Ukraine: History in the making.

In 2012 the EU, while being critical of the Yanukovych Administration also denounced the Svoboda Party , saying its "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views go against the EU's fundamental values and principles" The European Parliament Resolution 2012/2889  then appealed for pro-democratic parties "not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party."

Yet today, as reward for providing the paramilitary muscle on Euromaidan, they now hold many senior positions in Ukraine's 'Interim Administration'. This alliance immediately attempted to discriminate against speakers of the Russian language which was some 40% of the population, and increased prison sentences for acts of 'Separatism', (think about that, Alex Salmond).

Their latest decree was to ban the annual Victory Day celebrations on the pretence that it might cause trouble. Imagine an 'Interim' BNP/Tory coalition, forcibly removing an elected Labour government and then banning Remembrance Day throughout the UK on the pretext that there might be a demonstration by Scottish Nationalists, and you should get the picture.

The truth is that these celebrations have come under increasingly violent attacks over recent years by groups who see nothing to cheer in the defeat of Fascism, and this 'Right Sector' is growing both in number and sophistication.

Although unashamedly Neo-Nazi, they have taken advice to tone down their image and switched from calling themselves the Social Nationalist Party [any similarity to Hitler's National Socialists fully intended] to now being called Svoboda (freedom) Party. They still cannot bring themselves to ditch their swastika style insignia though, which was so prevalent in Kiev's Maidan.

We may not know what the future holds for Ukraine, but through our actions and inaction, it seems that these people will inevitably be a part of that future.

Russia: Friend or Foe?

Having grown up during the first Cold War, the recent posturings between East and West are uncomfortable reminders of that dark time, for me.

There are differences now, though, and Russia does not pose the ideological or military threat that the USSR did (unfortunately, we can be assured that there are those who seek a return to that situation).

As trusted and reliable trading partners, we have more in common now than ever before. In fact, with the EU's eastward encroachment, it could be argued that Europe is getting closer both geographically and culturally to Russia.

With this proximity comes responsibility, and our politicians are displaying a recklessness un-befitting of their office.

Putin-bashing may be popular sport in North America, but such sentiments have no place in modern Europe, and today's absurd consensus must not go unchallenged, for even the simplest answer will elude us if we don't first ask the question.

So who collapsed the European banking system and wrought Austerity upon us? And whose Corporate masters seek to force us to eat GMO's and drink from poisoned water supplies?

Instead of simply painting Russia as the enemy, our media would be far better advised to establish whose actions cause us harm, and where our real interests are.

UK: Reign of the media state.

Since the heady days of mid-twentieth century newspaper reporting, when a war was stopped and a President toppled, the slow demise of investigative journalism has continued and accelerated to where the Western media now performs similar function to the old Soviet 'news' agencies.

There are benefits though, and by watching the News, we quickly gather the party line and gain some insight into what our politicians are thinking. It may tell us little about the events, but plenty about how our leaders are reacting and what their likely course of action will be.

Under normal circumstances, this is all well and good. There are numerous broadcast channels, and of course the Internet, in which to find alternative views and opinions.

But there are times when only the mainstream media can effectively challenge those in power and ask the questions that we, the public, are asking.

The sort of questions that spring to mind are:

Who sanctioned Victoria Nuland's Ukraine intervention?

It's clear that senator McCain is a loose canon and a committed war monger, and as such the US probably can do little to prevent his meddling; but as an employee of the Department of State, Nuland must surely have received some form of approval for her actions.

Another question that bothers me is how Russia's limited mobilization is such an earth shattering event, yet France's military excursions into her former African colonies are simply peaceful expeditions?

Syria: From Geneva 2 Montreux

As some Swiss watch maker's convention took precedence today, forcing Geneva II to open in Montreux, it sort of put into perspective the chances of anything meaningful coming out of this long awaited event.

Yet, after Ban ki-moon laid out the terms and guidelines for good conduct in anticipation of a day that would surely see much heated and direct discourse, it was hard not feel a measure of optimism as Sergei Lavrov made his opening address.

His conciliatory tone and talk of allowing the Syrian people to decide Syria's future, although expected, seemed both honest and heartfelt, could this really be a turning point?

But then up stepped John Kerry, whose preconditions and blame-ridden finger pointing laid no doubt as to how little chance there is for peace or reconciliation at this time.

It reminded me of the early days of the 'Arab Spring', when the fatuous quipped that it would all end in tears, because 'the Arabs just don't do Democracy'. Prophetic as that may appear, it seems now that the middle East must descend even further into chaos and bloodshed, because the West no longer does Diplomacy.

Syria: When enemies become allies

Whoever eventually claims victory in Syria, their greatest challenge will be to prevent the country following their neighbour Iraq into the sectarian abyss.

Although reconciliation may now look like an impossible aspiration, there is one, and possibly only one way, of achieving this.

As al-Qaeda and it's affiliates become more entrenched, moderate Syrian Sunnis should now see where their country is headed, and encouraged to go to Geneva. The prerequisite, or result, of any talks must be a cease-fire, the withdrawal of all foreign fighters, followed by constitutional reforms and safeguards, parliamentary and presidential elections etc.

Sounds simple enough, but the reality on the ground is that while Hezbollah will undoubtedly leave when ordered to, the foreign (and local) jihadists will just as likely continue to follow their own agenda, which has never included peace or democracy for Syria.

If we in the West can set aside our obsession with removing Assad, and try instead to show the moderate rebels where their future lies, there may yet be cause for optimism. For if the regular Syrian army and the rebel militias could be cajoled to join together to drive the extremists from their land, there lies hope that a true and lasting peace could follow.

There is little that unites former enemies more than the need to fight a common foe.

Egypt: Lessons from history

On the 14th July, it will be exactly 80 years since Hitler's Nazis were officially declared the only legal political party in Germany, thus a previously functioning democracy finally became a one party state.

By then, it was too late for military or judicial intervention, as the apparatus of state had already been twisted and cajoled and subverted so that there was no escaping the inevitable.

Hitler had been made Chancellor only six months earlier.

So, should the mere act of casting a vote then exclude a population from participation and scrutiny of it's elected leaders? Can the simple fact of gaining the odd percentage point over their rivals mean that governments are then free to oppress and harass religious minorities and political opponents with impunity?

Since when was democracy an event which only took place once every four years?

While the overthrow of Morsi must be viewed with caution, the alternative might be much worse, and far less democratic.

As with many things in International Affairs, the devil really is in the detail, and Edward Snowden's revelation that Germany takes highest priority for American surveillance in Europe has understandably caused quite a kerfuffle.

Those who might otherwise shrug and accept that 'This sort of thing goes on all the time' are now asking serious questions, from the conspiracy theorists who see it as evidence of a US-Zionist plot to exact revenge for the actions of the aforementioned Adolf & Co, or who see government sponsored industrial espionage on a monumental scale, to those who just conclude that, for Europe's dominant nation, it is nothing more or less than should be expected.

But if you add these acts to their execution of drone warfare and their support of terrorist forces and tyrannical regimes, then perhaps the time has come to challenge our North American cousins with a little more vigour, because, as Germany's own history shows, appeasement is no answer when a nation decides that it's own elitist interests place it above and beyond International Law and the consensus of human dignity.

If we cannot bring ourselves to ask such awkward questions of America, then we should at least ask ourselves, if this is the way they behave when led by an African American Democrat, what on earth can we expect when a full-on Rednecked Republican takes the helm?

Syria: A most un-civil War

So the G8 are hoping to achieve a joint statement on Syria.

Well that's a relief!

But what will it say? That we in the West want regime change, not peace or stability? That we helped start this slaughter and we won't let it end until we get what we want?

I don't think so.

More likely the usual platitudes about Democracy and the Will of the Syrian People; we might even bully Putin into agreeing some veiled reference to the need for Assad to step down.

All very meaningless and predictable. My concern, however, is the continual reference to the bloodbath that is Syria's 'Civil War'.

Because this is definitely not a civil war.

It is a sectarian insurrection: supported, financed, and largely fought, by external parties whose agendas and designs should turn the stomach of any right-minded person.

The real bloodbath, and Civil War, are what come after the fall of Assad.