It has long been assumed that during the uprising against the abusive Bakiyev regime in April 2010, the deadly gunfire causing dozens of killed and hundreds of injured came from the roofs around Bishkek’s Ala-Too Square, surrounded by government premises. Only this year, during a long-pending trial aiming at bringing those responsible (as far as they are still in the country) to justice, witness reports revealed that there have been mysterious gunmen among the crowd, aiming not at the snipers on the roofs but at the crowd itself. Who they were, remains a mystery but recent events in Kiev and Odessa give a chilling suggestion of their eventual identity – leading to an American terrorist organisation commonly known as Blackwater, though now operating under the guise of various groups registered as private security firms. The eventuality of their role in the Bakiyevs’ attempt to keep themselves in power also means a threat that keeps hanging over Kyrgyzstan and its parliamentary democracy.

 

Just imagine the unimaginable (though what has happened before remarkably resembles it): as Kyrgyzstan formally enters the Eurasian Economic Union in January next year, coinciding with the EEU’s official inauguration, mobs gather in Bishkek once more in hundreds of thousands, led by self-proclaimed non-parliamentarian “opposition” figureheads many of whom are in reality just mobsters, while the crowds are mingled with soldiers of fortune, recruited from a US security firm. The President and the government flee the country, along with many a member of Parliament. The mobsters take over, and pick one among themselves as the new head of state with all former presidential powers restored.

 

After having cancelled Kyrgyzstan’s access to the EEU they are praised by the USA and the European Commission with the promise of a multi-billion money bag on credit. Resistance occurs in Kyrgyzstan’s northern provinces especially among ethnic Russians, ethnic Germans and “russified” Kyrgyz who install local authorities in the districts of Talas, Cholpon-Ata and other northern areas. After having seized some military weaponry and other equipment, the “old regime” supporters are branded “rebels” and “terrorists” and taken on by the new rulers using aircraft, tanks and artillery. While some strongholds keep firm, others are seized and burnt with the occupiers still in them. In response, the west looks the other way and continues its adoration for the power usurpers.

 

In reality, this is most unlikely to happen in Kyrgyzstan which has learnt its lessons from the so-called Tulip Revolution back in 2005 and where most people feel better while living in a democracy. But if it is but a dream, it must be one cherished by American and European warmongers, since what is described above is exactly what recently happened in Ukraine, and the end of which is still an open question.

 

When back in 1982 shortly after the beastly massacres in the Palestinian refugee camps in the southwestern parts of Beirut were committed, under supervision of Israel’s invading troops led by extremist Ariel Sharon and carried out by Kataeb (Falange) militiamen conducted by their warlord Beshir Gemayel who also happened to be Lebanon’s President, the world’s public opinion took a turn. So far, every Palestinian had been considered a “terrorist” no matter how many families had been deprived of their homes, captured, tortured and killed by the zionist usurpers.

 

Shortly after the massacres estimates of victims varied between 7,000 and 20,000, Gemayel was blown up in a bomb attack. Up till this very day, no one knows who did it and who ordered it. The answer: it could have been any party – including his Israeli superiors who killed his right-hand Eli Hobeika decades later for the simple reason to prevent him from revealing the truth. Such attacks might happen soon in Ukraine, leaving the same dilemma as to their perpetrators in place.

 

Those responsible for the Beirut 1982 massacres who remained alive were never brought to justice – but then this happened before the UN War Crimes Court in The Hague was established. Both the massacres committed on the orders of father and son Bakiyev in their last stand against demonstrators in April 2010 and the more recent Odessa massacre should be considered eligible as a case before the UN Court. Instead, Bakiyev and son enjoy plush lives thanks to lavish stolen funds in Minsk and London respectively, while the Odessa murder squads and their colleagues spreading havoc in the east of Ukraine are hailed as heroes by Washington and Brussels alike.

 

Unfortunately, western media including the most respected ones have lost most of their sense of objectivity and responsibility and are becoming mouthpieces of US and EU officials’ treacherous demagogy. “Not to respond to renewed Russian meddling would be dangerous and wrong,” The Economist recently wrote in a comment [http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21604561-west-should-impose-fresh-sanctions-deter-more-russian-meddling-eastern]. “If the rebels start losing ground, the Russians may step up their support. Mr Poroshenko still plans to sign the trade deal with the EU that was spurned by his predecessor, Viktor Yanukovych, last November, triggering the Maidan protests in Kiev that led to Mr Yanukovych’s departure. Ukraine’s government needs further support. The EU should accelerate efforts to become less reliant on Russian energy. That implies guarding against a gas cut-off by competing interconnectors that allow supply from the west as well as the east, searching for new gas sources and building more terminals for liquefied natural gas. It also means that the EU must pursue vigorously its antitrust case against Gazprom, which operates as a monopolistic arm of the Russian state, not a normal firm.”

 

But the misleading fact-twisting argument put forward by the magazine does not stop there. “A third round of sanctions is also needed. The goal of the first two rounds was to persuade Mr Putin to stop meddling in eastern Ukraine. So far he seems to have shelved thoughts of full-scale invasion, but he is intervening more than ever. Appeasers fret that fresh sanctions could provoke more Russian hostility. Yet, as NATO’s deputy secretary-general has noted, Russia has already chosen to treat NATO as an adversary, one reason why countries such as Sweden and Finland are considering joining. There is much scope for further Russian revanchism in places like Moldova or Georgia. Experience shows that the only way to deter bullying is to stand up to it, even if that comes at a price. Having threatened a third round of sanctions, the West should make good on its threats—unless and until Mr Putin stops nakedly interfering in eastern Ukraine. Anything else would be an invitation.”

 

The irony is that sending such an “invitation” is exactly what America and Europe have done, first by blackmailing the Ukrainian government starting some years ago that if it would adhere to the EEU all funds from the IMF, the World Bank and other sources under western control would be blocked. When the Ukrainian government finally defied that squeeze, Washington and Brussels unleashed the fifth column they had been mobilising in Ukraine in the process, resulting in yet another case such as those that occurred in Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Iraq – just to name a few.

 

With the so-called Tulip Revolution in 2005, the US regime thought to have added Kyrgyzstan to that list. It does not mean, however, that Washington no longer cherishes the option. The overall policy always consisted, and still consists, of installing puppet regimes in all former Soviet Union member states, and in the end in Russia itself, enabling the Americans to dismantle Russia’s economic, military and resources arsenals, and turn former USSR states from emerging economies into submerging ones. All talk from the side of either Washington or Brussels is soft-spoken misleading rubbish. The only possible response is hard talk.

BY CHARLES VAN DER LEEUW, WRITER, NEWS ANALYST