September 10, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

This article in Russia's Sputnik magazine was shared wby so many people, that it gave me a bit of a pause, for beyond the obvious and now well-known growing rift between the USA and the EU over the way America has (mis)handled the Ukrainian crisis which it brought about, and then tried to blame on Russia, I could not quite figure out why this article attracted so many people's attention. It took a couple of read-throughs, and then I spotted why it may have caught the eye of so many people. Sputnik of course used to ba an official media mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and one may reasonably assume there is still some connection between that party in Russia and this media outlet. So with that caveat lector, here's the article, and see if you can spot it as well:

Apple of Discord: US, EU Split Over Future of Ukraine, Donbass Status

Right off the bat, the first thing one notes is that the article, or rather, the thoughts in it, do not emanate from Russia, but rather from an American, Eric Zeusse, and then comes the first geopolitical "rub":

The Minsk II agreement has become an apple of discord between the US and the EU, American author and investigative historian Eric Zuesse emphasizes, adding that while the Ukrainian leader backed by the Obama administration continues to violate the accord, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande are insisting that the parties should fulfill the Minsk II provisions.

"On Friday, August 29th, this split became public concerning whether the Minsk II accords for ending the Ukrainian civil war should remain in force. Obama supports the view of Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko, to violate the Minsk II accords, which would end it; the same day, Hollande and Merkel agreed with Russia's President Vladimir Putin, that the Minsk II agreement needs to be implemented in full," Zuesse underscored.

In other words, the Minsk agreement, to which the Ukraine itself in the person of Poroshenko was a participant, indicates that The European Big Three, France, Russia, and Germany, wanted a negotiated end to the situation, and the ability of the Donbass to elect its own local officials (certainly should be no problem in a real democracy, right?), while the USA, as odd man out, favors no such thing. Plainly put, the Minsk agreements really expose the fact that the USA is unilaterally driving the situation regardless, and in spite of, the wishes of its European "allies and partners." Poroshenko, in other words, is completely Washington's creature.
Or is he?
Thus far, there's nothing new in the Sputnik article, cited and quoted above, that we didn't know before. So why the fuss for a Russian media outlet to take up yet more space with it?  This was what caused me to read the article twice, the second time, a bit more slowly, and then I spotted what may have been the real centerpiece for the Russians:

"On August 27th, Edward Basurin, a military official of the Donetsk People's Republic had announced 'UAF Massively shelling DPR — Drastic Deterioration,' saying that, 'The fascists have used heavy artillery prohibited by the Minsk Agreements against the civilian areas of Aleksandrovka and Marinka. The outskirts of Donetsk have been struck'," Zuesse narrated.

According to Zuesse, Poroshenko is most likely following the instructions of the Obama administration, most notably the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.The US investigative historian called attention to the fact that while US Secretary of State John Kerry put it clear on May 12, 2015 in Sochi that the White House would not support Poroshenko's attempts to take Donbass by force, Victoria Nuland contradicted that openly.  (Emphasis added)

In other words, what Zuesse, and hence Sputnik, is highlighting is that American foreign policy is not being set in the White House, but at the State Department, and this means that there is a very real factional rift between whatever faction Secretary Kerry represents, and that well-known neo-con-war faction that Victoria foul-language Nuland represents. And the reason one can confidently assume that it is factional infighting is because in any normally functioning government, public contradition of the policy position of any department or bureaucracy head by a personal nominally under his or her authority, would be subject to dismissal. After all, Mr. Kerry is the presidentially nominated, Senate-approved, constitutional head of the US Department of State, and made his (and presumably the White House's) position clear. Yet, Ms. Nuland has seen to contradict her boss, and remains in her post. The mind boggles at the possibilities and implications, for if this be true, if there is a real rift between the White House and State, then the possibility exists that there may be similar open defiance in other departments of government. ONe may think, for example, of Mr. Obama's firing of several generals and admirals.

So the real question remains: why is Ms. Nuland still there? It's a question, perhaps, that only Mr. Kerry or Mr. Obama can answer and clarify.

See you on the flip side...