Source – gospanews.net
- “…Three identical scenarios in which, with the excuse of exporting Western democracy, gas from Donbas is hunted down as well as oil from Venezuela and Syria, where the US and Turkey continue to steal crude oil with the help of jihadists ….We just have to wait when perhaps some American president will desecrate the CIA documents, on the action of the Colombian snipers in Caracas or on that of the Georgians in Kyiv, as happened for the civil war plan in Syria designed by American intelligence since 1983, as the exclusive document published two years ago by Gospa News demonstrates“
How War Began… The Genesis of NATO’s Coup in Ukraine – 1
Snipers’ Massacre in Kiev Maidan Square 2014 similar to CIA’s Shade in Caracas 2002
VERSIONE ORIGINALE IN ITALIANO
Overwhelmed by the massing of war events in Ukraine, where the civil war could go back 8 years due to a NATO-EU strategy well described in the plan of the Washington think-tank CEPA released in preview by Gospa News on November 5, 2021, we took care of current events by not finding the time to commemorate the anniversary of the Maidan square massacre (20 February 2014), an ideal incandescent context to allow the False-flag narrative of the Atlanticist New World Order to exacerbate souls and tensions in Kyiv and in the Donbas.
While Russia is about to officially recognize the two breakaway Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, since yesterday, in fact, groups of young Ukrainians have been demonstrating in the massacre square, probably well paid by the Plutarch George Soros, director for his own pride of the Color Revolutions implemented with the contribution of the activists of the Closed Fist of Otpor (Resistance in Serbian) then merged, after the fall of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade, in the more diplomatic Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS).
Both of these formations, apparently dedicated to democracy, have been correlated with the Central Intelligence Agency, the very powerful American counter-intelligence in Langley (Virginia) licensed to kill with impunity thanks to its special units of the National Clandestine Service.
Without these premises, it is difficult to understand “the genesis” of the coup in Ukraine and the massacre perpetrated by mysterious snipers.
We have talked about it in various reports but today we want to rewind the thread of the story to unravel it in two episodes, focusing on the first on the gruesome mass murder and in the second on the geopolitical background that prepared the ground.
In doing so, we will also highlight the similarities with a similar massacre of people carried out in 2002 in Caracas in the shadow of the CIA in an attempt to create another “made in US” regime-change.
THE EUROMAIDAN SQUARE BACKGROUND
In order not to dwell on it, let us briefly recall that the November 2013 protests in Kyiv were triggered by an Islamic reporter of Afghan origin born in poor Kabul but who first was a student in the Ukrainian capital, then a television journalist, and finally, after the coup that led to the ousting of the pro-Russian president. Victor Yanukovych, became Deputy Director-General of the National War Industry in 2019 as revealed exclusively by Gospa News.
His is a chameleon-like story worthy of Ethan Hunt, the legendary character made famous by Tom Cruise in the film saga about the CIA’s fictional Impossible Mission Force (IMF) activity. This reporter’s TV was financed by Soros and various Ukrainian embassies of NATO countries, but we invite you to read this story after this report.
The pretext for the protests was the suspension by the government of the association agreement with the European Union which constituted a zone of global and deep free trade but in reality it was simply the excellent excuse to ignite the fuse of a social bomb. prepared for years by the West (but we will see this in the next episode).
For now, it is enough to remember that the pro-European protests in the Maidan Nezalezhnosti square (the field of independence in Ukraine) renamed Euromaidan, were the most impressive demonstrations that took place in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution of 2004, in which Janukovyč was forced to resign as prime minister, due to the allegations of irregularities in the vote.
We could draw a striking analogy with the protests of US President Donald Trump’s fans over allegations of macroscopic election fraud in the presidential elections won by his Democratic challenger Joseph Biden, but they were killed on Capitol Hill and then labeled as terrorists …
By a curious coincidence, it was Biden, then Obama’s vice president, who supported the reform of the armed forces and police in Kyiv after the 2014 coup while his son Hunt Biden received lavish consultancy as director of the energy company Burisma, holder of licenses of extraction in the area of the Russian-speaking Donbas, which became the scene of the civil war rekindled a few days after the fake attack on a kindergarten.
Comparing the events of 2013 to those of 2004 in Ukraine, “a key geopolitical point in Eastern Europe” for Russia and the European Union, the newspaper The Moscow Times, noted that Yanukovych’s government was in a position significantly stronger after his election in 2010.
The Financial Times wrote that the 2013 protests were “largely spontaneous, triggered by social media and caught the Ukrainian political opposition unprepared” than the well-organized previous ones. The hashtag #euromaidan (in Ukrainian # євромайдан, in Russian # евромайдан), was created immediately at the first demonstrations and was very useful as a communication tool for the demonstrators. The protest hashtag also bounced on the VKontakte network, a very popular social network in Eastern countries.
THE MASSACRE OF THE MYSTERIOUS SNIPERS
Before going into the “investigative” details on the massacre of the mysterious snipers we report a fairly objective reconstruction proposed by Wikipedia. On February 20, 2014, there were clashes in Kyiv that caused deaths and injuries and the capture of some agents.
The final death toll was 70 among the demonstrators and 17 among the police forces. Still unknown and subject to the investigation was the identity of snipers who fired on the crowd that day.
«In a conversation between the Estonian Wsteri Minister Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton, the minister advanced the suspicion that the snipers had been hired by the same opposition to trigger the violence having received news from the doctor Ol’ha Bohomolec’ that “all the evidence showed how it was the snipers themselves who killed both the people who were protesting in the streets and the policemen who tried to contain the protest”. Olha Bohomolec’ herself, a presidential candidate in the May 2014 elections. Then distanced herself from Paet’s remarks, insisting that she would not say what was reported, demanding that the new government investigate the incidents» writes Wikipedia. which then shows the different versions.
The new government accused President Viktor Janukovyč of ordering the police to open fire on February 18-20, 2014, claiming that Russian agents had played a role in the killings; also according to Valentyn Nalyvajčenko, the new head of the SBU (Ukrainian Security Service) there would be the involvement of the Russian security services and Janukovyč would have ordered 108 members of the SBU to retake a building occupied by demonstrators in Kyiv on February 18, 2014.
The new Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, said 12 members of the Berkut Special Police Force (disbanded by the new government) were identified as suspects in the killing of 17 people on Institut’ska Street. Relying on the similarity of the gunshot wounds found on the victims, Acting Health Minister Oleh Musij said instead that protesters and policemen would have been hit by the same guns as part of a plot by former supporters of President Viktor Janukovyč to turn the population against the president himself by calling into question the phantom “Russian special forces”.
Opposed President Viktor Janukovyč has resolutely denied ever ordering the police to open fire on protesters accusing the opposition of starting the shootings, declaring that “No power is worth a drop of blood” and that “Many times my supporters they urged me to act more resolutely against Maidan, but I never did. We should have disarmed the extremist elements, the same ones that are now a headache for the new leaders.” Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said Russia had information about Ukrainian far-right groups coordinating sniper attacks in Kyiv.
Videos and photographs of the clashes obviously show that Ukrainian security forces were armed with assault rifles and at least one sniper rifle, but that the protesters were also armed with rifles, although some of these may have been air guns.
THE ITALIAN JOURNALIST’s SCOOP
I followed the evolution of the coup in Ukraine day by day: from the president’s request to Parliament to vote an amnesty for all demonstrators and the repeal of anti-protest laws, in exchange for an end to the violence of the streets, until the bloodbath after which Yanukovich and the opposition leaders reach an agreement that provides for early elections and a Government of National Unity as well as a return to the 2004 Constitution, with significant limitation of presidential powers. Although signed by both sides, it will never be implemented because the revolt will not end until his flight to Russia on February 22.
But who really shot the crowd? The most credible answer was reported by Gospa News in one of the first geopolitical surveys of this Christian news site: “Donbas, the massacre for gas”, published on 2 September 2018.
To shed light on the massacre was a great reporter of war conflicts, Gian Micalessin, who in the Eyes of War column of the Milanese newspaper Il Giornale on November 16, 2017, gave a sensational scoop on the Kyiv revolution. Following his sources, he went as far as Macedonia to interview those snipers, now protected by their nation and by the oblivion thrown into the massacre by the government of Petro Oleksyovyč Poroshenko, the pro-European president who took over the reins of Ukraine after Yanukovych.
“The first meeting was with Mamulashvili at the office of the National Movement – Zalogy tells Micalessin – the Ukrainian uprising in 2013 was similar to the “Pink Revolution” that took place in Georgia years earlier. We had to direct and guide it by applying the same scheme used for the “Pink Revolution”. Alexander’s version is no different. “Mamuka, first of all, asked me if I had really been a sharpshooter – Alexander recalls – immediately afterward he told me that he needed me in Kyiv to choose some positions”. Our protagonists, aggregated to various groups of volunteers between November 2013 and January 2014, receive passports with false names and a cash advance. “We left on January 15 and on the plane – recalls Zalogy – I received my passport and another with my photo, but with a different name and surname. Then they gave us a thousand dollars each, promising to give us another five thousand later ”.
Well-organized urban warfare techniques are reminiscent of many CIA operations, the shadow of which had already appeared behind the shooting of mysterious snipers on the crowd in Caracas in 2002.
THE ATTEMPTED COUP IN VENEZUELA
Now let’s see the analogies with what happened in Venezuela where, for years, the same actors who have made it in Georgia and Ukraine and tried to do it in Syria have been trying to bring about a revolution: Soros, CIA (often with the financial support of the USAID vìgovernmental agency) and the operational arm CANVAS which on its official website has boasted of having undertaken the “non-violent” democratic revolutions actually implemented in Caracas with the “guarimba”, incendiary barricades that take their name from a similar harmless game to hide and seek very well known in the Bolivarian Republic, and in Hong Kong with Molotov cocktails.
Hugo Chavez, of very humble origins and who died in 2013 after having been president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela since 1999, was a lover of Bolivarian ideology, which initially developed within the Armed Forces, giving life since 1983 to the Movimiento Bolivariano MBR- 200, made up for the most part by the cadets of the “Simón Bolívar Promotion” who came out of military schools in 1975.
This personal political model is devoted to the integration of Latin America and anti-imperialism, also placing himself as a staunch critic of neoliberal globalization and of US foreign policy. His particular political philosophy was called Chavismo, characterized by the mixture of Bolivarianism, liberation theology, Guevarist, and Castro-inspired Marxism, which can be described as the first and only example of Christian Socialism in history.
Chavez rose to fame in 1989 when a popular protest against the cost of living, called caracazo, broke out. The government also hired the military to maintain public order; the army was also ordered to fire on the crowd and massacred thousands of opponents. But the then lieutenant colonel and some of his Bolivarian colleagues were among the few officers who flatly refused to carry out those orders but were not discharged or sanctioned for it. This credited him as a “friend of the people” in the eyes of many Venezuelans. 
Promoted to the rank of colonel in 1991, the following year, on February 4, 1992, he was the protagonist of a coup by the military forces that attempted to overthrow the legitimate president Carlos Andrés Pérez, whom the Bolivarians considered corrupt and pro-American. He was jailed but later released in 1994 for an amnesty. On December 6, 1998, with the Fifth Republic Movement party he won the presidential elections for the first time and was then reconfirmed in 2000, 2006, and 2012.
In Venezuela in 2001, the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), the Confederation of workers, ruled for many years by Carlos Ortega Carvajal, under the new constitution became part of the institutions whose leadership was subject to elections. There were disputes about the valid votes and the electoral commission could not decree the victory, which was however claimed by Ortega declaring himself the winner. In December 2001, industrialists tried to lead a CTV general strike by closing factories and barring workers from entering, but assuring them of wages, a promise that was not kept. The strike was unsuccessful.
In February 2002, Chávez replaced the executives of PDVSA, the national oil company, with people similar to his political project, which provoked the internal protest of groups of employees and executives who saw in Chávez’s decision the violation of the principles of meritocracy. The government considered the ideological differences between its own company management project and that of the PDVSA management irreconcilable: the first aimed at a profound reform of the operation of the company that would increase the use of oil capital gains in social plans, while the second he wanted PDVSA to use the oil profits to finance the expansion of the business.
State television released a recording of a phone call between Ortega and former president Carlos Andrés Pérez, a refugee from justice who took refuge in the United States, in which Perez told Ortega to organize a general strike and take it to the extreme, to take contact with Pedro Carmona Estanga, current president of Fedecamara and to agree on actions with him.
On April 7, President Chávez announced the sacking of senior executives and protests from opponents intensified. On April 9, the CTV and Confindustria, with the support of the Catholic Church, televisions, and opposition political parties, announced a 24-hour general strike in support of the PDVSA leaders. On April 11, a procession of one hundred thousand people was organized which was supposed to head towards the headquarters of the PDVSA, but which an Ortega harangue diverted to the palace of Miraflores, the seat of the Presidency to drive out “that traitor Chávez”, giving the march, until that peaceful moment, quite another purpose. The march, at 12.30 on 11 April 2002, resumed with the mayors in the lead escorted by their armed and motorized police, but from that moment there was no trace of Ortega and his colleagues, who disappeared into thin air.
THE MASSACRE OF FOREIGN SNIPERS IN CARACAS
Thousands of Chávez’s supporters had already gathered around Miraflores since the night, with a sense of what might happen.
The procession did not come into contact with Chávez’s sympathizers because snipers stationed in the surrounding buildings began firing first on Chávez’s supporters, then on the front rows of the procession. People reported some snipers on the terrace of a building near Miraflores, the National Guard entered the building and arrested five people armed with sniper rifles, with false documents, some of Colombian origin. Imprisoned, they were subsequently freed by the insurgents and their traces were lost.
The metropolitan police began firing on people who were on the famous Laguno bridge and who started to flee trying to take cover in the surrounding buildings reports Wikipedia.
Private televisions in solidarity with the coup leaders supported the idea of a clash provoked by Chávez’s supporters (and this version, at first, was also covered by the international media), but the countless shots carried out in the area showed that the firefights were not between the members of the two marches, but it was the metropolitan police who fired at Chávez’s supporters.
The violent insurrection, similar to those organized against the current president Nicolas Maduro first by Leopoldo Lopez and then by Juan Guaidò, both students in the USA and alleged CIA agents, superimposed on the strike, was followed by the intervention of the army coup leaders who at 11.30 they had already made a test tape of their pronouncement in which they disavowed the president’s authority broadcast at 12 after the first real killings (as testified by CNN reporter Otto Neustald).
The military had gathered in Fuerte Tiuna, a military garrison in Caracas, together with Carmona Estanga, a host of supporters and a large representation of American soldiers. From there they threatened Chávez, still in Miraflores, ordering him to surrender, under penalty of bombing the palace as happened with Juan Domingo Perón and Salvador Allende, also threatened by pro-US forces. But unlike the 1973 Chilean coup, the strong popular reaction and the Bolivarian militias will cause the failure of the uprising, but the loyalty of a large part of the army was also decisive.
After the useless attempt to implement the Avila Plan, an emergency plan was also implemented for the visit of Pope John Paul II who, thanks to the presence of armored vehicles around the building, would have allowed the defense of the institutions but failed due to the betrayal of the general Rosendo, Chavez, to avoid the civil war, decided to hand himself over to the coup leaders in Fuerte Tiunada where he was then transferred to the island of La Orilla, home to a logistic base of the Navy. On April 12, the news of Chávez’s retirement was given and Carmona Estanga soon proclaimed himself president of Venezuela.
But on April 12 in Caracas, serious riots began with the looting of shops. On days 12 and 13 the police killed more than 200 people, hospitals welcomed hundreds of wounded. In three days, more than six million people (a quarter of the then 25 million inhabitants) took to the streets in many places to defend Chávez and his government.
On the night of April 13, the bishop of Caracas, Antonio Ignacio Velasco García, was sent to the island of La Orchila by private jet to persuade Chávez to sign the renunciation and leave with the same plane to an unknown destination, perhaps Cuba. But during the meeting arrived three helicopters which brought the elected president back to Miraflores.
THE CIA’s SHADOWS BEHIND THE FAILED COUP
I have posted hundreds of documents that evidence the intricate financing scheme the U.S. government has been carrying out in Venezuela since 2001, which includes financing well over twenty million dollars to opposition sectors. The funding of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-governmental entity in the U.S. financed entirely by Congress and established by congressional legislation in 1983, has provided more than three million dollars since late 2001 to opposition groups, many of which were key participants in the April 2002 coup.
And in June 2002, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), set up an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, allegedly for the purposing of helping Venezuela to resolve its political crisis».
This is what Eva Golinger wrote in Venezuela Analysis on November 22, 2004. The entities she refers to are the same ones that sponsored the birth of Open Caucasus Media were an elusive reporter in December 2021 defended the jihadist formations that have been fighting in the Donbas since 2014 Ukrainian alongside the right-wing ultranationalists of the Azov Battalion despite suspected connections with ISIS. It should not be forgotten that the Islamic State was founded by the Caliph Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi who both Iraqis and Syrians believe to have been an agent of the CIA and the Israeli Mossad.
The OTI in Caracas has counted on more than fifteen million dollars in funding from Congress since June 2002 and has recently requested five million more for 2005, despite the fact that it was only supposed to be a two-year endeavor. All evidence obtained to date shows that the OTI has primarily funded opposition groups and projects in Venezuela, particularly those that were focused on the August 15, 2004 recall referendum against President Chávez» we still read in the article.
I have written other articles explaining the intervention model applied through NED and USAID in Venezuela. This method of intervention is very sophisticated and complex, as it penetrates civil society and social organizations in a very subtle way and is often either undetectable or flimsily justified by the concept of “promoting democracy”, which is what the NED claims to do around the world, despite evidence to the contrary.
The mere fact in Venezuela that the NED has financed exclusively anti-Chávez groups and those very same organizations that were involved in the April 2002 coup shows that “democracy” is far from the NED’s intention» Golinger added who then cites a top-secret correspondence published on an online site that has disappeared for some years now.
But the CIA intervention in Venezuela is of the crudest, simplest kind. Top secret documents recently obtained and posted on www.venezuelafoia.info show that in the weeks prior to the April 2002 coup against President Chávez, the CIA had full knowledge of the events to occur and, in fact, even had the detailed plans in their possession» we still read in Venezuela Analysis.
April 6, 2002, top-secret intelligence brief headlining “Venezuela: Conditions Ripening for Coup Attempt”, states, “Dissident military factions, including some disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers, are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chávez, possible as early as this month, [CENSORED]. The level of detail in the reported plans – [CENSORED] targets Chávez and 10 other senior officers for arrest…” The document further states, “To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month…”
Visionary lucubrations of a journalist perhaps close to the Venezuelan government? Absolutely not!
The Central Intelligence Agency was aware that dissident military officers and opposition figures in Venezuela were planning a coup against President Hugo Chávez in 2002, newly declassified intelligence documents show. But immediately after the overthrow, the Bush administration blamed Mr. Chávez, a left-leaning populist, for his own downfall and denied knowing about the threats Juan Forero from Bogota also wrote to the New York Times on December 3, 2004.
«The documents do not show that the United States backed the coup, as Mr. Chávez has charged. Instead, the documents show that American officials issued “repeated warnings that the United States will not support any extraconstitutional moves to oust Chávez.”» the NYT specified.
We just have to wait when perhaps some American president will desecrate the CIA documents, on the action of the Colombian snipers in Caracas or on that of the Georgians in Kyiv, as happened for the civil war plan in Syria designed by American intelligence since 1983, as the exclusive document published two years ago by Gospa News demonstrates.
Three identical scenarios in which, with the excuse of exporting Western democracy, gas from Donbas is hunted down as well as oil from Venezuela and Syria, where the US and Turkey continue to steal crude oil with the help of jihadists.
- GOSPA NEWS – JIHADISTS DOSSIER
- GOSPA NEWS – WEAPONS LOBBY DOSSIER
- GOSPA NEWS – WARZONE REPORTS
- GOSPA NEWS – DOSSIER UKRAINE
- GOSPA NEWS – DOSSIER VENEZUELA
- NEW YORK TIMES – Documents Show C.I.A. Knew Of a Coup Plot in Venezuela
- VENEZUELA ANALYSIS – The CIA Was Involved In the Coup Against Venezuela’s Chavez