clue what you're talking about then?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Echtelion

No - Friedman never stated the US was behind the coup as your title claims. There is nothing in the complete interview that states it.

Where did your post above come from? Ive searched both of your sources for it and am not finding it. Or is it from a 3rd source?

What title? What claims?

An interview? Where...? Did I posted an article or anything here? Are you seeing things?

It's a lie. And untruth.

originally posted by: MrSpad
Stratfor is never right about anything. They like to just make stuff up. I though they had been called out on it enough that they had gone under awhile ago. I guess not. I think most silly thing is trying to tie Syria to Ukraine.

How is that silly? They're both geographically strategic for the distribution of natural gas to Europe. One for distributing NG from Russia to Europe and the other for distributing NG from the ME to Europe - specifically Israel.

Silly? I think not.