Diana West questions the bona fides of some of the players in the Ukraine imbroglio.

I have been trying to figure out why from the start I have balked at the mainstream narrative framing the struggle in the Ukraine as that of a classic, black-hat, white-hat struggle -- Tyranny versus Freedom.

First, there are the players. It's just hard for me to see a white hat on the European Union, which in no way stands for preserving the liberty of the citizen. The EU stands for central control -- "soft" tyranny -- "soft" empire, too, and for the end of national sovereignty. A few weeks ago, in fact, I hailed Switzerland's successful, anti-EU referendum to wrest more control of its borders and immigration policy from Brussels, the EU "capital." Could the EU possibly be suporting the sovereignty of Ukraine, or of any other country for that matter? Certainly, that's what we are to believe, but the evidence is not convincing. Worth remembering also is that the EU is helmed by a bevy of erstwhile Communist, Marxist, Maoist and nuclear freezenik ministers who rule by means of an unelected, non-accountable governing structure that Vladimir Bukovsky has likened to that of the old Soviet Politburo. (I discuss the EU in American Betrayal in the context of who really won the Cold War.)

Another player is the John Kerry State Department, whose public face in Ukraine has been Victoria Nuland's. It is amazing to me that the "intercepted" phone call in which Nuland (recently of Benghazi talking points notoriety) sets forth her roster for the post-Yanukovych government hasn't flowered into full-blooming scandal. Nobody in the media seems to care a fig. Is it really a good and Constitutional thing that American bureacrats seem to be secretly determining the makeup of foreign governments? Isn't this a question worth some attention from, I don't know, Congress? And what about a second intercepted phone call in which the Foreign Minister of Estonia, Urmus Paet, infoms the Foreign Minister of the EU, Baroness Ashton, that he saw evidence suggesting that some element of the opposition, not Yanukuvych, ordered sniper attacks that killed police and protestors alike? Shouldn't that extremely serious charge be investigated before we assign black hats and white, let alone send bilions of dollars and Euros to the new regime?

Then there's the nature of the former Ukrainian president's powers. Was Yanukovych a duly elected leader? By all accounts, it does seem that his presidential election was legitimate. So, then, what are we talking about? The democratic process in action, or mobocracy -- and a coup?

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/E...in-Ukraine.aspx