To understand how the American people find themselves trapped in today's Orwellian dystopia of endless warfare against an ever-shifting
collection of "evil" enemies, you have to think back to the Vietnam War and the shock to the ruling elite caused by an unprecedented
popular uprising against that war.
While on the surface Official Washington pretended that the mass protests didn't change policy, a panicky reality existed behind
the scenes, a recognition that a major investment in domestic propaganda would be needed to ensure that future imperial adventures
would have the public's eager support or at least its confused acquiescence.
This commitment to what the insiders called "perception management" began in earnest with the Reagan administration in the 1980s
but it would come to be the accepted practice of all subsequent administrations, including the present one of President Barack Obama.
In that sense, propaganda in pursuit of foreign policy goals would trump the democratic ideal of an informed electorate.
The point would be not to honestly inform the American people about events around the world but to manage their perceptions by ramping
up fear in some cases and defusing outrage in others – depending on the US government's needs.
Thus, you have the current
hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by US neocons
who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Yet, many of these same US foreign policy operatives – outraged over Russia's limited intervention to protect ethic Russians in
eastern Ukraine – are demanding
that President Obama launch an air war against the Syrian military as a "humanitarian" intervention there.
In other words, if the Russians act to shield ethnic Russians on their border who are being bombarded by a coup regime in Kiev
that was installed with US support, the Russians are the villains blamed for the thousands of civilian deaths, even though the vast
majority of the casualties have been
inflicted by the Kiev regime
from indiscriminate bombing and from dispatching neo-Nazi militias to do the street fighting.
In Ukraine, the exigent circumstances don't matter, including the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected president
last February. It's all about white hats for the current Kiev regime and black hats for the ethnic Russians and especially for Putin.
But an entirely different set of standards has applied to Syria where a US-backed rebellion, which included violent Sunni jihadists
from the start, wore the white hats and the relatively secular Syrian government, which has responded with excessive violence of
its own, wears the black hats. But a problem to that neat dichotomy arose when one of the major Sunni rebel forces, the Islamic State,
started seizing Iraqi territory and beheading Westerners.
Faced with those grisly scenes, President Obama authorized bombing the Islamic State forces in both Iraq and Syria, but neocons
and other US hardliners have been hectoring Obama to go after their preferred target, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, despite
the risk that destroying the Syrian military could open the gates of Damascus to the Islamic State or al-Qaeda's Nusra Front.
Lost on the Dark Side
You might think that the American public would begin to rebel against these messy entangling alliances with the 1984-like demonizing
of one new "enemy" after another. Not only have these endless wars drained trillions of dollars from the US taxpayers, they have
led to the deaths of thousands of US troops and to the tarnishing of America's image from the attendant evils of war, including a
lengthy detour into the "dark side" of torture, assassinations and "collateral" killings of children and other innocents.
But that is where the history of "perception management" comes in, the need to keep the American people compliant and confused.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration was determined to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome," the revulsion that many Americans felt for
warfare after all those years in the blood-soaked jungles of Vietnam and all the lies that clumsily justified the war.
So, the challenge for the US government became: how to present the actions of "enemies" always in the darkest light while bathing
the behavior of the US "side" in a rosy glow. You also had to stage this propaganda theater in an ostensibly "free country" with
a supposedly "independent press."
From documents declassified or leaked over the past several decades, including
an unpublished draft chapter of
the congressional Iran-Contra investigation, we now know a great deal about how this remarkable project was undertaken and who the
key players were.
Perhaps not surprisingly much of the initiative came from the Central Intelligence Agency, which housed the expertise for manipulating
target populations through propaganda and disinformation. The only difference this time would be that the American people would be
the target population.
For this project, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey sent his top propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to the National
Security Council staff to manage the inter-agency task forces that would brainstorm and coordinate this "public diplomacy" strategy.
Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who
were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as
chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America.
Now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a columnist at the Washington Post, Kagan remains an expert in presenting foreign
policy initiatives within the "good guy/bad guy" frames that he learned in the 1980s. He is also the husband of Assistant Secretary
of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the overthrow of Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February
amid a very effective US propaganda strategy.
During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State
for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W.
Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams
is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond
and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become
an integral part of every US foreign policy initiative.
A Propaganda Bureaucracy
Declassified documents now reveal how extensive Reagan's propaganda project became with inter-agency task forces assigned to develop
"themes" that would push American "hot buttons." Scores of documents came out during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987 and hundreds
more are now available at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, California.
What the documents reveal is that at the start of the Reagan administration, CIA Director Casey faced a daunting challenge in
trying to rally public opinion behind aggressive US interventions, especially in Central America. Bitter memories of the Vietnam
War were still fresh and many Americans were horrified at the brutality of right-wing regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador, where
Salvadoran soldiers raped and murdered four American churchwomen in December 1980.
The new leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua also was not viewed with much alarm. After all, Nicaragua was an impoverished
country of only about three million people who had just cast off the brutal dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza.
So, Reagan's initial strategy of bolstering the Salvadoran and Guatemalan armies required defusing the negative publicity about
them and somehow rallying the American people into supporting a covert CIA intervention inside Nicaragua via a counterrevolutionary
force known as the Contras led by Somoza's ex-National Guard officers.
Reagan's task was made tougher by the fact that the Cold War's anti-communist arguments had so recently been discredited in Vietnam.
As deputy assistant secretary to the Air Force, J. Michael Kelly, put it, "the most critical special operations mission we have …
is to persuade the American people that the communists are out to get us."
At the same time, the White House worked to weed out American reporters who uncovered facts that undercut the desired public images.
As part of that effort, the administration attacked New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing the Salvadoran regime's
massacre of about 800 men, women and children in the village of El Mozote in northeast El Salvador in December 1981. Accuracy in
Media and conservative news organizations, such as The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, joined in pummeling Bonner, who was
soon ousted from his job.
But these were largely ad hoc efforts. A more comprehensive "public diplomacy" operation took shape beginning in 1982 when Raymond,
a 30-year veteran of CIA clandestine services, was transferred to the NSC.
A slight, soft-spoken New Yorker who reminded some of a character from a John le Carré spy novel, Raymond was an intelligence
officer who "easily fades into the woodwork," according to one acquaintance. But Raymond would become the sparkplug for this high-powered
propaganda network, according to a draft chapter of the Iran-Contra report.
Though the draft chapter didn't use Raymond's name in its opening pages, apparently because some of the information came from
classified depositions, Raymond's name was used later in the chapter and the earlier citations matched Raymond's known role. According
to the draft report, the CIA officer who was recruited for the NSC job had served as Director of the Covert Action Staff at the CIA
from 1978 to 1982 and was a "specialist in propaganda and disinformation."
"The CIA official [Raymond] discussed the transfer with [CIA Director] Casey and NSC Advisor William Clark that he be assigned
to the NSC as [Donald] Gregg's successor [as coordinator of intelligence operations in June 1982] and received approval for his involvement
in setting up the public diplomacy program along with his intelligence responsibilities," the chapter said.
"In the early part of 1983, documents obtained by the Select [Iran-Contra] Committees indicate that the Director of the Intelligence
Staff of the NSC [Raymond] successfully recommended the establishment of an inter-governmental network to promote and manage a public
diplomacy plan designed to create support for Reagan Administration policies at home and abroad."
During his Iran-Contra deposition, Raymond explained the need for this propaganda structure, saying: "We were not configured effectively
to deal with the war of ideas."
One reason for this shortcoming was that federal law forbade taxpayers' money from being spent on domestic propaganda or grassroots
lobbying to pressure congressional representatives. Of course, every president and his team had vast resources to make their case
in public, but by tradition and law, they were restricted to speeches, testimony and one-on-one persuasion of lawmakers.
But things were about to change. In a Jan. 13, 1983, memo, NSC Advisor Clark foresaw the need for non-governmental money to advance
this cause. "We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding," Clark wrote. (Just five days later, President Reagan personally
welcomed media magnate Rupert Murdoch into the Oval Office for a private meeting, according to records on file at the Reagan library.)
As administration officials reached out to wealthy supporters, lines against domestic propaganda soon were crossed as the operation
took aim not only at foreign audiences but at US public opinion, the press and congressional Democrats who opposed funding the Nicaraguan
Contras.
At the time, the Contras were earning a gruesome reputation as human rights violators and terrorists. To change this negative
perception of the Contras as well as of the US-backed regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, the Reagan administration created a full-blown,
clandestine propaganda network.
In January 1983, President Reagan took the first formal step to create this unprecedented peacetime propaganda bureaucracy by
signing National Security Decision Directive 77, entitled "Management of Public Diplomacy Relative to National Security." Reagan
deemed it "necessary to strengthen the organization, planning and coordination of the various aspects of public diplomacy of the
United States Government."
Reagan ordered the creation of a special planning group within the National Security Council to direct these "public diplomacy"
campaigns. The planning group would be headed by the CIA's Walter Raymond Jr. and one of its principal arms would be a new Office
of Public Diplomacy for Latin America, housed at the State Department but under the control of the NSC.
CIA Taint
Worried about the legal prohibition barring the CIA from engaging in domestic propaganda, Raymond formally resigned from the CIA
in April 1983, so, he said, "there would be no question whatsoever of any contamination of this." But Raymond continued to act
toward the US public much like a CIA officer would in directing a propaganda operation in a hostile foreign country.
Raymond fretted, too, about the legality of Casey's ongoing involvement. Raymond confided in one memo that it was important "to
get [Casey] out of the loop," but Casey never backed off and Raymond continued to send progress reports to his old boss well into
1986. It was "the kind of thing which [Casey] had a broad catholic interest in," Raymond shrugged during his Iran-Contra deposition.
He then offered the excuse that Casey undertook this apparently illegal interference in domestic politics "not so much in his CIA
hat, but in his adviser to the president hat."
As a result of Reagan's decision directive, "an elaborate system of inter-agency committees was eventually formed and charged
with the task of working closely with private groups and individuals involved in fundraising, lobbying campaigns and propagandistic
activities aimed at influencing public opinion and governmental action," the draft Iran-Contra chapter said. "This effort resulted
in the creation of the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean in the Department of State (S/LPD), headed
by Otto Reich," a right-wing Cuban exile from Miami.
Though Secretary of State George Shultz wanted the office under his control, President Reagan insisted that Reich "report directly
to the NSC," where Raymond oversaw the operations as a special assistant to the President and the NSC's director of international
communications, the chapter said.
"Reich relied heavily on Raymond to secure personnel transfers from other government agencies to beef up the limited resources
made available to S/LPD by the Department of State," the chapter said. "Personnel made available to the new office included intelligence
specialists from the US Air Force and the US Army. On one occasion, five intelligence experts from the Army's 4th Psychological Operations
Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, were assigned to work with Reich's fast-growing operation."
A "public diplomacy strategy paper," dated May 5, 1983, summed up the administration's problem. "As far as our Central American
policy is concerned, the press perceives that: the USG [US government] is placing too much emphasis on a military solution, as well
as being allied with inept, right-wing governments and groups. …The focus on Nicaragua [is] on the alleged US-backed 'covert' war
against the Sandinistas. Moreover, the opposition … is widely perceived as being led by former Somozistas."
The administration's difficulty with most of these press perceptions was that they were correct. But the strategy paper recommended
ways to influence various groups of Americans to "correct" the impressions anyway, removing what another planning document called
"perceptional obstacles."
"Themes will obviously have to be tailored to the target audience," the strategy paper said.
Casey's Hand
As the Reagan administration struggled to manage public perceptions, CIA Director Casey kept his personal hand in the effort.
On one muggy day in August 1983, Casey convened a meeting of Reagan administration officials and five leading ad executives at the
Old Executive Office Building next to the White House to come up with ideas for selling Reagan's Central American policies to the
American people.
Earlier that day, a national security aide had warmed the P.R. men to their task with dire predictions that leftist governments
would send waves of refugees into the United States and cynically flood America with drugs. The P.R. executives jotted down some
thoughts over lunch and then pitched their ideas to the CIA director in the afternoon as he sat hunched behind a desk taking notes.
"Casey was kind of spearheading a recommendation" for better public relations for Reagan's Central America policies, recalled
William I. Greener Jr., one of the ad men. Two top proposals arising from the meeting were for a high-powered communications operation
inside the White House and private money for an outreach program to build support for US intervention.
The results from the discussions were summed up in an Aug. 9, 1983, memo written by Raymond who described Casey's participation
in the meeting to brainstorm how "to sell a 'new product' – Central America – by generating interest across-the-spectrum."
In the memo to then-US Information Agency director Charles Wick, Raymond also noted that "via Murdock [sic] may be able to draw
down added funds" to support pro-Reagan initiatives. Raymond's reference to Rupert Murdoch possibly drawing down "added funds" suggests
that the right-wing media mogul had been recruited to be part of the covert propaganda operation. During this period, Wick arranged
at least two face-to-face meetings between Murdoch and Reagan.
In line with the clandestine nature of the operation, Raymond also suggested routing the "funding via Freedom House or some other
structure that has credibility in the political center." (Freedom House would later emerge as a principal beneficiary of funding
from the National Endowment for Democracy, which was also created under the umbrella of Raymond's operation.)
As the Reagan administration pushed the envelope on domestic propaganda, Raymond continued to worry about Casey's involvement.
In an Aug. 29, 1983, memo, Raymond recounted a call from Casey pushing his P.R. ideas. Alarmed at a CIA director participating so
brazenly in domestic propaganda, Raymond wrote that "I philosophized a bit with Bill Casey (in an effort to get him out of the loop)"
but with little success.
Meanwhile, Reich's Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America (S/LPD) proved extremely effective in selecting "hot buttons"
that would anger Americans about the Sandinistas. He also browbeat news correspondents who produced stories that conflicted with
the administration's "themes." Reich's basic M.O. was to dispatch his propaganda teams to lobby news executives to remove or punish
out-of-step reporters – with a disturbing degree of success. Reich once bragged that his office "did not give the critics of the
policy any quarter in the debate."
Another part of the office's job was to plant "white propaganda" in the news media through op-eds secretly financed by the government.
In one memo, Jonathan Miller, a senior public diplomacy official, informed White House aide Patrick Buchanan about success placing
an anti-Sandinista piece in The Wall Street Journal's friendly pages. "Officially, this office had no role in its preparation," Miller
wrote.
Other times, the administration put out "black propaganda," outright falsehoods. In 1983, one such theme was designed to anger
American Jews by portraying the Sandinistas as anti-Semitic because much of Nicaragua's small Jewish community fled after the revolution
in 1979.
However, the US embassy in Managua investigated the charges and "found no verifiable ground on which to accuse the GRN [the Sandinista
government] of anti-Semitism," according to a July 28, 1983, cable. But the administration kept the cable secret and pushed the
"hot button" anyway.
Black Hats/White Hats
Repeatedly, Raymond lectured his subordinates on the chief goal of the operation: "in the specific case of Nica[ragua], concentrate
on gluing black hats on the Sandinistas and white hats on UNO [the Contras' United Nicaraguan Opposition]." So Reagan's
speechwriters dutifully penned descriptions of Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua as a "totalitarian dungeon" and the Contras as the "moral
equivalent of the Founding Fathers."
As one NSC official told me, the campaign was modeled after CIA covert operations abroad where a political goal is more important
than the truth. "They were trying to manipulate [US] public opinion … using the tools of Walt Raymond's trade craft which he
learned from his career in the CIA covert operation shop," the official admitted.
Another administration official gave a similar description to The Miami Herald's Alfonso Chardy. "If you look at it as a whole,
the Office of Public Diplomacy was carrying out a huge psychological operation, the kind the military conduct to influence the population
in denied or enemy territory," that official explained. [For more details, see Parry's Lost History.]
Another important figure in the pro-Contra propaganda was NSC staffer Oliver North, who spent a great deal of his time on the
Nicaraguan public diplomacy operation even though he is better known for arranging secret arms shipments to the Contras and to Iran's
radical Islamic government, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal.
The draft Iran-Contra chapter depicted a Byzantine network of contract and private operatives who handled details of the domestic
propaganda while concealing the hand of the White House and the CIA. "Richard R. Miller, former head of public affairs at AID, and
Francis D. Gomez, former public affairs specialist at the State Department and USIA, were hired by S/LPD through sole-source, no-bid
contracts to carry out a variety of activities on behalf of the Reagan administration policies in Central America," the chapter said.
"Supported by the State Department and White House, Miller and Gomez became the outside managers of [North operative] Spitz Channel's
fundraising and lobbying activities. They also served as the managers of Central American political figures, defectors, Nicaraguan
opposition leaders and Sandinista atrocity victims who were made available to the press, the Congress and private groups, to tell
the story of the Contra cause."
Miller and Gomez facilitated transfers of money to Swiss and offshore banks at North's direction, as they "became the key link
between the State Department and the Reagan White House with the private groups and individuals engaged in a myriad of endeavors
aimed at influencing the Congress, the media and public opinion," the chapter said.
The Iran-Contra draft chapter also cited a March 10, 1985, memo from North describing his assistance to CIA Director Casey in
timing disclosures of pro-Contra news "aimed at securing Congressional approval for renewed support to the Nicaraguan Resistance
Forces."
The chapter added: "Casey's involvement in the public diplomacy effort apparently continued throughout the period under investigation
by the Committees," including a 1985 role in pressuring Congress to renew Contra aid and a 1986 hand in further shielding the Office
of Public Diplomacy for Latin America from the oversight of Secretary Shultz.
A Raymond-authored memo to Casey in August 1986 described the shift of the S/LPD office – where Robert Kagan had replaced Reich
– to the control of the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, which was headed by Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, who had
tapped Kagan for the public diplomacy job.
Even after the Iran-Contra scandal unraveled in 1986-87 and Casey died of brain cancer on May 6, 1987, the Republicans fought
to keep secret the remarkable story of the public diplomacy apparatus. As part of a deal to get three moderate Republican senators
to join Democrats in signing the Iran-Contra majority report, Democratic leaders agreed to drop the draft chapter detailing the CIA's
domestic propaganda role (although a few references were included in the executive summary). But other Republicans, including Rep.
Dick Cheney, still issued a minority report defending broad presidential powers in foreign affairs.
Thus, the American people were spared the chapter's troubling conclusion: that a secret propaganda apparatus had existed, run
by "one of the CIA's most senior specialists, sent to the NSC by Bill Casey, to create and coordinate an inter-agency public-diplomacy
mechanism [which] did what a covert CIA operation in a foreign country might do. [It] attempted to manipulate the media, the Congress
and public opinion to support the Reagan administration's policies."
Kicking the Vietnam Syndrome
The ultimate success of Reagan's propaganda strategy was affirmed during the tenure of his successor, George H.W. Bush, when Bush
ordered a 100-hour ground war on Feb. 23, 1991, to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait, which had been invaded the previous August.
Though Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had long been signaling a readiness to withdraw – and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev
had negotiated a withdrawal arrangement that even had the blessings of top US commanders in the field – President Bush insisted on
pressing ahead with the ground attack.
Bush's chief reason was that he – and his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney – saw the assault against Iraq's already decimated forces
as an easy victory, one that would demonstrate America's new military capacity for high-tech warfare and would cap the process begun
a decade earlier to erase the Vietnam Syndrome from the minds of average Americans.
Those strategic aspects of Bush's grand plan for a "new world order" began to emerge after the US-led coalition started pummeling
Iraq with air strikes in mid-January 1991. The bombings inflicted severe damage on Iraq's military and civilian infrastructure and
slaughtered a large number of non-combatants, including the incineration of some 400 women and children in a Baghdad bomb shelter
on Feb. 13. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Recalling
the Slaughter of Innocents."]
The air war's damage was so severe that some world leaders looked for a way to end the carnage and arrange Iraq's departure from
Kuwait. Even senior US military field commanders, such as Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, looked favorably on proposals for sparing lives.
But Bush was fixated on a ground war. Though secret from the American people at that time, Bush had long determined that a peaceful
Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait would not be allowed. Indeed, Bush was privately fearful that the Iraqis might capitulate before the
United States could attack.
At the time, conservative columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak were among the few outsiders who described Bush's obsession
with exorcising the Vietnam Syndrome. On Feb. 25, 1991, they wrote that the Gorbachev initiative brokering Iraq's surrender of Kuwait
"stirred fears" among Bush's advisers that the Vietnam Syndrome might survive the Gulf War.
"There was considerable relief, therefore, when the President … made clear he was having nothing to do with the deal that would
enable Saddam Hussein to bring his troops out of Kuwait with flags flying," Evans and Novak wrote. "Fear of a peace deal at the Bush
White House had less to do with oil, Israel or Iraqi expansionism than with the bitter legacy of a lost war. 'This is the chance
to get rid of the Vietnam Syndrome,' one senior aide told us."
In the 1999 book, Shadow, author Bob Woodward confirmed that Bush was adamant about fighting a war, even as the White House pretended
it would be satisfied with an unconditional Iraqi withdrawal. "We have to have a war," Bush told his inner circle of Secretary of
State James Baker, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and Gen. Colin Powell, according to Woodward.
"Scowcroft was aware that this understanding could never be stated publicly or be permitted to leak out. An American president
who declared the necessity of war would probably be thrown out of office. Americans were peacemakers, not warmongers," Woodward wrote.
The Ground War
However, the "fear of a peace deal" resurfaced in the wake of the US-led bombing campaign. Soviet diplomats met with Iraqi leaders
who let it be known that they were prepared to withdraw their troops from Kuwait unconditionally.
Learning of Gorbachev's proposed settlement, Schwarzkopf also saw little reason for US soldiers to die if the Iraqis were prepared
to withdraw and leave their heavy weapons behind. There was also the prospect of chemical warfare that the Iraqis might use against
advancing American troops. Schwarzkopf saw the possibility of heavy US casualties.
But Gorbachev's plan was running into trouble with President Bush and his political subordinates who wanted a ground war to crown
the US victory. Schwarzkopf reached out to Gen. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to make the case for peace with the
President.
On Feb. 21, 1991, the two generals hammered out a cease-fire proposal for presentation to the NSC. The peace deal would give Iraqi
forces one week to march out of Kuwait while leaving their armor and heavy equipment behind. Schwarzkopf thought he had Powell's
commitment to pitch the plan at the White House.
But Powell found himself caught in the middle. He wanted to please Bush while still representing the concerns of the field commanders.
When Powell arrived at the White House late on the evening of Feb. 21, he found Bush angry about the Soviet peace initiative. Still,
according to Woodward's Shadow, Powell reiterated that he and Schwarzkopf "would rather see the Iraqis walk out than be driven out."
In My American Journey, Powell expressed sympathy for Bush's predicament. "The President's problem was how to say no to Gorbachev
without appearing to throw away a chance for peace," Powell wrote. "I could hear the President's growing distress in his voice. 'I
don't want to take this deal,' he said. 'But I don't want to stiff Gorbachev, not after he's come this far with us. We've got to
find a way out'."
Powell sought Bush's attention. "I raised a finger," Powell wrote. "The President turned to me. 'Got something, Colin?'," Bush
asked. But Powell did not outline Schwarzkopf's one-week cease-fire plan. Instead, Powell offered a different idea intended to make
the ground offensive inevitable.
"We don't stiff Gorbachev," Powell explained. "Let's put a deadline on Gorby's proposal. We say, great idea, as long as they're
completely on their way out by, say, noon Saturday," Feb. 23, less than two days away.
Powell understood that the two-day deadline would not give the Iraqis enough time to act, especially with their command-and-control
systems severely damaged by the air war. The plan was a public-relations strategy to guarantee that the White House got its ground
war. "If, as I suspect, they don't move, then the flogging begins," Powell told a gratified president.
The next day, at 10:30 a.m., a Friday, Bush announced his ultimatum. There would be a Saturday noon deadline for the Iraqi withdrawal,
as Powell had recommended. Schwarzkopf and his field commanders in Saudi Arabia watched Bush on television and immediately grasped
its meaning.
"We all knew by then which it would be," Schwarzkopf wrote. "We were marching toward a Sunday morning attack."
When the Iraqis predictably missed the deadline, American and allied forces launched the ground offensive at 0400 on Feb. 24,
Persian Gulf time.
Though Iraqi forces were soon in full retreat, the allies pursued and slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers in the 100-hour
war. US casualties were light, 147 killed in combat and another 236 killed in accidents or from other causes. "Small losses as military
statistics go," wrote Powell, "but a tragedy for each family."
On Feb. 28, the day the war ended, Bush celebrated the victory. "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all,"
the President exulted, speaking to a group at the White House. [For more details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]
So as not to put a damper on the post-war happy feelings, the US news media decided not to show many of the grisliest photos,
such as charred Iraqi soldiers ghoulishly still seated in their burned-out trucks where they had been incinerated while trying to
flee. By that point, US journalists knew it wasn't smart for their careers to present a reality that didn't make the war look good.
Enduring Legacy
Though Reagan's creation of a domestic propaganda bureaucracy began more than three decades ago – and Bush's vanquishing of the
Vietnam Syndrome was more than two decades ago – the legacy of those actions continue to reverberate today in how the perceptions
of the American people are now routinely managed. That was true during last decade's Iraq War and this decade's conflicts in Libya,
Syria and Ukraine as well as the economic sanctions against Iran and Russia.
Indeed, while the older generation that pioneered these domestic propaganda techniques has passed from the scene, many of their
protégés are still around along with some of the same organizations. The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983
at the urgingof CIA Director Casey
and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger
budget, now exceeding $100 million a year.
Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists
and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda
drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's "A Shadow
Foreign Policy."]
Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing
US interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled "Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the
presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force.
A New York Times article about Kagan's influence over Obama
reported that Kagan's wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, apparently had a hand in crafting the attack on her
ostensible boss, President Obama.
According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing
Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" – a suggestion
that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife.
Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on Kagan's attack on President Obama, she indicated that she holds similar views.
"But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it
that way."
Misguided Media
In the three decades since Reagan's propaganda machine was launched, the American press corps also has fallen more and more into
line with an aggressive US government's foreign policy strategies. Those of us in the mainstream media who resisted the propaganda
pressures mostly saw our careers suffer while those who played along moved steadily up the ranks into positions of more money and
more status.
Even after the Iraq War debacle when nearly the entire mainstream media went with the pro-invasion flow, there was almost no accountability
for that historic journalistic failure. Indeed, the neocon influence at major newspapers, such as the Washington Post and the New
York Times, only has solidified since.
Today's coverage of the Syrian civil war or the Ukraine crisis is so firmly in line with the State Department's propaganda
"themes" that it would put smiles on the faces of William Casey and Walter Raymond if they were around today to see how seamlessly
the "perception management" now works. There's no need any more to send out "public diplomacy" teams to bully editors and news
executives. Everyone is already onboard.
Rupert Murdoch's media empire is bigger than ever, but his neocon messaging barely stands out as distinctive, given how the neocons
also have gained control of the editorial and foreign-reporting sections of the Washington Post, the New York Times and virtually
every other major news outlet. For instance, the demonizing of Russian President Putin is now so total that no honest person could
look at those articles and see anything approaching objective or evenhanded journalism. Yet, no one loses a job over this lack of
professionalism.
The Reagan administration's dreams of harnessing private foundations and non-governmental organizations have also come true. The
Orwellian circle has been completed with many American "anti-war" groups advocating for "humanitarian" wars in Syria and other countries
targeted by US propaganda. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Selling
'Peace Groups' on US-Led Wars."]
Much as Reagan's "public diplomacy" apparatus once sent around "defectors" to lambaste Nicaragua's Sandinistas by citing hyped-up
human rights violations now the work is done by NGOs with barely perceptible threads back to the US government. Just as Freedom House
had "credibility" in the 1980s because of its earlier reputation as a human rights group, now other groups carrying the "human rights"
tag, such as Human Rights Watch, are in the forefront of urging US military interventions based on murky or propagandistic claims.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "The Collapsing
Syria-Sarin Case."]
At this advanced stage of America's quiet surrender to "perception management," it is even hard to envision how one could
retrace the many steps that would lead back to the concept of a democratic Republic based on an informed electorate. Many on
the American Right remain entranced by the old propaganda theme about the "liberal media" and still embrace Reagan as their beloved
icon. Meanwhile, many liberals can't break away from their own wistful trust in the New York Times and their empty hope that the
media really is "liberal."
To confront the hard truth is not easy. Indeed, in this case, it can cause despair because there are so few voices to
trust and they are easily drowned out by floods of disinformation that can come from any angle – right, left or center. Yet, for
the American democratic Republic to reset its goal toward an informed electorate, there is no option other than to build institutions
that are determinedly committed to the truth.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pioneered "perception management" to get the American people to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome"
and accept more U.S. interventionism, but that propaganda structure continues to this day getting the public to buy in to endless
war.
By Robert Parry
To understand how the American people find themselves trapped in today's Orwellian dystopia of endless warfare against an ever-shifting
collection of "evil" enemies, you have to think back to the Vietnam War and the shock to the ruling elite caused by an unprecedented
popular uprising against that war.
While on the surface Official Washington pretended that the mass protests didn't change policy, a panicky reality existed behind
the scenes, a recognition that a major investment in domestic propaganda would be needed to ensure that future imperial adventures
would have the public's eager support or at least its confused acquiescence.
This commitment to what the insiders called "perception management" began in earnest with the Reagan administration in the
1980s but it would come to be the accepted practice of all subsequent administrations, including the present one of President
Barack Obama.
In that sense, propaganda in pursuit of foreign policy goals would trump the democratic ideal of an informed electorate. The
point would be not to honestly inform the American people about events around the world but to manage their perceptions by ramping
up fear in some cases and defusing outrage in others – depending on the U.S. government's needs.
Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by
the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame
on Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Yet, many of these same U.S. foreign policy operatives – outraged over Russia's limited intervention to protect ethic Russians
in eastern Ukraine – are demanding that President Obama launch an air war against the Syrian military as a "humanitarian" intervention
there.
In other words, if the Russians act to shield ethnic Russians on their border who are being bombarded by a coup regime in Kiev
that was installed with U.S. support, the Russians are the villains blamed for the thousands of civilian deaths, even though the
vast majority of the casualties have been inflicted by the Kiev regime from indiscriminate bombing and from dispatching neo-Nazi
militias to do the street fighting.
In Ukraine, the exigent circumstances don't matter, including the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected president
last February. It's all about white hats for the current Kiev regime and black hats for the ethnic Russians and especially for
Putin.
But an entirely different set of standards has applied to Syria where a U.S.-backed rebellion, which included violent Sunni
jihadists from the start, wore the white hats and the relatively secular Syrian government, which has responded with excessive
violence of its own, wears the black hats. But a problem to that neat dichotomy arose when one of the major Sunni rebel forces,
the Islamic State, started seizing Iraqi territory and beheading Westerners.
Faced with those grisly scenes, President Obama authorized bombing the Islamic State forces in both Iraq and Syria, but neocons
and other U.S. hardliners have been hectoring Obama to go after their preferred target, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, despite
the risk that destroying the Syrian military could open the gates of Damascus to the Islamic State or al-Qaeda's Nusra Front.
Lost on the Dark Side
You might think that the American public would begin to rebel against these messy entangling alliances with the 1984-like demonizing
of one new "enemy" after another. Not only have these endless wars drained trillions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayers, they
have led to the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and to the tarnishing of America's image from the attendant evils of war, including
a lengthy detour into the "dark side" of torture, assassinations and "collateral" killings of children and other innocents.
But that is where the history of "perception management" comes in, the need to keep the American people compliant and confused.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration was determined to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome," the revulsion that many Americans felt
for warfare after all those years in the blood-soaked jungles of Vietnam and all the lies that clumsily justified the war.
So, the challenge for the U.S. government became: how to present the actions of "enemies" always in the darkest light while
bathing the behavior of the U.S. "side" in a rosy glow. You also had to stage this propaganda theater in an ostensibly "free country"
with a supposedly "independent press."
From documents declassified or leaked over the past several decades, including an unpublished draft chapter of the congressional
Iran-Contra investigation, we now know a great deal about how this remarkable project was undertaken and who the key players were.
Perhaps not surprisingly much of the initiative came from the Central Intelligence Agency, which housed the expertise for manipulating
target populations through propaganda and disinformation. The only difference this time would be that the American people would
be the target population.
For this project, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey sent his top propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to the
National Security Council staff to manage the inter-agency task forces that would brainstorm and coordinate this "public diplomacy"
strategy.
Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures
who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington
was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America.
Now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a columnist at the Washington Post, Kagan remains an expert in presenting foreign
policy initiatives within the "good guy/bad guy" frames that he learned in the 1980s. He is also the husband of Assistant Secretary
of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the overthrow of Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last
February amid a very effective U.S. propaganda strategy.
During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State
for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George
W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy."
Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of
Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have
now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative.
A Propaganda Bureaucracy
Declassified documents now reveal how extensive Reagan's propaganda project became with inter-agency task forces assigned to
develop "themes" that would push American "hot buttons." Scores of documents came out during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987 and
hundreds more are now available at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, California.
What the documents reveal is that at the start of the Reagan administration, CIA Director Casey faced a daunting challenge
in trying to rally public opinion behind aggressive U.S. interventions, especially in Central America. Bitter memories of the
Vietnam War were still fresh and many Americans were horrified at the brutality of right-wing regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador,
where Salvadoran soldiers raped and murdered four American churchwomen in December 1980.
The new leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua also was not viewed with much alarm. After all, Nicaragua was an impoverished
country of only about three million people who had just cast off the brutal dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza.
So, Reagan's initial strategy of bolstering the Salvadoran and Guatemalan armies required defusing the negative publicity about
them and somehow rallying the American people into supporting a covert CIA intervention inside Nicaragua via a counterrevolutionary
force known as the Contras led by Somoza's ex-National Guard officers.
Reagan's task was made tougher by the fact that the Cold War's anti-communist arguments had so recently been discredited in
Vietnam. As deputy assistant secretary to the Air Force, J. Michael Kelly, put it, "the most critical special operations mission
we have … is to persuade the American people that the communists are out to get us."
At the same time, the White House worked to weed out American reporters who uncovered facts that undercut the desired public
images. As part of that effort, the administration attacked New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing the Salvadoran
regime's massacre of about 800 men, women and children in the village of El Mozote in northeast El Salvador in December 1981.
Accuracy in Media and conservative news organizations, such as The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, joined in pummeling Bonner,
who was soon ousted from his job.
But these were largely ad hoc efforts. A more comprehensive "public diplomacy" operation took shape beginning in 1982 when
Raymond, a 30-year veteran of CIA clandestine services, was transferred to the NSC.
A slight, soft-spoken New Yorker who reminded some of a character from a John le Carré spy novel, Raymond was an intelligence
officer who "easily fades into the woodwork," according to one acquaintance. But Raymond would become the sparkplug for this high-powered
propaganda network, according to a draft chapter of the Iran-Contra report.
Though the draft chapter didn't use Raymond's name in its opening pages, apparently because some of the information came from
classified depositions, Raymond's name was used later in the chapter and the earlier citations matched Raymond's known role. According
to the draft report, the CIA officer who was recruited for the NSC job had served as Director of the Covert Action Staff at the
CIA from 1978 to 1982 and was a "specialist in propaganda and disinformation."
"The CIA official [Raymond] discussed the transfer with [CIA Director] Casey and NSC Advisor William Clark that he be assigned
to the NSC as [Donald] Gregg's successor [as coordinator of intelligence operations in June 1982] and received approval for his
involvement in setting up the public diplomacy program along with his intelligence responsibilities," the chapter said.
"In the early part of 1983, documents obtained by the Select [Iran-Contra] Committees indicate that the Director of the Intelligence
Staff of the NSC [Raymond] successfully recommended the establishment of an inter-governmental network to promote and manage a
public diplomacy plan designed to create support for Reagan Administration policies at home and abroad."
During his Iran-Contra deposition, Raymond explained the need for this propaganda structure, saying: "We were not configured
effectively to deal with the war of ideas."
One reason for this shortcoming was that federal law forbade taxpayers' money from being spent on domestic propaganda or grassroots
lobbying to pressure congressional representatives. Of course, every president and his team had vast resources to make their case
in public, but by tradition and law, they were restricted to speeches, testimony and one-on-one persuasion of lawmakers.
But things were about to change. In a Jan. 13, 1983, memo, NSC Advisor Clark foresaw the need for non-governmental money to
advance this cause. "We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding," Clark wrote.
As administration officials began reaching out to wealthy supporters, lines against domestic propaganda soon were crossed as
the operation took aim not only at foreign audiences but at U.S. public opinion, the press and congressional Democrats who opposed
funding the Nicaraguan Contras.
At the time, the Contras were earning a gruesome reputation as human rights violators and terrorists. To change this negative
perception of the Contras as well as of the U.S.-backed regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, the Reagan administration created
a full-blown, clandestine propaganda network.
In January 1983, President Reagan took the first formal step to create this unprecedented peacetime propaganda bureaucracy
by signing National Security Decision Directive 77, entitled "Management of Public Diplomacy Relative to National Security." Reagan
deemed it "necessary to strengthen the organization, planning and coordination of the various aspects of public diplomacy of the
United States Government. "
Reagan ordered the creation of a special planning group within the National Security Council to direct these "public diplomacy"
campaigns. The planning group would be headed by the CIA's Walter Raymond Jr. and one of its principal arms would be a new Office
of Public Diplomacy for Latin America, housed at the State Department but under the control of the NSC....
In 1975, West Germany was often under varying degrees of lockdown. Roadblocks were set up at autobahn exits and identification
was checked; groups of heavily armed police were seen in city centers holding machine guns and looking menacing; and airports were
under armed guard. The reason given for this military-like presence was the existence of a leftist terror group known as the Rote
Armee Fraktion. While the State response was disproportionate to the actual strength of the group, one would never know this given
the governmental response. Besides the ever-growing presence of police in the citizens' daily lives, there was also the creation
of the Bundeskriminalamt, which was something like the 1970s German equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and today's
Department of Homeland Security in the US. A powerful agency at its inception, its strength grew even more after the passage of the
Radikalenerlass (Anti-Radical Decree) in 1972, which forbade civil employment for anyone the State considered to be linked to several
primarily leftwing political organizations. The law, which reminded Germans of the Berufsverbot laws under Hitler, was opposed by
a substantial percentage of the nation's residents and was the target of a concerted campaign by writers, artists and intellectuals
to end it.
Another aspect to West Germany's political culture in the 1970s had to do with the activities of the media. During the decades after
World War Two the best-selling newspaper in West Germany was Das Bild. This tabloid was published by the Springer publishing company,
which was owned and managed by the right-winger Axel Springer. Das Bild's articles and editorials regarding the student movement,
the counterculture, and various other manifestations of German society that did not agree with its publisher's worldview fanned the
flames of the reactionaries in the country. The best comparison to today's media would be the news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch,
with Fox News and the New York Post being the most like Das Bild. Among other charges, leftist radicals considered the paper to be
partially responsible for the attempted assassination of Rudi Dutschke in Berlin in 1968.
Among the writers involved in the
aforementioned campaign to abolish the Radikalenerlass was Heinrich Böll. Perhaps best known for his novels Billiards at Half-Past-Nine,
The Clown and Group Portrait With Lady, Böll was a left-leaning Catholic from a pacifist family dedicated to freedom of expression
and civil liberties. His works are examinations of how ordinary people deal with religious and political authoritarianism, war, terror
and other manifestations of modern centralized society. His support for due process in the arrest and treatment of members of the
Rote Armee Fraktion led to him being equated with the group by various elements of West Germany's media, government and the law enforcement
establishment.
I recently watched the 1975 film made from Böll's novel The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum for the first time since its appearance
in US theaters. Starring Angela Winkler as the film's primary character, the story centers on a young woman who works as a housekeeper
for a well-established attorney and a rather conventional past. Divorced, quiet, with a sick mother, the only blemish on her otherwise
pedestrian life involves an affair with a powerful businessman named Straubleber and her chance meeting with Ludwig Goettens, a fugitive
German alleged to be a terrorist. It is the latter which gets her into trouble and the former that enhances the suspicion the security
police have based their entire investigation, especially since she refuses to divulge the existence of the affair. Another element
in her life is that her employer is an attorney who represents the businessman whose mistress she was.
While the story is a look at the conspiracy between the media and the modern national security state, its context is the broader
and less specific conspiracy of capital and authoritarianism. Like his contemporaries in fiction and elsewhere, Böll's presentation
makes clear that this authoritarianism is part of the western capitalist society as much as the more brutal form of authoritarianism
was part and parcel of the Stalinist regimes to the East and the dictatorships of Spain, Portugal and Latin America. In The
Lost Honor of Katharina Blum, this link is represented in the personage of the executive and academic Straubleber.
Although the book is somewhat nuanced, examining Blum's somewhat sympathetic employers and the essentially authoritarian nature
of Straubleber, the film focuses primarily on the press. While the interior security police are reprehensible as individuals and
as an entity, it is the right wing and alarmist media who are the worst of the establishment criminals in this film. Besides
seeing terrorism under every rock and in any unconventional human situation, its incapability of seeing the truth because of an ideologically
driven agenda and ultimately petty understanding of human relationships is what makes it an effective tool of the State. When one
adds an assumption of character based on the loosest of associations, the destruction of individuals becomes self-fulfilling. As
the Blum character says in the film, the role of the media is "to rob innocent people of their honor." Indeed, it is not just the
destruction of the privacy of the accused and their acquaintances by media outlets like these, but also their humanity and even their
sanity that is at stake. Near the end of the film, driven to madness, Blum kills the news reporter whose stories have been the most
damning of her. One wishes she had done the same to the much more dangerous national security state and its corporate sponsors.
If we fast forward to today, the parallels should be obvious. Although leftists are no longer the perceived threat they were in
the period of Böll's book, followers of the Muslim religion are. In fact, the recent killings in Ottawa at the War Memorial and in
the Houses of Parliament provide an excellent example of how the modern media establishment does its best to paint any unusual activity
undertaken against government officials as Islamic terrorism. It wasn't but an hour or so after the US media got a hold of the story
that reporters, newscasters and establishment "experts" were speculating as to the attacker's religious affiliation. Even after the
only possible connection found to extreme Islamism was that the attacker was a Twitter follower of a radical Islamic preacher, the
talking heads on FoxNews, CNN and even MSNBC were attempting to turn this inconsequential link into a terrorist conspiracy. As of
this writing, nothing has come of this blatant manipulation of fear and truth.
Even more indicting are the numerous cases of entrapment of young men (some quite obviously emotionally disturbed) by
state security agencies in Britain and the United States. Like the arrest of Katharina Blum in Böll's novel, these instances, some
of which are documented in the Arun Kundnani's book The Muslims Are Coming! serve a dual purpose. Not only do they enhance the national
security state secret police apparatus, they also help maintain a state of fear among the general population-a fear that
encourages them to look the other way when rights are violated in the name of safety.
The role of media in any society is a more complex one than merely reporting the news. The overtly ideological reporting of
organizations like FoxNews and the German Springer Publishing Group make this even clearer. The profitableness of these two corporations
has convinced others to follow their lead, thereby shrinking the ideological spectrum of the mainstream press ever shorter.
Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground and Tripping Through the American
Night, and the novels Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator's Tale. His third novel All the Sinners, Saints is a companion
to the previous two and was published early in 2013.
You mean that the Ministry of Truth was set to propagate Lies in response to alleged lies? Thank you for clarification.
annamarinja Tanner2 21 Dec 2014 10:38
A voice from the ministry of truth. Decency be damned. Innocent people are dying but the CIA-trained brats want the civil war
continue. The US neocons rejoice.
William Gruff 21 Dec 2014 10:26
Clearly Yanukovych allowed too much freedom of the press. The author even says so right in the above article.
That's obviously not a mistake Porky and Yats are going to make.
William Gruff 21 Dec 2014 10:23
"Ministry of Truth"? A fascist organization whose first order of business is to make sure nobody calls them fascist. Then they
will make sure only the "truth" is published, with the "truth" being that Ukraine's "heroic" troops are being attacked by invisible
Russians with atomic weapons and the rebels are shelling their own cities and killing their own supporters.
centerline 21 Dec 2014 02:48
Speaking of propaganda and media regulation, why has no mainstream western media reported on the secrecy agreement on the investigation
of MH17.
An article in Counter Punch by Australian barrister James O'Neill who tried to obtain a copy under freedom of information.
The present writer wrote to DFAT on 21 August 2014 seeking a copy of the agreement of 8 August 2014 under the Freedom of Information
Act. The department declaimed responsibility and said that they had passed my request on to the Attorney-General's Department.
This was odd, but even odder was advice from the Attorney General that my request had been passed in turn to the Australian Federal
Police who were the responsible body.
This must be the first time in Australian history since 1901 that negotiations and agreements between sovereign nations had
been conducted on Australia's behalf by the Federal Police.
On 2 December 2014 the Australian Federal Police finally gave their decision on the FOI request. It was declined on the basis
that disclosure of the document (which they acknowledged existed) under section 33 would, or could reasonably be expected to,
cause damage to:
(i) the security of the Commonwealth; or
(ii) the defence of the Commonwealth; or
(iii) the international relations of the Commonwealth.
The refusal also relied upon section 37(1)(a) of the Act which exempts a document if it could reasonably be said to prejudice
the conduct of an investigation.
Thirdly, the Federal Police relied upon section 37(1) (c) where disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life
or physical safety of a person.
The fourth ground of refusal was under section 37(2)(b) which exempts disclosure where it might reasonably be expected to prejudice
an investigation by disclosing methods of investigation or detection of unlawful activity.
In the circumstances of this case it is very difficult to see how any of those provisions would apply. The agreement, it should
be remembered, is to give any one of the four investigating countries a veto over publication of the results. A final report would
be entitled to withhold details of the investigation that would truly prejudice matters of national security.
Phrases such as 'Maidan coup', 'national guard punishers' and 'Kiev junta' have embedded themselves in the lexicon of inhabitants
in the south and east
That has happened so no amount of US propaganda will change that.
midnightschild10 20 Dec 2014 23:02
A ministry for truth how interesting. They have so many options to choose from. For instance, if they use the US model,
only those who promise to agree with and report stories the large corporations want them to report will get the job. Investigative
reporters in the US are almost extinct. James Risen will go on trial in January for not divulging his sources regarding a failed
CIA project. Obama has been after him since 2008. This is happening while the US decries the jailing of Aljazzera journalists
by Egypt.
Another way may be the "Voldermort journalistic approach" in which a country which cannot be named, can have no negative things
said about it. It's not really much of a puzzle, just look at what articles allow comments and which do not. Then you'll be able
to figure out what news organizations follow this approach. This approach seems to be widely used.
Now, if the Department of Truth does not provide reports on the burning to death of separatists in Odessa, or the destruction
of homes, hospitals and schools in Eastern Ukraine, you may see it as just another propaganda tool by Kiev. I am sure there are
other "journalistic methods" that can be used, and in many cases the "truth" is what you make it.
Cirmic -> Oskar Jaeger 20 Dec 2014 22:33
So what do you call the removal of an elected government by lies and deception?
Those European 'leaders' who signed the papers for elections were basically committing fraud on a nation.
The Ukrainian coup was a nasty affair Oskar. Very nasty. The first time after the second world war when European nations openly
backing killing civilians. D
manifestdestiny101 -> Janetspots 20 Dec 2014 14:47
Link here to a massive thread featuring loads of videos showing that the New Ukrainian government are indeed financing Nazi
battalions and conducting fascist activities. Ukraine is officially a failed, fascist state.....thanks to the US's backing.
Graphic wanting: Videos include Ukrainian Nazis conducting torture. Killing civilians, dumping bodies, shelling schools and
numerous other fascist activities.
Actually, Kiev Junta is made of people that were bought for services by the US State Dept. The Ukrainian "biomass" was sold
to the highest bidder such as Biden and Monsanto. It is hard to discern anything patriotic in oligarch Yatz and in the new Ukrainian
minster of finances, that lady that was caught on dishonest behavior in financial dealings in her native US.
Kiev Junta has betrayed the Maidan idealists and there is nothing can be done about that: the Junta will continue the State
Dept. devised civil war. The US torturers (Brennan and other Cheney "graduates") will continue directing Junta's actions.
Excerpt: Stonewalling was on full display after President Petro Poroshenko presented a Ukrainian passport to someone who, according
to human rights activists, is a "Belarusian neo-Nazi".
The Ukrainian leader handed out medals on 5 December to fighters who had tenaciously defended the main airport in the eastern
region of Donetsk from being taken over by Russian-backed separatists.
Among the recipients was Serhiy Korotkykh, a Belarusian national, to whom Mr Poroshenko awarded Ukrainian citizenship, praising
his "courageous and selfless service".
The president's website showed a photo of Mr Poroshenko patting the shoulder of the Belarusian, who was clad in military fatigues.
Experts who follow the far right have strongly objected to President Poroshenko's decision.
They say Mr Korotkykh was a member of the far-right Russian National Unity party and also a founding member of the neo-Nazi
National Socialist Society (NSS) in Russia.
According to Ukrainian academic Anton Shekhovtsov, the NSS's main goal "is to prepare for a race war".
Mr Shekhovtsov said the Belarusian had been charged for involvement in a bombing in central Moscow in 2007, and was detained
in 2013 in the Belarusian capital Minsk for allegedly stabbing an anti-fascist activist. He was later released for lack of evidence.
Even though the details involved accusations rather than facts, if true they were damning, said human rights activist Halya
Coynash.
Top Ukrainian officials then rejected as defamatory any claims that Mr Korotkykh had neo-Nazi ties.
The most effective propaganda is found not in the Sun or on Fox News – but beneath a liberal halo. When the New York Times published
claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, its fake evidence was believed, because it wasn't Fox News; it was the
New York Times.
The same is true of the Washington Post and the Guardian, both of which have played a critical role in conditioning their readers
to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All three liberal newspapers have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia
– when, in fact, the fascist led coup in Ukraine was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato.
This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military encirclement and intimidation of Russia is not contentious.
It's not even news, but suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war.
And again, supposedly liberal media are the censors. Citing no facts, no evidence, one journalist identified a pro-Russian leader
in Ukraine as the man who shot down the airliner. This man, he wrote, was known as The Demon. He was a scary man who frightened the
journalist. That was the evidence.
Many in the western media haves worked hard to present the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine
as outsiders in their own country, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting
a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.
Forty thousand Ruskies were massing on the border, according to Breedlove. That was good enough for the New York Times, the Washington
Post and the Observer - the latter having previously distinguished itself with lies and fabrications that backed Blair's invasion
of Iraq, as its former reporter, David Rose, revealed.
There is almost the joi d'esprit of a class reunion. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post are the very same editorial writers
who declared the existence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to be "hard facts".
"If you wonder," wrote Robert Parry, "how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century
ago – all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire US political/media structure over Ukraine
where a false narrative of white hats versus black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason."
In 1977, Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, revealed that more than 400 journalists and news executives worked for the CIA. They
included journalists from the New York Times, Time and the TV networks. In 1991, Richard Norton Taylor of the Guardian
revealed something similar in this country.
None of this is necessary today. I doubt that anyone paid the Washington Post and many other media outlets to accuse
Edward Snowden of aiding terrorism. I doubt that anyone pays those who routinely smear Julian Assange – though other rewards can
be plentiful.
It's clear to me that the main reason Assange has attracted such venom, spite and jealously is that WikiLeaks tore down the facade
of a corrupt political elite held aloft by journalists. In heralding an extraordinary era of disclosure, Assange made enemies by
illuminating and shaming the media's gatekeepers, not least on the newspaper that published and appropriated his great scoop. He
became not only a target, but a golden goose.
... ... ...
This was John Pilger's address to the Logan Symposium, "Building an Alliance Against Secrecy, Surveillance & Censorship", organised
by the Centre for Investigative Journalism, London, 5-7 December, 2014. Pilger can be reached through his website:
www.johnpilger.com
Somepeople mourn the death of The New Republic
while claiming it was some kind of "liberal" magazine.
Since my first contact with TNR writing in the 1990s I have never experienced TNR as "liberal". It was a racist
neocon rag written by overvalued white men who liked to hear themselves, and only themselves, talking. They reliably endorsed the
worst possible policy on offer.
Somepeopleagree with my take. And Billmon
has, as always, some
fitting and biting analysis.
Now would someone please take down the Washington Post or rebirth it as a somewhat serious newspaper?
PokeTheTruth | Dec 5, 2014 4:54:01 PM | 4
The New York Times is the grey lady of central government propaganda for the elitists and their realpolitik agenda. Its demise
along with the Washington Post would be a welcomed breath of fresh air for truth and justice.
===
rufus magister | Dec 5, 2014 8:43:35 PM | 5
Your assessment of TNR as a "racist neocon rag... [that] reliably endorsed the worst possible policy on offer" is spot on.
When Democrats sought cover for going along, they almost inevitably cited the "liberal" TNR in support.
and PTT at 3 -
I'm more familiar with the Times, and I don't see it as quite as bad.
But from what I see elsewhere of the WaPo it's definitely the Beltway Village Paper of Record. Could use it, but won't get
the revamp.
The Grey Lady offers a little broader spectrum of elite opinion, and is a little more self-conscious. There was, e.g., that
whole mea culpa about their Iraq coverage -- well after "Mission Accomplished" was declared, of course. Better late than never,
I suppose....
But I do think the quality & independence of the NYT has declined, with it becoming painfully obvious with their coverage
of Syria and Novorossiya.
As a matter of triage, I think the cable and network broadcasts are more pressing. Mass quantities of minds and mass misinformation
is a powerful combo.
'And because TNR, particularly back in the 80s and 90s, was so influential, that insularity had disastrous consequences for
American liberalism. With the refreshing but rare exceptions of, say, a Tom Geoghegan or a Robert Kuttner, most writings in that
magazine blithely championed the kinds of neoliberal economic policies that have brought devastation to working Americans. Trashing
welfare, labor unions, and "entitlements" while cheerleading for privatization and "free" trade, the magazine that perennially
policed the leftmost bounds of American political expression helped push the terms of the political debate ever rightward. It
gave invaluable cover to the most economically regressive elements of the Democratic Party.'
---
Rich kid from Facebook replaces Rupert Murdoch as media kingpin wipeout artist for capitalist inequality.
Darryl FKA Ron said...
RE: thoughts on economic diversity and liberal elitism
*
The importance of having skin in the game: thoughts on economic diversity and liberal elitism
Posted by Kathleen Geier
The recent turmoil at the New Republic has got me thinking about elite domination of liberal institutions and politics.
It is abundantly clear liberal/left media, institutions, and politics are overwhelmingly dominated by upper middle class/rich,
Ivy-educated elites, this is a serious problem. This is because human beings' economic background and experiences shape their
political views and priorities in profound ways. It is a universal truth, albeit not one universally acknowledged, that the
more economically privileged you are, the less likely you are to support progressive economic policies.
Obviously, there are countless exceptions to this general rule. Of course many economically privileged people with elite
educations have great politics, and it's just as true that many less affluent folks have awful politics. But there is overwhelming
evidence that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to hold conservative views about economic policy, all else held
equal. See two of the leading social scientists who have studied this subject, Leslie McCall and Martin Gilens, for more. Or
check out the work of political scientist Nicholas Carnes, who has found that legislators from working class backgrounds are
significantly more likely to vote against business interests and in favor of economic redistribution--a finding that holds
true even when you control for party affiliation...
*
[They definitely are onto something here but need to put some more thought into it.
We naturally associate a self-serving status quo elitism with conservative thought, but it is really just about stratefied elitism.
Get rid of all the conservatives and you are left with the same thing just bearing liberal aesthetics. The ideology may may have
changes but the optics are much the same from where the working stiff sits.
People that are out to help you do not feel the need to listen to what you think. And everyone knows that elites are always
right otherwise they would just be ordinary working stiffs.
From comments: "who but the most naive "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" morons ever believed that the fight against terrorism
was the real premise for the surveillance state? This is, was and will only every be about one thing, maintaining social control..."
MSM is also about maintaining social control... . Here is an apt characterization of BBC: "Editorially (and through superficial
reporting) it looks increasingly like most US networks; superficial, uninformative and full of trite and extraneous items, which are
usually reported in a patronising way."
In our so-called responsible governments, Ministers no longer resign despite the massive foul-ups in their departments, PMs
and Ministers no longer answer questions but refine insults and smart remarks, backbenchers build up their pensions and expense
accounts but otherwise do bugger-all because they are told nothing except what to think and what to say by the PM's office, the
police, secret police, surveillance and military apparatus grow, and grow and grow, and become more and more remote from any democratic
oversight and accountability, and we get fed a ever more hyped diet of fear despite the fact that populations in the west have
never been so safe and secure. Lots of whingeing over the loss of the welfare state but that's not all we lost.
We lost constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and public accountability. In the US, always the leader, any form of intelligent
political discourse & civil rights are pretty much gone, too.
RScully -> RScully 8 Dec 2014 11:32
Governments hate dealing with problems. But they love addressing threats.
ewelthorpe dolly63 8 Dec 2014 13:11
Trying to watch the BBC News lately is pointless.
Editorially (and through superficial reporting) it looks increasingly like most US networks; superficial, uninformative
and full of trite and extraneous items, which are usually reported in a patronising way.
What a shame for licence payers that we have to fund this pursuit to mediocrity.
State Department spokesperson and perennial question dodger Jen Psaki was caught admitting that her prepared 'line' on Egypt was
"ridiculous" after a press briefing Monday.
"Generally, we continue to believe that upholding impartial standards of accountability will advance the political consensus
on which Egypt's long-term stability and economic growth depends," Psaki said.
Lee was astonished at the response, and took the opportunity to point out that the answer was meaningless.
"Wow, I don't understand that at all," Lee said. "What you said says nothing. It's like saying, 'We support the right of people
to breathe.'"
Psaki declined to give any further comment to reporters during the briefing. However, as the lights dimmed, Psaki was exasperated
and told Lee how she really felt, not realizing her microphone was still on.
"That Egypt line is ridiculous," Psaki said.
Lee can be heard laughing loudly right before the audio feed is cut off.
Quote: "Interesting, first, that Kissinger gave the interview to a German magazine. Nobody in the American press would have dared
touch such remarks as these - they cannot, having lied so long. "
NATO was the aggressor and got Ukraine wrong. Many months later, the media has eventually figured out the truth
Well, well, well. Gloating is unseemly, especially in public, but give me this one, will you?
It has been a long and lonely winter defending the true version of events in Ukraine, but here comes the sun. We now have open
acknowledgment in high places that Washington is indeed responsible for this mess, the prime mover, the "aggressor," and finally
this term is applied where it belongs. NATO, once again, is revealed as causing vastly more trouble than it has ever prevented.
Washington, it is now openly stated, has been wrong, wrong, wrong all along. The commentaries to be noted do not take on the media,
but I will, and in language I use advisedly. With a few exceptions they are proven liars, liars, liars - not only conveying the official
version of events but willfully elaborating on it off their own bats.
Memo to the New York Times' Moscow bureau: Vicky Nuland, infamous now for desiring sex with the European Union, has just FedExed
little gold stars you can affix to your foreheads, one for each of you. Wear them with pride for you will surely fight another day,
having learned nothing, and ignore all ridicule. If it gets too embarrassing, tell people they have something to do with the holidays.
O.K., gloat concluded. To the business at hand.
We have had, in the last little while, significant analyses of the Ukraine crisis, each employing that method the State Department
finds deadly: historical perspective. In a lengthy interview with Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, none other than Henry
Kissinger takes Washington carefully but mercilessly to task. "Does one achieve a world order through chaos or through insight?"
Dr. K. asks.
Here is one pertinent bit:
KISSINGER. … But if the West is honest with itself, it has to admit that there were mistakes on its side. The annexation of
Crimea was not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into Czechoslovakia.
SPIEGEL. What was it then?
KISSINGER. One has to ask oneself this question: Putin spent tens of billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The
theme of the Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its culture and, therefore, it presumably
wants to be part of it. So it doesn't make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take Crimea and
start a war over Ukraine. So one has to ask oneself, Why did it happen?
SPIEGEL. What you're saying is that the West has at least a kind of responsibility for the escalation?
KISSINGER. Yes, I am saying that. Europe and America did not understand the impact of these events, starting with the negotiations
about Ukraine's economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the demonstrations in Kiev. All these, and their
impact, should have been the subject of a dialogue with Russia. This does not mean the Russian response was appropriate.
Interesting. Looking for either insight or honesty in Obama's White House or in his State Department is a forlorn business, and
Kissinger surely knows this. So he is, as always, a cagey critic. But there are numerous things here to consider, and I will come
back to them.
First, let us note that Kissinger's remarks follow an essay titled "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault." The subhead is
just as pithy: "The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin."
Wow. As display language I would speak for that myself. And wow again for where the piece appears: In the September-October edition
of Foreign Affairs, that radical rag published at East 68th Street and Park Avenue, the Manhattan home of the ever-subverting Council
on Foreign Relations.
Finally and most recently, we have Katrina vanden Heuvel weighing in on the Washington Post's opinion page the other day with
"Rethinking the Cost of Western Intervention in Ukraine," in which the Nation's noted editor asserts, "One year after the United
States and Europe celebrated the February coup that ousted the corrupt but constitutionally elected president of Ukraine, Viktor
Yanukovych, liberal and neoconservative interventionists have much to answer for."
Emphatically so. Here is one of vanden Heuvel's more salient observations:
The U.S. government and the mainstream media present this calamity as a morality tale. Ukrainians demonstrated against Yanukovych
because they wanted to align with the West and democracy. Putin, as portrayed by Hillary Rodham Clinton among others, is an expansionist
Hitler who has trampled international law and must be made to "pay a big price" for his aggression. Isolation and escalating economic
sanctions have been imposed. Next, if Senate hawks such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham have their way, Ukraine will be provided
with arms to "deter" Putin's "aggression." But this perspective distorts reality.
I can anticipate with ease a thoughtful reader or two writing in the comment thread, "But we knew all this already. What's the
point?" We have known all this since the beginning, indeed, thanks to perspicacious writers such as Robert Parry and Steve Weissman.
Parry, like your columnist, is a refugee from the mainstream who could take no more; Weissman, whose credentials go back to the Free
Speech Movement, seems fed up with the whole nine and exiled himself to France.
Something I have wanted to say for months is now right: Thank you, colleagues. Keep on keeping on.
Also to be noted in this vein is Stephen Cohen, the distinguished Princeton Russianist, whose essay in the Nation last February
gave superb and still useful perspective, a must-read if you propose to take Ukraine seriously and get beyond the propaganda. (Vanden
Heuvel rightly noted him, too, wrongly omitting that she and Cohen are spouses. A report to the Ethics Police has been filed anonymously.)
These people's reporting and analyses require no imprimatur from the mainstream press. Who could care? This is not the point.
The points as I read them are two.
One, there is no shred of doubt in my mind that the work of the above-mentioned and a few others like them has been instrumental
in forcing the truth of the Ukraine crisis to the surface. Miss this not. In a polity wherein the policy cliques have zero accountability
to any constituency - unbelievable simply to type that phrase - getting accurate accounts and responsibly explanatory copy out -
and then reading it, equally - is essential. Future historians will join me in expressing gratitude.
Two, we have indirect admissions of failure. It is highly significant that Foreign Affairs and the Washington Post, both bastions
of the orthodoxy, are now willing to publish what amount to capitulations. It would be naive to think this does not reflect a turning
of opinion among prominent members of the policy cliques.
I had thought for months as the crisis dragged on, this degree of disinformation cannot possibly hold. From the Nuland tape onward,
too much of the underwear was visible as the trousers fell down, so to say. And now we have State and the media clerks with their
pants bunched up at their ankles.
The Foreign Affairs piece is by a scholar at the University of Chicago named John Mearsheimer, whose publishing credits include
"Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics" and "The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy," the latter
an especially gutsy undertaking. He is a soothsayer, and you find these people among the scholars every once in a while, believe
it or not.
Mearsheimer was writing opinion in the Times with heads such as "Getting Ukraine Wrong" as far back as March, when the news pages
were already busy doing so. In the Foreign Affairs piece, he vigorously attacks NATO expansion, citing George Kennan in his later
years, when Dr. Containment was objecting strenuously to the post-Soviet push eastward and the overall perversion of his thinking
by neoliberal know-nothings-read-nothings. Here is a little Mearsheimer:
… The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is
NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and integrate it into the West.
At the same time, the EU's expansion eastward and the West's backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine-beginning with the
Orange Revolution in 2004-were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement,
and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned
into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president-which he
rightly labeled a "coup"-coup-was was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO
naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.
Drinks for Mearsheimer, for his plain-English use of "coup" alone, any time the professor may happen into my tiny Connecticut
village. It is an extensive, thorough piece and worth the read even if Foreign Affairs is not your usual habit. His conclusion now
that Ukraine is in pieces, its economy wrecked and its social fabric in shreds:
The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which will
exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process - a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser.
Or they can switch gears and work to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the West
to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.
Mearsheimer has as much chance of seeing this shift in policy as Kissinger has finding honesty and insight anywhere in Washington.
One hope he is busy in other matters.
As to Dr. K., he reminds me at 90 of the old survivors of the Maoist revolution in China, the last few Long Marchers. They enjoy
a certain immunity in their sunset years, no matter what they may say, and for this reason I have always appreciated meeting the
few I have. So it is with Henry.
Did Washington in any way authorize Kissinger's interview, as it may have the Foreign Affairs piece, given the revolving door
at East 68th Street? I doubt it. Did it know this was coming. Almost certainly. A nonagenarian, Henry still travels in high policy
circles. His critique on Ukraine has been evident here and there for many months.
Interesting, first, that Kissinger gave the interview to a German magazine. Nobody in the American press would have dared
touch such remarks as these - they cannot, having lied so long. And Kissinger understands, surely, that the Germans are ambivalent,
to put it mildly, when it comes to Washington's aggressions against Russia.
I have been mad at Kissinger since throwing rocks at the CRS, the French riot police, outside the American embassy in Paris in
the spring of 1970, when the U.S started bombing Cambodia. And I am not with him now when he asserts "the Russian response was not
appropriate."
Why not? What was Putin supposed to do when faced with the prospect of NATO and the American Navy assuming privileges on the Black
Sea? Was it appropriate when Kennedy threatened Khrushchev with nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis? Arming the contras?
Deposing Arbenz? Allende? Let us not get started.
Here is the thing about Henry. European by background, he understands balance-of-power politics cannot be ignored. He understands
that spheres of influence must be observed. (My view, explained in an earlier column, is that they are to be acknowledged but not
honored - regrettable realities that our century, best outcome, will do away with.)
We reach a new moment in the Ukraine crisis with these new analyses from people inside the tent urinating out, as they say. I
have hinted previously at the lesson to be drawn. Maybe now it will be clearer to those who object.
Whatever one may think of Russia under Vladimir Putin, it is secondary at this moment - and more the business of Russians than
anyone else - to something larger. This is a non-Western nation drawing a line of resistance against the advance of Anglo-American
neoliberalism across the planet. This counts big, in my view. It is an important thing to do.
Some readers argue that Putin oversees a neoliberal regime himself. It is an unappealing kind of capitalism, certainly, although
the centralization of the economy almost certainly reflects Putin's strategy when faced with the need to rebuild urgently from the
ungodly mess left by the U.S-beloved Yeltsin. See the above-noted piece by Stephen Cohen on this point.
For the sake of argument, let us accept the assertion: Russia is a neoliberal variant. O.K., but again, this is a Russian problem
and Russians, not Americans, will solve it one way or the other - as they like and eventually. Important for us is that Putin is
not pushing the model around the world, chest-out insisting that all others conform to it. This distinction counts, too.
Joseph Brodsky wrote an open letter to Václav Havel back in 1994, by which time the neoliberal orthodoxy and its evangelists were
well-ensconced in Washington. The piece was titled "The Post-Communist Nightmare." In it Brodsky was highly critical of "the
cowboys of the Western industrial democracies" who, he asserted, "derive enormous moral comfort from being regarded as cowboys-first
of all, by the Indians."
"Are all the Indians now to commence imitation of the cowboys," the Russian émigré poet asked the new president of the (also new)
Czech Republic.
I view the Ukraine crisis through this lens. A huge mistake has now been acknowledged. Now it is time: Instead of complaining
about Putin and what he is doing to Russians every prompt given, like trained animals, now we must complain about what America proposes
doing to the rest of the world, limitlessly.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's
bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker.
He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly,
and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.
It's interesting to what extent content of Guardian correspondents correlate with Reuter, and the latter, in turn, with State Department
talking points ;-). No there is nothing to quote here (and
Shaun Walker is the last person,
who can write something valuable about this complex subject as he does
not have enough education to cover this topic), but readers comments , as usually, are pretty interesting. Guardian discussions in comments
is usually much more interesting and informative then the articles and I generally stopped reading guardian articles that do not have
a reader discussion. Not everybody is brainwashed :-)
Europe was raiding Gasprom and creating problems on all fronts for years. Russians offered gas, investment and a good diversion
plan. Europe offered fuss and abuse.
Now EU left to deal with Ukraine over the transfers. The same story as with 15 bln cheap loan to Ukraine - they just could
not believe it is a good deal and honest partnership choosing an expensive IMF loan conditioned by a war. Paranoia is not a good
friend of business. EU will pay 3 times for liquid gas or pay for Ukraine endless stealing their gas. Two bad options instead
of one good.
thingtwo 1 Dec 2014 19:37
Same old same old, centuries of strategy power games form our global leaders, resulting death and poverty starvation and wars,
for the proletariat. Not at war then substitute, energy, currency, water, food, fear, ideology, religion territorial disputes
etc for guns and bombs. America are the good guys, no it's Russia the USA's the problem, no it's China, Israel the PLO no it's
the EU. Imagine if the planet was threatened by a common problem where all the major players had to cooperate, bigger than Ebola.
We're F*********D.
A scientific theory is that we could farm cheap solar energy from the moon, cheap energy for the benefit of mankind. But it
would require cooperation. F OFF! MY GOD, DO YOU WANT TO START WW3. We still live in F******G Dr Strangelove's land. One of the
best films ever. Ye Haw!
Arcosanti skepticaleye 1 Dec 2014 19:34
They can't afford to be dependent upon someone as mercurial as Putin either. At least the price issue can be predicted.
irgun777 -> Arcosanti 1 Dec 2014 19:34
Putin was in power for long time . It was quiet , there was no " invasion " or " little green men " until Mrs Nuland decided
to bake coockies for the snipers and cherry pick up nationalists .
BTW , the term " invasion " is kind of misleading given the 2000 miles border and the number of the Russian divisions who can
be in Kiev quicker than we were In Baghdad .
hfakos -> NikoNista 1 Dec 2014 19:33
According to Wikipedia and the South Stream website Croatia is a partner. But I am happy to be corrected.
Of course he doesn't matter. That'll be why the US has been screaming and wailing about him non-stop for a year. It's why
every western newspaper has been doing its best to demonize him, and there are more headlines devoted to him than anyone else
in the world. It's why the last G20 summit will only be remembered for whether or not Putin stayed for dinner. It's why even a
story about a tiger eating a goat is suddenly newsworthy if the tiger was once photographed with Putin.
It's why he's been voted Forbes' Most Powerful Person of the Year for two years running. It's why his image is everywhere,
from a special cartoon exhibition in Russia to toilet paper in Ukraine. It's why the US and EU have been shrieking ever more shrilly
'Stop Putin! Stop Putin!' until they're frankly red in the face. Because he just doesn't matter.
There's only one person who sticks his hands in his pockets and says sniffily that a game doesn't matter - and that's the one
who's losing it. Whoever that is, it certainly isn't Vladimir Putin.
Roodan -> Arcosanti 1 Dec 2014 19:24
I don't blame anyone in particular they are all as bad as each other, the history of the GFC did nit start with Russia. The
continued pretence that it is all the fault of the bad Putin is just the most stupid thing I ever herd how this contest will turn
out know one known. It not so much what might happen to the Russian economy it's more about what is happening to everyone else's
economy it may be that "Russia isn't that big of an economy. It's collapse would be manageable."
Just the same the realities on the streets of European nations are still bad for the people who live there and that has nothing
to do with Russian leadership and everything to do with our own and all the ranting about Putin wont fix that.
hfakos -> JonCymru 1 Dec 2014 19:23
We will still rely on Russian gas, but it will keep flowing through a bankrupt Ukraine, which will steal our paid-for gas,
as she did in 2006 and 2009.
skepticaleye -> Arcosanti 1 Dec 2014 19:20
But poorer countries in Europe may not be able to afford the alternatives. Take the deal Putin gave Turkey for example. Even
before the new discount, natural gas from Russia is already cheaper than the alternate sources that Turkey have.
irgun777 1 Dec 2014 19:18
" the European commission has said the pipeline needs to conform to European competition rules, and has put pressure on Bulgaria
not to back the project in its current form. "
Bulgaria violates European competition rules ? Apparently , the project is in the Bulgarian
and the Russian national interests. Alternative supply to Europe is also in EU interest.
Who is pressuring EU to impose " competition rules " if there are no European competitors
between Russian and Bulgarian Black Sea coasts ?
NikoNista -> hfakos 1 Dec 2014 19:18
Nope, our government wasn't interested in South Stream.Our government is more interested in building LNG terminal on Krk.I
just wonder why should anyone have interest in using it, since it can't be profitable.Not mentioning Krk is major tourist destination.
skepticaleye -> Tepluken 1 Dec 2014 19:17
The EU Commission has objections over the South Stream pipeline for a while now. And with the new Prime Minister of Bulgaria
who wants to stop the pipeline project through his country, the South Stream's viability is shaky at best. Putin's statement wasn't
a "retaliation" against the EU. It's merely stating a fait accompli, as there is no point for the Russians to pour money into
the project.
hfakos -> AMArmy 1 Dec 2014 19:44
I didn't join it. And the current Hungarian government is against the sanctions as well, but as a periphery country its room
for maneuver is limited. We have the same sovereignty as Bulgaria. However, even this very mild opposition is sacrilege in Western
eyes. Try to find an article about Orban in the Western press that does not call him a dictator and Putin's Trojan horse.
The yanks denied visas to 6 Hungarian officials due to "corruption". The screw is also turned on Hungary. I expect that the
next thing the holy EU will try do is to torpedo the contract we signed with Russia about the upgrade of our sole, Russian-designed,
Russian-built, and Russian-supplied nuclear power plant in Paks. Which, incidentally, generates 40% of our electricity. You see,
we are totally free in the EU.
hfakos -> skepticaleye 1 Dec 2014 19:54
Right. The German Herr Oettinger had a very nasty role in it. His hypocrisy wasn't lost on Hungarians. Somehow this great champion
of Ukraine did not want to punish Putin by shutting down his own country's Russian gas pipeline. He apparently has multiple talents
too, because after energy, he is now commissioner for the digital economy and society. Given Germany's meek response to wholesale
NSA spying, this does not bode well for our civil rights. It is amazing how similar the current EU is to the Warsaw Pact and COMECON,
what with the constant recycling of monumental political failures.
psygone -> Oskar Jaeger 1 Dec 2014 19:53
Under EU law, energy firms are not allowed to own both the fuel and its means of distribution in one bundle. They also have
to let competitors use their pipelines to stop monopolies inflating prices.
South Stream simply contravened the law. Why Putin is blaming the EU is rather comical.
But to your point, there's another reason for all this whining from Putin. The same Gazprom analyst appeared on both Bloomberg
and CNBC and he agreed the sanctions may have been a factor.
"By invading Crimea, Putin has created a major barrier for the South Stream project," said Mikhail Korchemkin
"Gazprom was unable to raise money for the project" after the sanctions went into place, he said.
And now it looks like Putin may have his hands already full with Turkey.
While Russia backs Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan is really the most vocal critic of Russia
at the UN for stalling on an international response to the war.
Greece is already against to any pipeline coming from Turkey as long it continues to occupy Northern Cyprus.
Gazprom (Russia) is becoming desperate for revenue - I'm not sure Putin has a Plan-B.
Even with Pressure from the New Roman Empire ( The USA ) ...the president of Russia continues to make agreements without starting
Wars and removing sovereign governments. Looks like some countries still have democracy ...? Guess who?
Stevie Ray
Isn't it wonderful when the media is owned by the same oligarchs that own your government?
This means that there is no need for a fascist "Ministry Of Propaganda."
Being a neocon propagandists pays really well: "A recent mandatory income declaration of her husband to the Polish government
shows that her income has skyrocketed from $20,000 in 2011 to more than $800,000 in 2013."
Neoconservative newspaper columnist Anne Applebaum is angry and upset. In the days when print was king, she could dash off her
pro-war opinions and never have to worry about the common people taking apart her arguments. In those days only a very few would
be dedicated enough to write a letter to the editor, and only a tiny fraction would be printed. All of them would be subject to approval
by the newspaper editor, of course.
Thus, when she
writes of "The Myth of Russia Humiliation," her readers take her to task. When she
writes, in "War in Europe is not a hysterical idea," that Ukrainians and Europeans should "drop everything, mobilize, prepare
for total war [with Russia] while still possible," readers overwhelmingly push back against her war propaganda. They write things
like:
Anne,
You and you family should go back to Poland where you belong.
Go fight the good fight and stop egging on America into a disastrous war for which it has no business.
and
Anne, I am sorry but you are dillusional, nuclear strikes?! Genocide, i do not think anyone in their sane mind would
even think of it.. For now the only cleansing has been conducted by the Ukrainians.. 860 thousand fled to Russia that telsl you
something.. Stop writing bad analysis and aggrevating the problem
and
The only raving lunatic is Anne Applebaum.
A preemptive nuclear strike against Warsaw for Russia to flex it's muscles? Please. The only way this scenario would be remotely
possible is if we directly intervened, which is the course of action that the sociopath Anne Applebaum wants us to pursue in the
first place.
As Counterpunch's Mike Whitney has recently written,
the Western mainstream media's constant demonization of Russia and Vladimir Putin has fallen flat among readers, who increasingly
challenge the editorial lines of these media outlets.
This greatly grieves Applebaum, whose latest column demands that negative
comments be more heavily edited on the Internet.
Writes Anne:
Once upon a time, it seemed as if the Internet would be a place of civilized and open debate; now, unedited forums often deteriorate
to insult exchanges.
Applebaum is particularly concerned that negative comments about her work are leading others to develop a negative opinion of her
frequent calls for war with Russia:
Multiple experiments have shown that perceptions of an article, its writer or its subject can be profoundly shaped by anonymous
online commentary, especially if it is harsh.
She is worried that negative comments under her pro-war articles may give the impression that her views are "controversial":
Online commentary subtly shapes what voters think and feel, even if it just raises the level of irritation, or gives readers the
impression that certain views are 'controversial...'
To Applebaum, there is nothing controversial about calling for a nuclear war with Russia. Readers dare not think otherwise!
Her solution to the "problem" is to silence negative views, which she claims are all made by heavily-paid and well-organized
Russian trolls.
Anne Applebaum urges speech restrictions by demanding that any commenter use his or her real name. "Too many people now abuse
the privilege" of anonymity, she writes. "Sooner or later, we may also be forced to end Internet anonymity or to at least ensure
that every online persona is linked back to a real person."
Interestingly, Applebaum demands transparency for everyone else while rejecting it for herself. A recent mandatory income
declaration of her husband to the Polish government shows that her income has skyrocketed from $20,000 in 2011 to more than $800,000
in 2013. No explanation was given for this massive influx of cash, though several ventures in which she has a part
are tied to CIA and National Endowment for Democracy-affiliated organizations. Could Applebaum be one of those well-paid
propagandists about whom she complains so violently?
By the way, ever the apparatchik, Anne Applebaum blocks anyone from following her on Twitter who is critical of her work.
The article is regular Guardian junk and as such does not deserve quoting... Comments as always in Guardian are pretty enlightening.
Actually i would say the level of commenters make then dangerous for the US ruling elite.
FACT, without Putin, Russia would be like Ukraine, a country ruled by oligarchs and exploited by the west. It was not Russia's
fault that in Ukraine our democracy loving oligarchs employ private armies and live like kings in the middle ages.
FACT, Puin's honesty and straight talking driving more and more eastern Europeans back towards Russia. EG. Putin is much much
more popular in Hungary than anybody else.
FACT, as the much anticipated 'better living standards' have never materialised in Eastern Europe, rather I would say they are
more impoverished than under communism, people there don't have and 'unbreakable' bond towards the west. They are disappointed
that after 25 nothing has improved. All we were needed is for new markets, to dump western products and chip in to NATO's ever
increasing military spending.
FACT, the 'international community' is much more than US and its vassal states.
So, yes, Putin is popular, he will go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of the 21st century.
jqbonnard 24 Nov 2014 21:24
Ukraine: elections in Novorossia, half a year of Odessa tragedy, economic recession
On November, 2 in Donetsk and Lugansk republics were held the elections of representatives of executive and legislative powers.
The last election is of very great importance to the processes in Ukraine. It legitimizes the authorities of LNR and DNR and gives
their heads international acknowledgement, though minimal.
The great plus of this election was the invitation of European observers. And not the representatives of some marginal public
organizations, but delegates from national and above-national legislative organs, who highly estimated the final results of voting.
So, according to Euro parliament member Jean-Luke Schaffhausen, "the results of voting express real initiations of people". Ukrainian
authorities have already stated that these observers are now persona non grata in Ukraine, but by this step they only stressed
partial international legitimization of voting in republics.
At the same time in other Ukrainian region – Odessa were held mourning meetings in memory of victims in House of trade unions.
The tragedy happened May, 2 2014.
This unprecedented in its violence crime, which was unanimously condemned by leaders of biggest countries, who demanded Kiev
authorities hold fair investigation, but up to now this crime has been covered up. No one of criminals, whose torments of half-alive
people were fixed in videos and photos, has been sentenced. Moreover, official Kiev constantly shows its unwillingness to fairly
estimate outrageous massacre organized by neo Nazis who have been gaining more and more power.
In his recent speech in Odessa the President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko justified Odessa massacre and claimed that "Odessa
paid high price on May, 2 for freedom and independence". And the fact that Odessa has been called since then "a Bandera city",
according to him is "the biggest compliment"
The economy in Ukraine is close to disaster. Today 78 % of Ukrainians are below the breadline. And it is not a piece someone's
fiction. The data are presented by UN. According to its experts, "this part of Ukrainians have consumer's basket lower than official
border of poverty"
In Ukraine poverty has become a companion of educated and qualified people who have a regular job. According to Institute of demography
and social investigations of Ukraine a quarter of Ukrainian population are below the breadline. One third of Ukrainians lack money
to buy food, one more third – to buy clothes.
Though these authorities were elected by them, either were forced under the pressure of the same officials to make "their democratic
choice".
Jacques Bonnard, Nyon, Switzerland
bobby_fisher 24 Nov 2014 21:15
Gosh, Putin spoiled the party again, trolls are going nuts.
1. Russia is not isolated (G7 is not the whole world of course).
2. Economic sanctions in the regime of non-isolation are meaningless.
3. Falling oil prices have nothing to do with sanctions, but have everything to do with Global economic slowdown, especially in
China and the export policy of Saudi Arabia, whose main target is not Russia of course, but to crush US fracking industry (It
will also kill Canadian oilsands in the process, no doubt about it).
So it is not going to the plan at all, we will see interesting standoff, who will blink first?
For some reason I don't think it will be russkies, Germans already cracking and the rest of EU will follow suit, and by EU I do
not mean barking minions like Poland and Lithuania.
freedomcry -> Chirographer 24 Nov 2014
It's more complicated than that. It was always part of the Soviet doctrine that the "national republics" (both SSRs and ASSRs)
could have special interests that the Soviet government had to take into account (per Lenin's formula of "national in form, Socialist
in essence"), while any talk of Russian national interest in a Soviet domestic context would be viewed as anti-Communist and subversive.
That's not to deny that a certain degree of Russian cultural hegemony did exist in the USSR, but only of the sort that seems impersonal
and somehow ingrained. Anyone with a tangible and specific agenda that could remotely be accused of "Greater Russian chauvinism"
would never be tolerated - and, in the Soviet political culture, such a thing was hard to imagine in the first place.
EugeneGur -> Oskar Jaeger 24 Nov 2014
if you think Herr Putin is such a good president of Russia, enjoy
Thank you for your kind permission. The only thing we expect of those living in "democracies" is to stay out of our business.
You can change your presidents every 5 minutes, for all we care. We will also be deciding on our foreign policy and on what our
near or far abroad is, thank you.
You don't even realize how ridiculous you all sound, do you?
unended -> alpamysh 24 Nov 2014
I don't care who the Russians elect. It's when their elected leader steals countries that we have a little heart-burn.
First, Putin stole nothing. If you want to make an allegation, it was the Russian government--not Putin, who is but one cog
in the Russian government--which stole a country. Second, Russia did not steal any country. In fact, its actions were supported
by a majority locally and saved a lot of lives. These facts are true whatever else you wish to say.
P.S., if you are talking about individuals, you are already distracted. But, then, I suspect you might be in the distraction
business.
In a video clip insert there is a Spiegel version of events this past year in the Ukraine. The Spiegel tale runs as follows:
1. Peaceful protests on the Maidan against Yanukovich corruption.
2. Violence erupts when Yanukovich says no to EU association.
3. Protesters addressed by faction leaders that include extremists.
4. Government buildings torched.
5. Police shoot protesters.
6. Berkut responsible for deaths.
7. Extremists take on Berkut, adapting role of defenders of protesters.
8. Yanukovich deposed, Timoshenko freed.
9. Russia occupies the Crimea with troops and annexes the peninsula.
10. Factions in E. Ukraine occupy government buildings.
11. Kiev attempts to prevent secession of E.Ukraine.
12. Russian military convoys enter the Ukraine; Russian paratroopers found in the Ukraine (map shows place where paras found
as being far from the frontier, near Poltava). The presence of other Russian troops in the Ukraine explained by claiming that
they were taking vacation there.
13. Fighting in East intensifies. HR observers says civilians killed by government forces as a result of inaccurate bombing,
whereas the separatists have murdered and tortured prisoners.
14. MH17. No one knows who is responsible, but on the day the Malaysian aircraft was downed separatists at first claimed that
they had shot down a transport aeroplane.
15. Porky elected president.
16. Sanctions imposed on Russia.
17. Peace in the West, on the Maidan, where they had been fighting for democracy, but in the East the fighting continues.
----------------------------------------------
Wicked, wicked Moskali!
That's as much as I remember after having only watched the video once.
Absolutely no mention of the referendum in the Crimea, of the fact that there was already, and legally, a Russian garrison
there, and that the vast majority Crimeans voted for secession.
No mention either of referenda in E. Ukraine. And certainly no mention of extremists' incursions into E.Ukraine from almost
the word go; of Kolomoisky and others' private "battalions" of fascists; of Banderites, of the open support and adulation of fascists
in Galicia and the Western provinces; of the Western Ukrainians' immediate attempt after the ousting of Yanukovich from the rada
to make the Russian language "unofficial" in the east.
A very, very, much doctored account of events in the Ukraine this past year.
I have noticed this trend over the last 30 years in the western media. The revisionism of history happens in real time. They do
not even wait for the media consumers to forget. This indicates that the average media consumer is a brain dead retard who cannot
remember what happened two days ago.
The mere fact that the boiler plate characterization of a "people power revolution" overthrowing "dictator" Yanukovich was
accepted says it all about the level of the western masses. They will lap up whatever shit their governments and media dishes
out to them. Sorry, but ignorance or "can't be bothered to pay attention" is not an excuse. If you do not care enough to notice
the events in Ukraine, then you should not care enough to get your panties in a bunch over it now or any other period of time.
The only conclusion from the media consumer response to the two bit propaganda, is that the consumer wants to hear such fairy
tales. It is all infotainment. Simple things for simple minds.
This indicates that the average media consumer is a brain dead retard
I beg to disagree here. I think most media consumers
rank what is going on in their day-to-day life as a lot more important that what they read going on far away about which there
is nothing you can do. When do people go no the streets and protestst? Under fairly extreme circumstances, unless you are French…
In modern democracies, the voter has been taught, and blindly accepts that once you have voted in your government and opposition,
then Foreign Policy is solely in their hands until the next elections. Every now and then, i.e. quite rarely, people stop believing
this, but it is still rare.
I would love to have faith in the masses. But they are being dragged to war and none of them are resisting. Yes, there are people
with a brain and awareness, but they are an irrelevant minority in a sea of sheeple.
True enough. People are idiotic enough to talk about things they don't know. They like to occupy the moral high ground and talk about
savage terrorists. They don't have enough information. They don't think clear enough to comprehend the web of interests behind certain
happenings. And if somebody knows enough and bothers to correct them, they label him as "conspirators" or "biased", even "brain-washed",
but in general, they are brain-washed. But in the end: who cares? – says the public, until cheap commodities are available.
Why aren't more people amazed, and incensed, that the western mainstream media propaganda assault on Russia just never-let's-up?
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal had the unmitigated audacity to headline their news "The Putin Body Count." Referring to the more
than 4,000 dead in Ukraine we had a hand in, the newspaper breeches insanity, leading me to wonder; "will Vladimir Putin help dig
western media's grave?
Let me repeat myself for effect here. The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal. Now growing up as a kid, I used to sit
across from my dad as he read this financial newspaper, and the New York Times too. He was, you see, once Attorney General of the
state of Georgia, so he had to be a voracious news consumer. Dad read everything from the Atlanta Journal to the TIME, keeping up
with the latest news daily. Witnessing what's happened to American press these days though, it's no wonder the world's in a mess.
The story yesterday went something like this, the WSJ leads in:
"Russia's military assault on Ukraine threatens the survival of an independent state and peace in Europe. Often overlooked
is what the invasion-and that's what it is even if President Obama and the Europeans are afraid to utter the "i word"-has meant
for Ukrainians in lands taken by Vladimir Putin 's forces."
Is there a need for me, or for anybody for that matter, to point out Washington's part in the upheaval in Ukraine? Is there still
anybody out there unclear as to the real causes of Ukrainian dissent? Barack Obama assaults the US constitution almost daily, and
meanwhile his puppets in the EU cause their own people suffering on account of ridiculous sanctions. Is it me, or can anyone else
hear the distinct sound of someone(s) laughing, the wringing of evil hands over the Cold War II?
Breaking news for you, my dear readership, the mighty Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdock (above), the media billionaire
most adamant about getting Barack Obama into office. And since I've mentioned this kingpin of western media propaganda, it seems
appropriate to ask the reader if he or she has knowledge of Murdock's investment interests? Or, do you realize he meets regularly
with other players in the global energy and investment game, players like Saudi magnate Al-Waleed bin Talal (who's got a 1$ billion
tied up in Citigroup)? Are you watching these movements, noticing how Washington meets with the same people Murdock and other western
"oligarchs" do? These are questions you should be asking. Why Al-Waleed has even got an Islamic studies program of his very own at
Harvard. Who says "money can't by you love?" If you're wondering about Saudi royalty's agenda here, just follow the money. This Wall
Street Journal "suck up" to the Saudi prince spells Obama's latest agenda out. Read it and weep for Syria's Assad.
I quote from Matthew Kaminski from exactly one year ago:
"Mr. Obama's recent Hamlet act on Syria surprised and infuriated Riyadh. After the worst chemical-weapons atrocity of the war,
the American leader heeded long-standing calls for military intervention, then hedged by asking for congressional approval, then
nixed airstrikes in favor of a disarmament pact with Syria's Bashar Assad."
Secretary Kerry Meets With Foreign Minister al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia in Paris Before Joining Iranian Nuclear Negotiations in
Vienna - State Department
Secretary Kerry Meets With Foreign Minister al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia in Paris Before Joining Iranian Nuclear Negotiations in Vienna
– State Department
Bad Guys Hate Good Guys
Let's be clear on one thing, Vladimir Putin and Russia stand opposed to whatever shenanigans the US, UK, EU, Saudi Arabia, and
other oil cartel leadership are up to. And the leadership of each of these hates Russia and Vladimir Putin for various reasons, all
competitive. One does not have to know the "exact" wheeling and dealing going on to know billionaires only care about one thing.
However sorted the quest for oil or arms dollars (or rubles) may be, it's what profit buys that dictates right or wrong for a people.
Here on mother Earth, we've few examples today of how Saudi oil trillions, or Rupert Murdock wins have helped the so called "free
people" of the west.
On the other hand, Vladimir Putin's quest to "surface" Russia as an economic power, it's revealed a lone superpower free of debt,
and somehow clinging to traditional Russian values. In short, for the people he represents, Vladimir Putin is John Wayne on a white
horse. And the western oligarchs hate his guts. A friend of mine who's prolific on social media said to me once recently; "We're
not wearing the white hats in this one Phil." No kidding, American are stagnated, almost flat busted, robbed, abused, and manipulated,
and worse, most do not even realize it. All one has to do is turn to France and Le Monde diplomatique , to get a perspective on what's
really happening. Michael Klare writes:
"Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, South Sudan, Ukraine, the East and South China Seas: wherever you look, the world is aflame with new
or intensifying conflicts. At first glance, these upheavals appear to be independent events, driven by their own unique and idiosyncratic
circumstances. But look more closely and they share several key characteristics - notably, a witch's brew of ethnic, religious,
and national antagonisms that have been stirred to the boiling point by a fixation on energy."
How does it feel, the itching sensation everything you're told by CNN, FOX, BBC, and all the US newspapers is false? Uncomfortable
for many, I am sure. We're asked to believe (over and over) blatant misrepresentations, lies bought and paid for by the very people
who profit from our loss. The curious among you might ponder, "Why would Saudi Arabia have a key role in Iran nuclear talks?" They
were once described as "brotherly nations" back before Iran had blows with the US. Up until Mr. Putin stepped in on the US Syria
intervention too, the only discord between the countries was trivial. The reason Saudi Arabia is interested now though, has more
to do with Iran's natural gas resources than with Atomic bombs.
News flash: "Iran has twice as much natural gas as the United States and Saudi Arabia combined!"
Now we begin to see why the United States has shunned Iran for so many years. The philosophical and misleading notion Israel feared
an Iran bomb, this was and is subterfuge. Sure Israel is paranoid, but American and Saudi billionaires invest in energy, airplanes,
and not necessarily "kill all" A-bombs. Who is the good guy here? I'd say look at just "who" is condemning Vladimir Putin. Let me
assist you.
Note Iran with Russia represents a huge competitor. Also note the significant Australian reserves, and think about Malaysian flight
MH17. Wikipedia
Note Iran with Russia represents a huge competitor. Also note the significant Australian reserves, and think about Malaysian flight
MH17. Wikipedia
A Genie War Bottle
What do Rupert Murdock, Dick Cheney, Michael Steinhardt, and Lord Jacob Rothschild all have in common? They're all associated
with a venture called Genie Energy. This shale energy conglomerate has its drills in American shale exploitation, Israeli energy
efforts (though the Israelis are lately angry at Genie), a direct competitor with Gazprom, especially if we look at their recent
Mongolia exploration. So, what you have in a nutshell with Cheney and Murdock as energy advisors there, is a type of collusion, maybe
worse. The connection, for you, in between "The Putin Body Count" and Rupert Murdock paid employees is well made now.
What's scarier (or should be) for you and me is the fact Murdock and the other media moguls in on this bash Putin campaign could
care less what you think. Murdock, the western leadership in London and Washington, they've no fear or reproach even. The 1% has
become so arrogant, so powerful, they fear not reprisal from the populace. Some would say the world going to hell in a hand basket,
why it's all our fault! Here, here's where Rupert Murdock joined Genie Energy's advisory board.Now tell me the Wall Street Journal
is unbiased! Go on, try.
Here is a quote from the 2010 press release from Genie, it is TELLING:
"Rupert Murdoch and Gene Renna obviously bring vast experience and immeasurable value to the Genie Strategic Advisory Board.
Their legendary accomplishments and eminent characters speak for themselves," said Genie Energy Chairman Wes Perry. "Their decision
to join Genie's Strategic Advisory Board speaks to the fundamental importance and urgency of our mission to rebalance global energy
production markets. I join the other Board members in welcoming them and look forward to working with them."
Newscorp has a vested interest in what happens in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and in the United States especially. Newscorp and
Murdock have helped "rebalance" the energy market. Let's not be naive. Those mentioned in opposition to Russia and Putin they are
the bad guys. They're the bad guys because they're willing to ignite World War III in order to profit. They're the bad guys because
they lie to Americans and Brits. They mislead us on a monumental scale the Nazis could not have dreamed of. They're the bad guys
because they cheapen us, our values, and they lessen our lives. "How do the lessen our lives," you ask? I'll tell you.
The Obama administration is not the only guilty party where shafting the American people is concerned. Just about every politician
in Washington (of not every single one) has been set in place by people like Murdock. We all know this instinctively, and from our
forefathers. Politics has alway been about lying, backstabbing, and putting a hand in somebody else's pocket. It's just never been
so blatant, unapologetic, and disastrous. For God's sake (as my dear departed Mom would say), Wall Street crushed the American economy,
robbed Americans, then robbed them again via the administration, and nobody did a thing. The NSA shattered the Constitution of the
United States of America, and got by with it.
I found this quote by one of the world's most interesting leaders of the past. Haile Selassie was Emperor of Ethiopia almost 5
decades, heir to a dynasty with traditions back to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. The quote below mirrors what many great leaders
have said, but I use it for the purpose of revealing the evil humankind has suffered for eons.
"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known
better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
Here we are, silent but for a few, witnessing atrocities of immeasurable and wanton hurt, by the same evil. Not unlike Putin,
Haile Selassie was revered as a savior by millions for his wisdom and courage. He was also imprisoned, dethroned, and his family
murdered after a coup d'état' in the world's oldest monarchy. History recalls Haile Selassie (on the cover of TIME at right) as the
single figure who defied fascism's grip on his people. Though Mussolini's Italy took Ethiopia, it was Selassie who galvanized and
represented a people not defenseless against aggression. History may well tell of a Russian leader who defied an even more insidious
takeover. For make no mistake, if not for Vladmir Putin not a Russian value would stand before rampant capitalism gone rabid.
How can I say this as an American? I've watched half a century men like Murdock bastardize my beloved country, that's how. I watched
Bernard Kilgore's paper my Dad and his contemporaries counted on, turned to garbage since 2007.
At a round-table discussion of American tele-journalists, a journalist working for the TV channel owned by President Obama,
explained why they are not allowed to report on anything that shows the American army in a bad light, for example, destroying
civilian infrastructure.
At a round-table discussion of Ukrainian tele-journalists, a journalist working for the TV channel owned by President Poroshenko,
explained why they are not allowed to report on anything that shows the Ukrainian army in a bad light, for example, destroying
civilian infrastructure:
"I am not opposed to (our) propaganda, and I will explain why," declared Kristina Bondarenko, a journalist working for President
Poroshenko's TV channel 5, "Sure, the media can report on (a soldier) getting drunk, that sort of thing. But just imagine what
happens (if we were to report on shells falling) on some (civilian infrastructure), or something like that. Can you even imagine
(that we would report something like that)? Can you imagine that (a channel like) CNN would report on that, if the Americans were
to accidentally (bomb something)? I can't even imagine the possibility."
Arggggg! can these people not even imagine the possibility of a free press?
It's funny how their artillery keeps accidentally hitting buildings it is pointed in the direction of. There must be something
wrong with it, because you would never expect that to happen.
marknesop, November 19, 2014 at 11:46 am
Bloomberg's Russia coverage is starting to get almost as bad as Yahoo's. It is plain the west is determined to believe Russia
is on the ropes and about to collapse, that just another week or two of pressure and holding firm to sanctions is going to be
enough. The tipping point is near, just like it was in Iraq, which just goes to show you can't teach some people anything. Just
like Charlie Brown, no matter how many times you pull the football away at the last second and make them fall on their ass, as
soon as you hold out a football again they will go for it. I guess they have to keep up the happy talk so that the Europeans don't
go wobbly. And if that's what they want to believe, fine – let them. Just like that ignorant fool La Russophobe: years of gabbling
that Russia was sinking deeper and deeper into the slime, the level of depravity and corruption was steadily more and more unbelievable,
the economy was crippled and sick beyond any hope of recovery…and then one day, suddenly, I'm shutting down this blog because
Putin has won, because not enough people listened to my warnings. How do you possibly reconcile those two narratives?
Anyone who wishes to make major investment, financial or other economic decisions based on Bloomberg's advice is certainly
welcome to do so. It will end in tears, which is why it should be called Serves You Right Tax.
I see they are trying once again to mobilize excitement for a Medvedev-vs.-Putin regime-change effort. I just have to shake
my head in wonderment. Apparently what the voters in Russia think is not a factor at all.
Russian RT news channel editor-in-chief accuses UK media regulator of censorship
World November 11, 14:26 UTC+3
"Just as we have launched our TV channel in Britain, they are threatening to revoke our license upon biased accusations," says
Margarita Simonyan
MOSCOW, November 11. /TASS/. RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said on Tuesday accusations by a British media regulator
Ofcom of the Russian channel's biased coverage of Ukraine amount to censorship.
"Just as we have launched our TV channel in Britain, they are threatening to revoke our license upon biased accusations. Democracy
as it is," Simonyan wrote on her Twitter microblog on Tuesday.
"They believe our coverage of Ukraine was biased. We have found a ton of examples of the BBC bias on Ukraine and called Ofcom,"
she wrote, adding that the only answer was that the regulator does not oversee the BBC.
RT claims in particular refer to the BBC's coverage of Ukraine in the first week of March.
Simonyan said Ofcom has not even concealed that it is pressuring the Russian TV channel to change its editorial policy. "We will
not change our editorial policy, despite the pressure," she said, adding that RT is the only source of alternative information
for the British audience.
The UK communications authority published a bulletin on Monday saying that RT wants "to present the news from a Russian perspective"
but all news must be presented with "due impartiality … in particular, when reporting on matters of major political controversy."
In late October, RT launched a news channel dedicated for the audience in the United Kingdom in an effort to "challenge dominant
power structures in Britain by broadcasting live and original programming with a progressive UK focus."
Launched in December 2005, RT's network now consists of three global news channels broadcasting in English, Spanish and Arabic.
RT UK's sister channel, RT America, airs from a studio based in Washington, DC.
Fascinating details emerge. Leading US-funded think-tanks and German secret service are accessories. Attempted suppression by legal
threats. Blackout in German media.
These revelations, together with
the Snowden uproar, will further decouple the US from Germany
Exclusively for RI, Dutch journalist Eric van de Beek interviews the senior German editor who is causing a sensation
with his allegations that the CIA pays German media professionals to spin stories to follow US government goals.
Udo Ulfkotte reveals in his bestseller Bought Journalists, how he was "taught to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth
to the public."
The former editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is one of Germany's largest newspapers, was secretly on the
payroll of the CIA and German secret service, spinning the news in a way that was positive for the United States and bad for its
opponents.
In his latest interview, Ulfkotte alleges that some media are nothing more than propaganda outlets of political parties, secret
services, international think tanks and high finance entities.
Repenting for collaborating with various agencies and organisations to manipulate the news, Ulkotte laments, "I'm ashamed I was
part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this."
Some highlights from the interview:
"I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially
the German secret service."
"Most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantik-Brücke
or other so-called transatlantic organisations...once you're connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they
are your friends and you start cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you're important. And one day one of them
will ask you 'Will you do me this favor'..."
"When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening
with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don't mind."
"[TheFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung] hasn't sued me. They know that I have evidence on everything."
"No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about [my] book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller
now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about."
"We're talking about puppets on a string, journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you
see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what's really going on, you get the picture.
The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets."
And you were one of them, and now you are the first to blow the whistle.
"I'm ashamed I was part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this. Although my superiors at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
approved of what I did, I'm still to blame. But yes, to my knowledge I am the first to accuse myself and to prove many others
are to blame."
How did you become a bought journalist?
"It started very soon after I started working at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. I learned to regard luxury invitations
as quite acceptable and to write positive articles in return. Later on I was invited by the German Marshall Fund of The United States
to travel the United States. They paid for all my expenses and put me in contact with Americans they'd like me to meet. In fact,
most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantik-Brücke
or other so-called transatlantic organisations. Many of them are even members or 'fellows'. I am a fellow of the German Marshall
Fund. The thing is, once you're connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they are your friends and you start
cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you're important. And one day one of them will ask you 'Will you do me this
favor' and then another will ask you 'Will you do me that favor'. Bye and bye you get completely brainwashed. I ended up publishing
articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the Bundesnachrichtendienst."
You said your superiors approved of that?
"They did. From my private point of view, in retrospective, they even sent me to spy. For instance in 1988 they put me on a plane
to Iraq, where I traveled to the border with Iran. In those days Saddam Hussein was still seen as a good guy, a close ally to the
US. The Americans supported him in his war against Iran. About 35 kilometers from the border, in an Iranian place called Zubaidad,
I witnessed the Iraqis killing and injuring thousands of Iranians by throwing poison gas at them. I did exactly what my superiors
had asked me to do. I made photo's of the gas attacks. Back in Frankfurt it appeared my superiors didn't show much interest in the
atrocities I had witnessed. They allowed me to write an article about it, but they severely limited the size of it as if it wasn't
of much importance. At the same time they asked me to hand over the photo's that I had made to the German association of chemical
companies in Frankfurt, Verband der Chemischen Industrie. This poison gas that had killed so many Iranians was made in Germany."
What's your opinion on press trips? Journalists usually excuse themselves by saying they are perfectly able to follow
their own judgment and that they don't commit themselves to anything or anybody.
"I've been on a thousand press trips and never reported bad about those who paid all the expenses. You don't bite the hand that
feeds you. That's where corruption starts. And that's the reason why magazines like Der Spiegel don't allow their journalists
to accept invitations to press trips unless they pay for their own expenses."
The consequences of becoming a whistleblower can be serious. Do you have any indications people tried to prevent the publication
of your book?
"When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with
all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but I don't mind. You see, I don't have children to take care of.
And you must know I was severely injured during the gas attack I witnessed in Iran in 1988. I'm the sole German survivor from a German
poison gas attack. I'm still suffering from this. I've had three heart attacks. I don't expect to live for more than a few years."
In your book you mention many names of bought journalists. How are they doing now? Are they being sacked? Are they trying
to clear their names?
"No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about the book. Otherwise he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller
now that no German journalist is allowed to write or talk about. More shocking: We have respected journalists who seem to have gone
deep sea diving for a long time. It's an Interesting situation. I expected and hoped that they would sue me and bring me to court.
But they have no idea what to do. The respected Frankfurter Allgemeine just announced they will fire 200 employees, because
they're losing subscribers very rapidly and in high numbers. But they don't sue me. They know that I have evidence on everything."
According to the chancellor Merkel, elections held on Sunday in the separatist regions of Ukraine, strengthen Western leaders
intention to maintain the sanctions regime.
"We want to lift the sanctions, but now is not the situation in which, in my opinion, this can be done," - said Angela Merkel,
stressing that in the past controlled separatist territories do not vote in the spirit of the Minsk Agreement.
Old woman, who is most probably on tight leash of the US secret services is lying. No she nor the EU as a whole forces to lift
the sanctions. Because sanctions were implemented by a powerful international financial group primarily against Europe. To disrupt
the alliance between the Chinese manufacturers with European developers at the expense of the US. Because such an alliance creates
problems for the United States and for status of the dollar as world reserve currency. So they are directed at the weakening, if
not collapsing of the economy of the European Union.
The "full potential" you refer too has already been well sized up be western corporations like Monsanto and investors in fracking
fronted by the likes of Hunter Biden.For ordinary Ukrainians the IMF imposed austerity, privatisations and a huge hike in domestic
gas bills will drive up poverty, unemployment and extremist politics. The east lies in economic ruins, even now Kiev will not
(or maybe cannot) call off the private militias or the Right Sektor National Guard. Perhaps not doing so is a political decision
to disenfranchise Ukrainian Russians completely.
The "subservience" you refer to I suppose you mean as subservience to Russia. This is a simplistic received notion.
Oligarchy will be more entrenched and enriched after this election even than it was before. The only difference is that western
corporations will now have carte blanche.Apparently it is normal, given that our media omit to even talk about it, that billionaire
oligarchs can run their own private militias of extremist hooligans -- here is your new "subservience".
Porochenko and several others should face ICC investigation for crimes of mass murder and war crimes. But of course they won't,
even as reports of indiscriminate shelling and rocketing of residential areas, of the use of cluster and phosphorous munitions
are published, it merely gets a minor mention here.
The oligarchs and political middle managers will do very nicely. For the rest of Ukrainians, especially the Ukrainian Russians
in the east hated by those who undoubtedly will form the incoming government, the future looks dark indeed: poverty, unemployment,
ultranationalist violence ... and as for the "euro" in NED's "Euromaidan" campaign: it's as ashes in the mouths of all who were
tricked into believing it, it never had any basis in reality.
The "yoke of subservience" is to the U.S./EU/IMF, and no, that yoke will not be thrown off by this election.
There is a good article in the Boston Globe today, "Vote all you want -- the secret government won't change." The title says
it all, and although it refers to U.S. elections, it surely will apply to this Ukrainian one too.
The coup that removed the legitimate government of Ukraine is now trying to legitimise itself with an election. The people
of Crimea won't be voting because they have already voted. Their choice was to leave Ukraine to the fascists who staged the coup.
They ard very happy to be part of Russia. As for the little bit of Ukraine that is under the control of Kiev. We in the Eu don't
want you. Many of us EU citizens don't want you and your neo nazi policies. Take a look at the reality on the ground. Thw Republic
of Donyets is here to stay. Your coup has divided the country into 3 separate parts. ..
after 1500 dead ethnic Russians and over 1million fled from the Ukraine your troll friend in the White house is normally sending
his drones to kill the leader and plains to bomb the people...
You will be pleased to know RT have put together a documentary about the downing of MH17 You should take a look at it - and
maybe then you will realise what a shower of thugs you are throwing your weight behind
Why do I hate racist scum? and sympathisers of neo-nazis from Kiev and Lvov?. precisely BECAUSE they are ignorent, prejudiced
scum...
Yet you use as an avatar a flag that bears a remarkable resemblance to the Confederate battle flag? Yes, I know it's the flag
of 'Novorossiya' but 'New Russia' might want to pick a flag that doesn't have such racist overtones.
You're preconceptions and prejudice betray your ignorance. In 2012 I worked on a UN project improving heating systems and insulation
of schools in Lugansk, saving them over 300,000 euros per year in heating bills, and last year I worked for 1+1 on a documentary
about the mining communities/industry.
You obviously don't know the definition of 'racist', and you label all people who want a just, free and democratic Ukraine
as 'neo-nazis'. Isn't tarring everyone with the same brush a classic example or prejudice? And of course it's a complete lie.
By the way, it's called Lviv. You should go there sometime. It's really very lovely. See for yourself the people who live there.
Then come back on here and call them 'neo-nazis'.
Yes, I believe you, except the entire education budget of Luhansk Oblast was probably less than the 300,000 euros you claimed
to have saved them from heating. And what a plumber doing for 1+1 documentary about the mining communities?
Which particular policies are "neo-nazi"? The people of Crimea will not be voting in this particular election because they
are being prevented from voting by the Russians occupying Crimea. Crimean Tatar activists are being harassed and arrested by the
occupying authorities because they prefer for their (historical) homeland to be a part of the Ukraine. As for the "legitimate
government" of the Ukraine being toppled by a coup, one should mention that Yanukovych and his cronies had transferred vast amounts
of money from the state to their private accounts abroad (with the connivance of Western banks, of course) by fixing state business
contracts. The question here is whether it is legitimate to stage an uprising against such a government rather than wait and vote
in rigged elections which would be impossible to win. I say that it is legitimate to oust an increasingly corrupt and malign government
when the chances of fair elections disappear.
Accusing others of being Russian village idiots after too many vodkas (Guardian censors did not find this offensive) while
your name is "down the pub Lewis" , lol, what s Freudian slip, lol(the censors found this offensive!)
The Crimeans never wanted to be part of Ukraine. It was "given" to the Ukraine SSR by a communist dictator without asking the
people, the Crimeans had been voting for independence since 1991. for your information, the historic home land of the Crimean
Tatars is Mongolia.
Americans offered financial and informational assistance in the making of the "right sector " a fully fledged political party.
The U.S. proposed a form of the Ukrainian radical party with a political platform, party structure and network of branches throughout
Ukraine.
The Right Sector is fascist neo Nazi party. They are the militia's that are committing mass murder, genocide, torture and rape
in Ukraine.
Yep - and the separatists are angels who bring peace and love to all. Rank idiocy and exactly the sort of propaganda spewed
by BOTH sides. So, when looking for facts, consider who prospers, who gains? Russia, Russia and Russia. That does not make their
opponents innocent, but lets keep it real.
Ukraine is a rogue state. It was a violent, armed coup spearheaded by right sector militants that placed Yatsenyuk into power
in the first place, along with the Neo-Nazi political front Svoboda, and paved the way for fraudulent elections that predictably
yielded a pro-US-EU client regime. From fabricating an "invasion," to claims of "threatened" lives, to the labeling of Russians
as "subhuman," Yatsenyuk has recited fully the script of Nazism used to justify its various historical crimes against humanity.
Its no coincidence that the CIA (a terror organisation) is in Kiev, its no coincidence that the Rand corporation have documented
the necessary steps to commit genocide in the eastern federations prior to the events.Its no coincidence that Victoria Nuland
indicated the US had invested $5 billion on a regime change in Ukraine, and its no coincidence that neo Nazi organisations were
enlisted to action the ethnic cleansing.
After the Maidan the leaders of two right wing fascist organisation were rewarded with control of four ministries.
For example Andriy Parubiy, co-founder of the fascist Social National Party, which later changed its name to Svoboda became
the new top commander of the National Defense and Security Council. (covering the military, police, courts and intelligence apparatus).
Dmytro Yarosh, Right Sector commander is now second-in-command of the National Defense and Security Council.
Notice how they never talk about the Ukraine regular Army, its always Oligarch battalions, ie Azov Battalion etc, or they are
Government militia's, these militia's are made up of Right Sector fascists. The regular Ukraine Army has been sidelined as it
will not murder its own countrymen.
Like I said, who gains. Russia gets Crimea (massivly strategic value) and will absorb Ukraine over the next five years or so.
I am sure Russia will hold War Crime Trials with predictable results.
We all know that when Poroshenko committed to an illegal war against his fellow countrymen that there was never going to be
a path back. He expected he would win and it did not concern him at all that he was committing crimes against humanity. He had
no concerns about sending neo Nazi militia's to the east to murder his fellow countrymen. And his US masters demanded it.
But the 55% was on a very low turnout and so support for him was way under 50%. This time the two eastern pro Russian republics
which have effectively now succeeded from the Ukraine are no longer included in the Ukraine's voting figures so most of the remainder
are voting to be able to one day join the EU, but in the meantime the EU is not prepared to give meaningful financial assistance
to the Ukraine so there will be hard times for the Ukrainian people coming up in the near future. Look at the Poles who went to
the UK in their hundreds of thousands and are now either on the dole or working on very low wages, That is what the Ukrainians
can look forward to if they manage to get into the EU.
This is not of Russia's making, this is a US/NATO war against working class people in the Donbass. This election is a battle
of the billionaires, nothing more.
A pro EU government is guaranteed because this fascist government rules with unmitigated brutality. If you stand up against
them you get murdered.
This vote is just grandstanding the failed politics of Ukraine's kleptocrat oligarchs, but the US and IMF need it to legitimise
their continued meddling. I can't imagine much will change.
A Right Sector spokesman interviewed on the BBC said that if he doesn't get what he and his compatriots want than dumping polliticians
in dustbins will be replaced by hanging them from lampposts. Strike that country off my holiday list.
"Nuland's cookies" have totally ruined Ukraine. Ukrainians are hated by Russians for killing thier people in Donbass and sanctions
after "Rescue Crimeans" operation. They are hated by most of Polish people for the Bandera flags (flags which were used on Maidan
and during The Volyn' Massacre in which thousands of Polish children and women were tortured and killed by Ukrainians). They are
hated by most of The Europeans who want to live in peace, because everyone can see that noting has changed inside the country
- one oligarchic clan altered another, more radical one. Nowadays political establishment of Ukraine are suiciders - sooner or
later they will be caught and sentenced, if not be able to escape to The US.
Its obvious that the Kiev fascist militia's continue to indiscriminately shell civilian populations against the Minsk agreement.
The Ukrainian army has been committing gross human rights violations against civilians in violation of the Geneva Convention.
Specifically violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of Article 3 of
the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948.
It is equally obvious that Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine continue attacking Ukrainian troops at or near the Donetsk airport,
and have been doing it all along, disregarding the so-called ceasefire. Does the Geneva Convention even apply to armed terrorists?
According to Minsk Agreement Donetsk Airport down to Peski village should be under control of DNR, not Ukrainians. How about
that? Who is responsible for not leaving the Airport? And who is responsible for civilian deaths after ceasefire caused by Ukrainian
rocket system shellings?
This election is like the band starting up a new tune on the Titanic as its starts to slide beneath the waves.
Yes, real change is coming soon to the Ukraine--- but in the form of no heating oil, no jobs, militias running amok, rampant
inflation, savage IMF austerity, continued civil war, famine, more mayhem in the Rada and riots in the Maidan. It is too late
to save the Ukraine. It's future will bring disintegration as a country and, for many people, regression to pre-industrial subsistence
farming. The Haiti of Europe.
Yet more elections and red tape? More squandering of public funds to appoint a bunch of pre determined cronies to positions
where they can line their pockets from the state treasury (if there is anything left).
Maybe poroshenko's priorities should be ending the war by stopping his military cluster bombing cities in the east, trying
to do something about the economy which is likely to see a double digit decline or at least try and arrange to restore the gas
supply before winter by giving the Russians the money the eu gave him to pay his gas bills with! Or did he lose that somewhere?
If you don't like Poroshenko I should have thought you would welcome an election as the best opportunity to get rid of him.
Asking the Ukrainian people who they think should represent them actually seems like quite an important priority at the moment.
Unless your agenda is to rebuild the Russian Empire I suppose.
I wonder what your agenda might be. Since you are talking about "asking the people", they should have asked Ukrainians beforehand
whether they would like their country to be sunk even further, all for the price for a long, very long wait for an unlikely EU
invitation. Today's elections are not going to be democratic because parties have been made illegal, the opposition have been
terrorized. In many electoral districts in Eastern Ukraine people will not be able to vote because the "authorities" claim they
could not find enough people to man the election committees. As for my agenda, I believe in a multi polar world with the US, China
and Russia in a political and military stalemate. Checks and Balances to avoid a monopolar global US superiority.
The most clear and objective reflections of the Ukrainian Govt and Pres which came to power after Maidan are the laws issued
by them. If you are really interested in Ukraine just go through the drafts of the laws. I wonder if you still will be supporting
Maidaners after the reading.
I actually have. I suppose you are referring to the one that would ban Russian being taught in schools.
I agree. that was indeed a despicable move instigated by the die-hard nationalist in the Ukrainian Parliament. Fortunately,
the moderates came to their senses and repealed that law. What other, if any, unfair or ill-conceived laws are you referring to?
Because it seems to me that there have been an awful lot of sense to the legislative work in the Ukrainain Parliament apart
from that awful law denying Russian in schools.
That law was not signed by the acting President, so didn't go into effect. But it was passed by the parliament. (It's a mystery
why the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine became opposed to Kiev, eh?) It isn't about schooling, either, but about recognition
of status as an official language.
There are dozens of such laws, but the most recent one is just a complete collapse of any concept of Law. I am talking about
so-called "lustration law". It is a total farce by itself, but if you look into the exceptions you just won't believe that such
laws are possible in principle in nowadays world. By this law the governing elite can dismiss any person from his position and
the only thing why they can not be dismissed themselves by the same law is that there are exceptions written by their hads. Complete
delirium.
You will see bloodmess after elections, ukrainian-Nazi army will try again kill freedom fighters. Thanks to your western leaders
civilians are dying now.
I got a surprise this morning, swedish newspaper DN published the article with a title:" Ukrainian populist stand out with
violence and threats" (Ukrainsk populist sticker ut med vĺld och hot) about Lyashko.
Something is definitely going on, I think, at least in Sweden, they will avoid to shake hands with such person (but DN wrote
he can be the next prime minister).
It'll be difficult, because they still trying to isolate Sverigedemokraterna(party, which got around 13% of votes at last Riksdag
election)- And they are nothing in compare with Lyashko party.
Good analysis. I must note here that not every election in Ukraine was admitted as fair in by the international observers.
The presidential election in 2004 was declared fake and the west urged Ukraine to stick with the pro-western candidate Yushchenko.
Who ended up with 5% support. As of freedoms in Russia you should take it into account that at the times when the west is happy
with Russian elections the Russians themselves live in poverty and humiliation. Now that the Russians live probably better than
ever the west is unhappy. You talk about freedom of speech in Russia but compare it to freedom of speech in Ukraine: the journalists
being beaten and murdered, the channels are closed etc. What place does ukraine hold in the rating? As of the objectiveness of
those ratings and generally the information presented to the western auditory here's a good example: a few weeks ago there was
a marching in Moscow in support of the Ukrainian government, a few thousand participants. Have you seen that news in the western
media? Me neither. I have checked all the MSM. I found a single sentence about it on the bbc inside an article about something
else, and a little article on the cnn. That cnn article ended with the words that it's not clear it anyone was arrested or beaten
(because no one was). These words give a hint why there's so little interest in the west: if the news shows that Putin is not
prosecuting those who think different, you shouldn't know about it. Otherwise it will be everywhere
Well,, actually I saw the demonstration on several news channels including CNN. So why you apparently have not been able to
find it, I really do not know.
As far the 2004 elections in Ukraine goes, there were allegations of voting fraud. That led to an independent investigation
by the OSCE, who subsequently deemed it had been well within acceptable standards.
Where are you getting your information from? Not Russian media, I hope.
US in Ukraine has declared war on Russia, they funded neo Nazi's in Kiev to overthrow a freely elected government and then
went about blaming Russia for the destabilisation. As we know from past experience, Washington will pursue its strategy relentlessly
while shrugging off public opinion, international law or the condemnation of adversaries and allies alike.
The pattern, of course, is unmistakable. It begins with sanctimonious finger-wagging, economic sanctions and incendiary rhetoric,
and quickly escalates into stealth bombings, drone attacks, unlawful detention and torture, massive destruction of civilian infrastructure,
millions of fleeing refugees, decimated towns and cities, death squads, wholesale human carnage, vast environmental devastation,
and the steady slide into failed state anarchy; all of which is accompanied by the repetition of state propaganda spewed from
every corporate bullhorn in the western media.
After all isnt this how it happened in Iraq, Libya, Afganistan, Syria etc etc etc
Even if what you claim were even remotely connected to reality, how exactly does that justify Putins invasion, annexation and
interference in a souvereign nation and the breaking ofg international law?
The "The US is bad" narrative is getting old. And besides, two wrongs can never make a right. That is a morally indefensible
position. So Russia is - at best - no better
There is no invasion, annexation and interference in a sovereign nation and the breaking of international law. It's all in
your muddled mind. ... and no need to thank me for pointing out your numerous spelling mistakes.
Condolences to all Ukrainians who are "voting" at gunpoint today. R.I.P. for your young country that had the potential for
a much better future. One day you'll understand that the murderers were those bearing gifts. IMF loans, fracking contracts, western
"investments".
In Crimea democracy actually worked as intended. The people of Crimea are living in peace free of neo Nazi fascism. No one
died and it was mostly peaceful, you have to admire the way Moscow did it. They supported democracy, the will of the people.
Its when democracy is subverted that people die, the people of the Donbass who held a plebiscite and are being denied democracy
are being murdered by neo Nazi militia's in an attempt to subvert their free will.
It is the Wests fascism that is killing people, it is the Wests fascism that is denying people the freedom at the ballot box
which according to the United Nations is every individuals basic right.
Stop the Genocide of the Donbass people. Recognise the will of the Donbass people and allow them to live in peace and be free
of the fascists neo Nazi's in Kiev.
I do agree with the spirit of your post. Sure, the US standard practice since WW2, has been to employ fascist groups to overthrow
legitimate governments in support of its "national interests". The sad thing for the Donbass area is that the present "leadership"
is remotely controlled by certain Russian circles. These circles did not allow the military advance of the DNR and LNR when the
situation turned in their favour. Neither did they allow the unification of the two entities under a uniform military and political
leadership. The combatants on the ground who are a mixed group of socialists, nationalists and soldiers of fortune, bitterly complain
about the situation as they are doing the fighting and the dying. They are accusing their political leaders of boycotting their
efforts. It is painfully obvious that oligarchs from both Russia and Ukraine have a hand in this and do not really care about
the deaths and the destruction. There will be plenty of business when the time of "reconstruction" comes. As things stand in the
Donbass there is no viable future. As for the rest of Ukraine things got even worse. A police state run by private armies, terrorized
citizens, terrorized opposition leaders, dramatically worsened job prospects, certainly no chance of anything close to a Democratic
Election today. Another fine piece of work by the defenders of "democracy" and the "free world".
"Its when democracy is subverted that people die, (...)"
Agreed.
"(...) the people of the Donbass who held a plebiscite and are being denied democracy (...)"
That's so far off the truth as I understand it that it makes me sick.
As I read it (in the Western media) the people of the Donbass one morning had new leaders who took over their cities, and since
then denied them the vote in the presidential election, and it wouldn't surprise me if the DPR and LPR leaders also denied them
the vote in the Rada election today.
Yet, you call them "the people of the Donbass who held a plebiscite". I translate that in my language as "volksraadpleging".
I don't remember that that has happened. In fact, the people of the Donbass have been intimidated (some election authorities beaten
or murdered) so that they were *PREVENTED* from holding a plebiscite.
I rest of yur sentence reads "(...) are being murdered by neo Nazi militia's in an attempt to subvert their free will."I won't
complain about your description of their current plight although I disagree. But the middle of the sentence was WAY off.
"Recognise the will of the Donbass people" Yes, but I have no idea how to do that. the DPR and LPR leaders are not going to
step down voluntarily, and the Ukraine army is not the right agent to do it either. It will have to depend on the Donbass people
themselves to get rid of their current oppressors.
Dear Russian people , do not give a sh... what west and USA say. America is empire of big lies. Just do your daily business .
Living in west, I can confirm , people less and less know what is right for them. West is on very wrong path right now. People
are weaker and weaker. They are betraying their values.Their goverments are slowly stripping them out of their freedoms while
bombing another countries in name of freedoms. Do not copy west. Hold on and you will be stronger and they weaker.
hoyeru zaharia
to the obvious shill Christopher Larson:
latest lies about Russia:
Russian army plane that turned out to be Latvian
Russian submarine that turned out didnt exist.
hackers that are working for Russian government( no proof presented)
If I was you'd I'd think twice before posting. You (USA/NATO/EU) are making yourself total fools. But that has never stopped
you before
Terrific article, Mark. I'd missed this story but it does sound as though it's yet another episode in the never-ending psych-op
campaign being waged against Russia in the west.
The story of Russian cyber attacks of one kind or another has been running for a while now – NATO's General Breedlove, carrying
out his main mission of expanding his organisation's role in the world, was the first to posit the idea that a 'NATO for the 21st
century' could see cyber attacks as a justification for invoking Article 5 of the NATO Charter – an attack on one is an attack
on all – so the incremental build-up of Russia as the world's most devious hacker is probably serving this sort of purpose.
Back to Ukraine for a moment. An iconic Kiev cinema has been destroyed in an arson attack during a screening of an LGBT film.
Fortunately, no-one was hurt. There seem to be two possible explanations for the incident – either a protest against the showing
of this particular film or a shortening of whatever planning process operates in Kiev in order to realise the value of the site.
It will be interesting to see whether the EU reacts to this.
In the long term, the EU and US will prefer the LGBT and other marginal freakish groups over nationalists.
However, instead
of physical intimidation, the new coalition of AngloZionist-empowered marginal minorities will use the law to criminalize previously
widely-held values and beliefs. This is usually done through "hate crime" laws - as if any crime toward a victim is done out of
love…
Other means, such as the mainstream media and well-funded violent Trotskyite groups may be used against patriots as well, but
this will take years, and like I said before, will only happen if the AngloZionists gain total control over Ukraine. As long as
the country is hanging between the AngloZionists and Russia, the AngloZionists will use the shabbos goyim nationalists against
the Moskali.
A certain Eugen Zelman is quoted is quoted in the article.
Poor guy, he's just trying to spread some European values. Why do these people always find me?
A very good edition of RT's 'CrossTalk' on the Ukrainian elections. Peter Lavelle's guests are Nebojsa Malic, Eric Krauss and
Dimitry Babich. At one point, Nebojsa sums up the choice voters faced as 'Oligarchs, Nazis and Nazi-Oligarchs' which sounds like
it covers a lot of the bases.
The average natural born citizen in any country is continuously indoctrinated into the national culture starting about the time they
begin understanding the meaning of words. There's one country in particular where reality is staring the public in the face, but
the truth has been grossly distorted for decades by government, and mass media, bias and propaganda. If the citizens would suddenly
see the truth, instead of what they've been conditioned to believe, they would find themselves in a strange and bizarre foreign land
that's contrary in many ways to their personal beliefs regarding home. For those who experience this sudden revelation, as soon
as the truth is realized, it's likely to provoke a profound and immediate sense of disbelief. Like emergency room personnel making
insensitive jokes, laughter at some point becomes a self-defense mechanism for offsetting continuous parades of the absurd realities
and outright horrors. This is all happening while the general population takes great pride in having a capitalist-democracy as their
social-economic model for the stated purposes of providing equal rights, freedom, justice for all, and an all-inclusive participation
in the political system. While in all truth, the capitalist-democracy in question has been corrupted directly by the legislation
in place and the collective society's inability to keep the system working for its stated and intended purposes.
... ... ...
In cases where the US government appears to act deceptively on its own behalf, we have the CIA's
Operation Mockingbird, and the FBI's
COINTELPRO as prime examples of programs designed specifically
to manipulate public opinion and illegally interfere with the people's rights to free speech and assembly. With writers and editors
of influential "news" sources on the government payroll as operatives, there is no better way to wage a propaganda war against the
public's "constitutionally guaranteed" democratic rights. The CIA and FBI do not distort the truth and subvert Constitutional rights
just for kicks; they are directly aiding and abetting those behind the scenes who have an agenda which is pure and simple - corporate
profits. Our government representatives are essentially screened, groomed and "voted in" by huge campaign contributions derived from
corporate profits, and ultimately the press is financed by those same corporations. And for their "investment in capital", the corporations
are getting what they want in return. So when corporate and special interests influence the government and news media directly, while
the US government also influences news networks directly on behalf of corporations, then public opinion regarding any important issue
is essentially being manufactured and controlled to a very large degree by corporate and special interests. The plain truth is the
government, news media, corporate and special interests are all in a symbiotic criminal relationship with the absolute bottom line
being they are willingly and knowingly denying Constitutional rights to the American citizenry which, in some of these instances,
makes all those in violation willing traitors as defined by US law. And no, a group of conspirators does not need be prosecuted and
found guilty in a court of law to be living and breathing traitors…
To maintain corporate profits and our status as world champion capitalists requires the US to undemocratically wage wars for "protecting
our self-interests" of continually acquiring and consuming resources. Capitalism demands resources, and in our case, "democratically"
waged wars to obtain those resources, require a willing public to sacrifice blood and treasure towards that goal. It's all part of
modern capitalism as practiced today - convincing the public, through deception, to sacrifice their blood and treasure to keep the
whole system going for maximizing the bottom line of corporate profits. The beloved political-economic system keeps us addicted,
enslaved and condemned to languish in a continuous cycle of acquisition through any means, including military aggression. After being
manipulated by unpatriotic government officials and news networks to serve unpatriotic corporations and special interests, we believe
we're being patriotic when waving our flags while we're actually throwing truth, freedom and democratic principles into the bin of
the "Unnecessary and too Risky" for the powers that be. The entire system of control and manipulation is being run by less than one
percent of the population for their guaranteed advantages, while on the other end, the system is rigged to keep the majority in perpetual
servitude. And because American citizens are part of the system and contributing to it, in that sense they are an accessory to the
crimes being committed against themselves.
The truth being known in all of this presents a danger for those who pull the strings keeping the slave camp operating, but so
far, the propaganda campaigns have been successful in keeping the general public from recognizing the truth. When this reality is
presented to the average America born citizen, chances are high they'll reflexively and automatically deny the truth as a form of
self-defense. They simply don't want to accept the reality of their governments' betrayal, and many believe they're being patriotic
by defending what they think America is, but again, they're defending lies when the truth is told. When people are held captive and
trapped, hope and dignity can be cultivated through planned or spontaneous rebellion of one flavor or another - which might be the
closest America will ever come to pulling itself up by the boot straps. But because roughly seventy percent of the general population
doesn't think independently, they'll look to someone else or society in general when determining how to think and react; this fact
is literally being banked on by those who mislead us through "our government" and "news media" while profiting at our expense and
that of the entire world. If the prevailing winds, prevaricated by the government and news media, say there's no reason to rock the
boat, then the majority will bow their heads and continue on as compliant slaves, just as we've seen over recent decades.
When it comes to obtaining foreign resources, America's "interests" often come at the expense of someone else. Converting a socialist
leaning country, creating and aiding developing countries, or propping up dictators "friendly to western interests" can all work
to enhance corporate profits with "privatizing the world" being part of the agenda. Under the table deals, coercion and outright
military intervention, in any combination, are all being used to gain control of the world's resources. This is often done under
the guise of the IMF, and World Bank, making loans to "help"
developing countries. In all reality the IMF and World Bank are there to secure the rights to a country's natural resources, with
the bottom line purpose again being corporate profits while having no concern for the indigenous people or anything else.
Corporate America is actively seeking to control water, farmland, mineral and energy rights all over the world. This all comes
at the expense of human rights and lives, domestic and foreign. Very few, if any, of the ruling-class personally risk anything other
than their personal integrity in these gambits. But everyday Americans, through propaganda, are persuaded to sacrifice their lives
and tax money for use in the arsenal of weapons to beguile and wrestle the resources away from people in foreign lands. The powers
that be are currently trying to tell the world we'll all be better off with
rain water being corporately owned so they can charge human beings for being alive. Next on the agenda is privatizing sunshine
which probably sounds absurd to everyone - just as the concept of owning land was incomprehensible to native Americans. Judging by
the actions of the ruling-class and not their words, as long as they have enough slaves to manipulate, they don't care if American
citizens or others must die so they can accomplish their primary goal of enriching themselves while controlling everything and everyone
to that end. The wealthy and politically influential in the US are perfect examples of success in our overall corrupt capitalistic-democracy;
while the rest of us are the epitome of failed dupes, having failed to exercise our democratic rights while being exploited. When
summed up, the fact that Americans go along with all of this in the direction it's going, is ludicrous when considering the impact
all of this is having on the earth's ecosystem (which can no longer be denied) - the ruling-class agenda is completely out of touch
with reality - if the human race doesn't get it together soon, all those corporate profits will all be for naught anyway, and could
possibly end up being what ends it all for the human race. We do enjoy our self-deceptions though, and denials of the truth, while
as master escape artists acknowledging a destiny beyond our control we turn on our favorite televised entertainment as absolute proof.
Destiny is inevitable and unstoppable just like the need to show the world how powerful we were in 1945, by dropping atomic bombs
on Nagasaki and Hiroshima when the US had already known the Japanese were preparing to
surrender. With special interests in mind,
the US recognized ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as being legitimate starting
before 1948 and continuing to this day. We can't leave out the CIA's roll in overthrowing democratically elected
Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 Iran, only
to install a murdering tyrant so the corporation now known as British Petroleum would benefit at the expense of the Iranian people.
We had the Vietnam duo, with Henry Kissinger aiding Nixon's
treason, which ultimately cost one million Vietnamese lives, twenty thousand American lives and one hundred thousand Americans
wounded. For authorizing the Watergate scandal, Nixon later received a pardon from his personally designated successor. The overthrow
of democratically elected Salvador Allende in 1973 Chile
was backed by Nixon's CIA which supported the brutally repressive regime of
Augusto Pinochet. Another illegal Kissinger duet
with Gerald Ford started in 1975 East Timor. Then came Ronald Reagan
and the arms for hostages' deal which circumvented
Congress to supply weapons to Reagan's murderous Contras.
There was the "just say no to drugs" when Reagan's CIA aided importing
crack cocaine with the profits also illegally
supporting the Contras' killing machine. The Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s was our largest wealth redistribution up to that
time, with many of the well-connected, including the Bush family,
profiting at the expense of tax payer dollars. With the 2003 Iraq war being part of the
neocon strategy for "securing the realm", America
was led to war through lies and deceit while the
defense contractors made huge profits from the death and destruction at tax payers' expense, which we'll still be paying for decades
from now. The 2008 economic meltdown resulted from the biggest financial rip-off and redistribution of wealth in the entire history
of mankind, and while there was plenty of criminal activity on record, there were no prosecutions among the Wall Street ring leaders
who orchestrated those crimes. Ultimately, after the 2008 economic collapse, the
redistribution of wealth to the well-connected
banks and their already wealthy stock holders, was again put on the tab of tax-paying slaves.
Our government escapes the consequences of these realities by manipulating the truth with the well-oiled propaganda machine. And
by allowing Wall Street bankers to keep what they stole, and the press having no interest in holding anyone accountable, it all works
out to continue bribing politicians with more "investment capital" in the form of "campaign contributions" from those same banks
– and the US keeps right on moving toward the goal of lording over the entire world. It's all just part of America doing business
as usual, served up by corporate and special interests influencing the unpatriotic duo of US government and main-stream media networks
to manipulate the American public into unwitting support for corporate fascism. By all means the illusion of equality, liberty and
justice through a disingenuous capitalistic-democracy must be kept alive by our government and news media. If not for the illusion,
who or what would run the show?
Fear sells, violence sells, war sells. The mainstream press just sold another American war.
But the mainstream US media plays the
role of government lapdog more than watchdog.
... ... ...
Obsessed with maintaining access to power, the mainstream media just keeps handing their megaphone to the powerful and self-interested.
Rarely do we hear from people who opposed the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq or rightly predicted the
chaos that would result from NATO intervention in Libya. The few
anti-war voices who manage
to slip into the dialogue are marginalized
and later silenced.
Let's face it: fear sells, violence sells, war sells. The vicious Isis beheadings, discussed ad infinitum,
attracted large audiences. So did talk
about exploding toothpaste.
People whipped into a state of fear always want to know more.
Sadly, the public is not getting what it deserves: a well-rounded debate about the pros and cons of military action. Why has a
decade of support
for the Iraqi army and years of
covert CIA support for the Syrian opposition been so fruitless? How much might this intervention cost? (So far, the bill has
been
more than $1bn.) How will Middle East
monarchies that funded extremists suddenly become exemplars of democratic values? What is the endgame in Syria? Will Bashar Assad
still be in power? What are the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East? (The Israeli newspaper
Haaretz reported that the US bombings already have attracted 6,000 more recruits to Isis.) And most important of all: what are the
alternatives to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians?
The voices of people proposing political solutions other than slaughter are the voices the public deserves to hear.
Wars usually start with overwhelming public
approval once the White House and the national security apparatus get the media to beat the war drums. It's only after people
tire
of war that the media really begin to seek answers to questions that should have been asked before the bombs were launched.
But instead, once again, the US government and the US media establishment is embracing a military policy of airstrikes to strengthen
local capacity despite a regional landscape – from Yemen to Libya – littered with the wreckage of this approach. Smoldering in the
detritus of war is also the fourth estate.
To some extent, you could say that the motives of the US government are altruistic. Of course there will also be strategic
reasons for intervening.
Whether it is adviseable or not is another matter.
Chanelle47 -> GeorgeSherban, 10 October 2014 12:00pm
Altruistic is the last thing they are. Why did the US launch an Iraq War 2.0 in the early 2000? At various points it was because
Saddam cause 9/11, because of the Taliban, because of Al Qaida, because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (tee hee). Then,
a couple of years in, it wasn't any of those things. It became about "sowing the seeds of democracy" in Iraq.
It was all bullshit. One thing you can be sure of: if a politician's lips are moving in regard to Iraq, Isis or terror then
what is coming out is never the truth. Their buddies in The Press merely amplify, obfuscate and confuse as required and to order.
JOHNNYHEMISPHERE, 10 October 2014 11:43am
As a famous old man with a big beard once said.....
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of
society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal,
has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who
lack the means of mental production are subject to it.
The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material
relationships grasped as ideas."
KelvinYearwood -> JOHNNYHEMISPHERE, 10 October 2014 2:05pm
Well put.
The problem is that the liberal paradigm abstractly disconnects material production and intellectual production as though it
is a given that the latter operates autonomously.
Hence, you get the question, why does the business media follow money and power?
Clearly intellectual production can act independently of the interests of material production as many independent and/or non-profit
writers and organisations prove, but they do not have the means, the power, the scope and the reach to foreground these ideas
in the arena of the dominant production of ideas.
Further, to enter the arena of the production of dominant ideas one has to not only have the abilities for such, but be amenable
to a process of objective filtering, a priori expectations, values, assumptions entailing personal compromises to such an extent
that one is barely human if one has reached a position of authority in the structure (if one was human to start with, that is).
UnironicBeard, 10 October 2014 11:46am
Maybe because the media is in bed with the politicians and arms manufacturers. There's certainly been a lot of propaganda flying
around, particularly as the article says regarding Khorasan.
Still, looking at things from the other side of the fence, Isis certainly have a talent for bringing out the warmonger in virtually
everybody. And if our intervention isn't very well thought through, perhaps that could be excused to a degree by the urgency of
the situation
What short memories the Guardian has. It's embarrassing flag waving for Blair and its lack of critique in the Iraq War is
still remembered by many of us with some shame.
You're missing the point that main stream media are not actual reporters especially in the US. They repeat government and hawkish
politician talking points without any scrutiny.
For all intend and purpose they are a propaganda machine that showly herds the far from knowledgable average american into
believing anything they want.
Even when confronted with the abuse of the government by E Snowden, they still managed to turn him into a villain and brush
aside the revelations. If people act like sheep, they will be herded
Back in the 1930's the left had real intellectuals who knew the only thing fascists would respond to was force.
If you can't see the difference between Nazi Germany (a huge industrial, educated country with the ability to manufacture its
own war machine) and the Jihadis in the Middle East you are the deluded one.
Unfortunately today the left is over run with public school toffs and a pampered sheltered upbringing that makes them dangerously
clueless.
Obviously you don't realize that many left wing intellectuals who chose to fight fascism in Spain were "public school toffs"
like Eric Blair.
"Why has the media pushed the Obama administration's war frame instead of playing the role of skeptic by questioning official
assertions, insisting for corroboration on "anonymous leaks" and seeking alternative points of view?"
To a large extent because
people like Medea Benjamin have turned the peace "movement" into a kabuki theater for publicity stunts, which history teaches
have no effect and which the press mostly ignores.
Benjamin comes from wealth and this seems to make it impossible to call the actions of her social equals war crimes. Instead,
she does gimmicky interactions with Obama, the current leading war criminal in office.
And we should not forget that the major writers in the major papers make good money and have stock based retirement plans,
which expand with war because most of the stock portfolios have heavy investments in the military industrial complex companies,
which have done extremely well over the last few weeks with replacement orders for missiles, drones, and other weaponry flooding
in.
Excellent! You've captured the prevailing mentality of the entire mass of America's disappearing petty bourgeoisie -- professors,
artists, journalists, lawyers, etc.
I don't like that we were whole scale lied to by Bush administration about Iraq. And no one who understands power every totally
believes anything government mouths expel.
The enemy was in Afghanistan only. Now we have another problem primarily of our own making . ISIS is something that would likely
never have happened if we had not invaded Iraq and created a power vacuum. But the new problem is here now and now we have a real
self created enemy that is so extreme they cut peoples heads off with dull knives. Our corporate press who spins news like a runaway
centrifuge plays a very large role in this. Saying the above, the way out is never avoid the problem but go directly into the
fire or heart of it, now we have little choice. The only good if you can call it good is a lot of the world is with us on this
one. We forgot the lessons of Vietnam already and Im sure we will forget the lessons of Iraq because corporate interests are the
only ones Washington forwards. But we should never never never forget we created all these messes that must be cleaned up. And
for that some day we will be taken down.
If you support military action against groups that behead people, then you support a US invasion of Saudia Arabia, where eight
people were beheaded last month for "crimes" like "sorcery," right? Or is it only Western heads being cut off you are so concerned
about, or heads being cut off by people who don't sell us oil?
The article is correct. US national security policy is more about
who wins the next election rather than reasoned responses to actual threats. As long as this is so, the US will be at war somewhere,
with someone.
I agree with your general point, as you can see from my other posts here. But with this:
US national security policy is more about who wins the next election
I cannot agree. US national insecurity policy is driven by the needs of the kleptocracy that runs my f'd-up country and profits
from its damned wars. Individual zillionaires may be R or D, but as a group they don't care which wins, because they own both
parties.
"Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there
is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to
the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank
is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent,
to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
"There are men, now in power in this country, who do not respect dissent, who cannot cope with turmoil, and who believe that
the people of America are ready to support repression as long as it is done with a quiet voice and a business suit."
John Lindsay
This link below is a fairly long and very interesting
discussion of the recent crisis in the Ukraine, and what some of the bigger picture implications and reasons for it may be.
However, I am starting this video towards the end, so that you can hear one key point that Professor Stephen Cohen of Princeton
makes that is in my opinion essential.
He states that there is no longer a place in the popular mainstream media for debate over the different positions and opinions
on key policy questions outside of a narrow range of acceptable views as decided by a few major media outlets. If there is a
dissenting view that is distasteful to the powerful interests that influence the government, they will not allow it to be heard or
discussed rationally, except perhaps in a few scholarly journals out of the reach of most.
And in this I think he is absolutely correct. And it is not just about issues such as a new Cold War, but on a broad range of
social and financial topics as well. Journalism as I once knew it no longer exists except in select locations on the Internet.
Staged discussions between paid 'strategists' from the two major political parties with commentary from a few corporate media
representatives is not journalism, and does not provide the platform for the serious discussion of issues that affect all of us.
The seeds for the decline of American mainstream media were sown by the overturn in 1987 of the Fairness Doctrine which required
broadcasters to air both side of controversial subjects, and not just the officially sanctioned sides of a carefully selected and
phrased question or topic.
And the Communications Act of 1934 was further gutted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which permitted corporate conglomerates
to acquire and establish powerful monopolies across the press, radio, and television.
I am finding too many cases where topics are being effectively censored by implicit agreement of the corporate media to either
not cover a story, or to permit only certain aspects and views of an issue to be heard.
I am no big fan of the governments of either Russia or China. It is the oligarchs who like the way these statist governments
operate, but only when they are making deals with them and getting their way. It was Bill Gates who came back from a tour of China
in 2005 and praised this new
kind of capitalism.
I have been to both Russia and China, and I prefer neither of those brands of oligarchy and monopoly in alliance with the State.
And so I am concerned about the modern attraction by the powerful in the West to emulate them, to manage the news, to establish monopolies,
and to hide behind secrecy as they engage in undemocratic backroom deals with powerful interests as a standard matter of doing the
business of the nation.
This de facto censoring of the news in the West is not a healthy situation. And so we must get
information about important topics where we can. The coverage of too many news topics, from Snowden to the financial crisis to the
Ukraine, have been disgracefully one sided and carry the stink of propaganda wrapped in a press under the thumb of a few moneyed
interests.
You may wish to listen to the entire interview which I found to be most interesting. Please click on the link below to start the
interview at the point of discussing censorship.
Quote: "Let's talk about what sanctions mean first of all. It's an institutionalization of the new Cold War. Once the sanctions
were enacted, it means formally, institutionally, in legislation, in presidential degrees from the American side - we're now in a Cold
War. Remember something else. It is very easy to announce sanctions, very easy. Politically, it's popular: people say, "Oh, good, we
now have punished Russia" - whether we have or not is another question. It is very hard to end sanctions. "
The West and Russia cant seem to get over their differences, with the tensions between the Washington and Kremlin changing the
stakes for the whole world. How far would this confrontation go? Is there another Cold War coming? And finally, will the world once
again know the horror of a Nuclear War looming over the humanity?
We ask these questions to a prominent American scholar on Russian studies, Professor at New York University and Princeton University.
Stephen Cohen is on Sophie&Co today.
The West and Russia can't seem to get over their differences, with the tensions between the Washington and Kremlin changing the
stakes for the whole world. How far would this confrontation go? Is there another Cold War coming? And finally, will the world once
again know the horror of a Nuclear War looming over the humanity?
We ask these questions to a prominent American scholar on Russian studies, Professor at New York University and Princeton
University. Stephen Cohen is on Sophie&Co today.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Stephen, it's really great to have you back and to have you on our show once again.
Now, you've called the current U.S.-Russia crisis "the most dangerous confrontation in many decades" - are we close to a war?
Stephen Cohen:Let me tell you what I think happened. We are in a new Cold War. In America, the policy-makers
say it's not a Cold War, because they don't want to take a responsibility for it, because their policies, and not just recently,
since the 99s, have led to Cold War. It began before, I think, the Ukrainian crisis, but what happened in Ukraine, is that about
a year ago, in November 2013, there was a political dispute in Kiev, about whether Yanukovych will sign the agreement with the EU.
That political dispute, after the coup in February became a Ukrainian Civil War, generally speaking between Kiev and the South-East
of Ukraine. The Civil War then became what we call a "proxy war", with the U.S. and NATO supporting Kiev and Moscow supporting the
eastern Ukrainian rebels. The danger is, and I think it continues even now, though some people think the ceasefire has averted the
danger, but the ceasefire is not solid, we don't know if it's going to be here tomorrow or next week...the danger is that the proxy
war would lead by accident or intention to the intervention of Russian military forces in the East and NATO forces in the West, and
that would be the Cuban Missile Crisis.
SS: That's what I was going to ask you - is there really a realistic scenario in your head where U.S. and
Russia could actually enter into direct military confrontation?
SC: Yes. I just explained it to you. If the war, the Civil war in Ukraine begins again, the military aspect of
it, if the ceasefire fails, if, let's say, Kiev attacks the Donbas again...if Russia feels the need to help the Donbas militarily
- it is being discussed in NATO, the possibility of NATO forces entering Western Ukraine. Now, what would that mean? You would have
the America-led NATO forces in Western Ukraine, whether on the ground or in the air, it doesn't matter, Russian forces in the air
or on the ground - and that would be a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, I notice you're smiling, like I've said something
fantastic, but we have to think the unthinkable, because who knew 2 years ago we were going to be in a completely….
SS: Well the unthinkable is nuclear weapons being involved - do you think that's a possibility as well?
SC: Well, let's look at what's happened. Russia has the doctrine; they've had it since the 99s, because Russian
conventional forces are weaker than American-NATO conventional forces. Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if Western
conventional forces threaten the Russian state and Russia. Meanwhile, as was announced in the New York Times on the front-page, maybe
2 weeks ago, I forgot, that President Obama is about to sign a budgetary decree of what he calls a "major modernization" of our nuclear
arsenal at the cost of $1 trln over 30 years. One trillion dollars is only the cost today, it doesn't include overrun inflation,
and it's a fortune. Meanwhile, your government has been, quote, "modernizing its nuclear weapons" - but let's talk as adults, what
does the word "modernization" means? It means buildup, so both sides are now building up their nuclear weapons, we're in a new Cold
War, we're beginning a new nuclear arms race, and the danger is now immense - does that mean there's going to be war? No. The problem
is to avert war you need leadership, political leadership, and the question of who's leading correctly and who's not is a political
discussion, but the danger is there, absolutely 100%.
SS: There is another huge problem: between the two are the sanctions, the imposed sanctions. Now, Moscow
insists that it did not help to push for a ceasefire over the situation in Ukraine in Minsk to actually stop the sanctions, but it
helped it, because restoring peace in Ukraine is much more important for Russia. Then you have the West that's always tying sanctions
to the agreement made in Minsk over Ukraine.
SC: Let's talk about what sanctions mean first of all. It's an institutionalization of the new Cold War. Once
the sanctions were enacted, it means formally, institutionally, in legislation, in presidential degrees from the American side -
we're now in a Cold War. Remember something else. It is very easy to announce sanctions, very easy. Politically, it's popular: people
say, "Oh, good, we now have punished Russia" - whether we have or not is another question. It is very hard to end sanctions. Remember,
Jackson-Vanik, was enacted in 1970s to force Jewish immigration, permit Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union. They only removed
Jackson-Vanik a few years ago, long after the time when more Jews were coming from Israel back to Russia than wanted to leave Russia
to go to Israel. Politically, and particular with the presidential campaign coming in America, which candidate is going to say 2
years from now: "Things are good with us and Russia, I propose removing the sanctions"? Not one. They'll think it's dangerous…
SS: Now, the Foreign Affairs committee in the U.S. is actually thinking of turning this who sanction-thing
into part of law - that would obviously limit very much the American administration's capacity of cooperating with Russia…
SC: That's right. This law, by, what I call, the "war-party" in the Senate - it's not the whole Senate, it's
the "war-party", Republican and Democratic - have been drafting a very harsh, Cold War law to punish Russia in many ways, and, moreover,
make it possible to send American weapons to countries that are not members of NATO, but were former parts of the Soviet Union. They
got a long list, not only Ukraine - this is a reckless, dangerous law, it's not clear if it will pass - some Senators are against
it - but, in this political atmosphere, it might pass. Now, of course Obama could veto it - we don't know…
SS: Do you think he will be doing this? Because, like you've said, it would take forever to actually undo
that afterwards?
SC: That's correct. Will Obama veto it? We don't know if it will get to Obama, it's got to go out of committee
, then it's got to go to the full Senate, then it's got to get a majority, and then it's got to go to Obama, I don't know. We're
not sure what Obama does from day-to-day, I mean, if he changes his mind... Now, if the Ukrainian Civil War begins again, if Kiev
and the South-East begin fighting and shooting and shelling and what else, now, then I think Obama would sign it. But if the ceasefire
and negotiations are unfolding - I don't think Obama would actually sign this. But the strange thing is, it needs to be explained,
but I'm not sure I can completely, is why were new sanctions brought against Russia just as Putin and Poroshenko agree on a ceasefire
and negotiations?
SS: And why the sanctions are tied into the agreement made in Minsk? Because the agreement is about the ceasefire,
not about sanctions…
SC: That's right. They agreed in Minsk, Poroshenko and Putin, and the others, the Ukrainians, and the EU, that
there would be a ceasefire and negotiations both about trade, but also about the new Ukraine, if there's going to be one. And suddenly,
these sanctions were imposed. I think - I can't prove it – that this was a compromise between Chancellor Merkel and Germany, who
has a softer approach towards Russia, wants to end this and get back to business as usual - and the war parties in NATO and Washington;
and there was a compromise agreement, where the sanctions were something that Merkel agreed to in return for something she got.
SS: I'm sure you've heard about American vice-president speech at Harvard University, where he revealed that
American leadership actually had to embarrass the EU into imposing sanctions on Russia over Ukraine. To me, it seemed like it came
as surprise for the EU - do you think EU is really willing to hurt itself because America wants it to?
SC: I don't think, Sophie, that we can talk on these terms of singular entities. There are factions, there are
groups. Roughly speaking, it's not entirely precise, there's a "war-party" in Washington, there's a "war-party" in NATO, in the EU,
there's a "war-party" in Kiev, because Poroshenko is under attack in Kiev, because of the ceasefire, and - please, forgive me - there's
a "war-party" in Moscow that feels that Putin should not have agreed to the ceasefire, that the rebels should have gone on and taken
Mariupol, maybe Odessa and that he gave up too much in agreeing to end the fighting and so forth . So, you've got forces in Washington,
Kiev, Europe and Moscow who want more war. Now, Merkel leads, in my analysis, the party that doesn't want more war, it wants this
war ended, wants to get rid of it, wants to have some negotiations, and wants to EU end the sanctions or at least resume normal trade.
SS: Business as usual, yeah.
SC: Well, because… look, what is sanctions? We think we're punishing Russia - and we are, it's going to hurt
Russia, there's no question; but look what's happening in Europe - European economy is down, Italian and French farmers are furious
at their governments and the EU, because the Russian market is closed to them, there's too much whatever they produce - cheese, grapes,
oranges, bananas - I don't know - but 40% of those goes to Russia and suddenly there's no Russian market. That means they have to
cut their prices in Europe, there's too much supply, too low demand, they can't meet their costs, these people going to go out of
business. Sanctions cut both ways.
SS: You've also said that the whole Ukrainian thing has split Europe into two.
SC: Three.
SS: Or three - so how are working out a single policy to actually patch things up?
SC: They aren't! You hear different voices...look, Merkel went, about a month ago or so, I forget, in August,
I think to Kiev, and after talking to Poroshenko stands before the press and says "the war must end, there's no military solution,
and there must be ceasefire negotiations." Poroshenko says: "I agree." Then Poroshenko comes to Washington couple of weeks ago, addresses
Congress, and says "We must fight, give us weapons, we're fighting for democracy, we must defeat Russia". He's speaking out of both
sides of his mouth because there's conflict in the West, and he's trying to play the middle game.
SS: But here's another thing. The most recent UN report on situation in Eastern Ukraine actually confirms
that Kiev has violated ceasefire agreement, but this is obviously being ignored by the West and Kiev's government keeps on receiving
aids and blessings…
SC: What we do know is this: there's been fighting for the Donetsk airport that never stopped, and suddenly it
appears that Kiev shelled Donetsk and it did that on the day that school began, they shelled some schools. It's horrible...think
of what's happened; let's open our minds to the tragedy. In November 2013 the EU told Yanukovich, then the President of Ukraine:
"sign an agreement with us or go to Russia", and Putin said "why do they have to choose, let's have a three-way agreement of trade
and financial aid to Kiev" - you remember that, it was very clear. Lavrov, Russian foreign office and everybody… and Europe said
"No" and Washington said "No, we can't do that". Now, what's happened: near a year later, they ask Putin "please come to Minsk and
discuss with Poroshenko Russia, Ukraine and Europe, the three-way deal." Four thousand people have died, one million people have
been turned into refugees, the Donbas has been destroyed for the agreement that could have happened without one shot fired in November
one year ago. Who's responsible for that? Historians will look back and ask, "Who is responsible for the deaths of those people,
that destruction, those refugees, when the outcome was available in November 2013, with a little diplomacy." That is a collapse of
diplomacy. Why did the West exclude Russia from the negotiations in November, that's the question. Do you know the reason why? What
would think?
SS: What would you tell me?
SC: I think it was about NATO expansion, that trade agreement.
SS: Obviously, that's another huge topic, because many believe that NATO expansion is the main stumbling
point between Russia and the West. Also, NATO strategy to actually move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit - it is a huge problem, for
Russia. Should Russia consider NATO's actions in Europe as a threat?
SC: If I found out where you live and I came to your house, and I've sat out in front of your house with a lot
of weapons, and I've said to you: "Sophie, I'm not here to harm you, this is good for you, this is security" – you'd be frightened
and buy a few guns to protect yourself, obviously. Look, when NATO expansion began in 1990s, the late George F. Kennan, who was considered
the wisest man in America about American-Russian relations, said "This is a terrible, reckless, stupid decision" and it will lead
to a new Cold War. Twenty years later, George - I call him George, because we both were in Princeton together, we saw each other
regularly - was correct, and he was not alone. I've said it, Jack Matlock who was Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union and Gorbachev…
A lot of people warned that the expansion of NATO eastward was going to lead to a very bad situation.
SS: But was the expansion a deliberate idea, maybe, a deliberate act, with an eventual stand-off with Russia
in mind?
SC: How can you expand a military alliance without a deliberate decision? It wasn't as if nobody was paying attention,
and NATO was on wheels and just kind of drifted…Major decision was taken under Clinton to do it, and it was a catastrophically unwise
decision, and not only because it led to conflict with Russia, but what it said to all these new countries in NATO that were part
of the Soviet Block is that you don't have to have normal diplomatic relations with Russia, that the Baltics don't have to negotiate
with Russia about the rights of Russian-speaking people there. You don't have to negotiate.. Georgia, who thought it was going to
get into NATO one time - you don't have to negotiate, you can punch Russia in the nose and hide behind NATO. How much diplomacy is
going on? Very little. That was one of the bad things about NATO expansion, it was the end of diplomacy between Eastern Europe and
Russia. The expansion of NATO was done for one main purpose - to increase security in Europe. It did just the opposite.
SS: And NATO's chief keeps on saying - the new chief - that there's no contradiction between increased NATO
presence in Eastern Europe and constructive relations with Russia…
SC: That's an ideology, that's not a reality. I mean, it's foolish, everybody else knows it isn't true. Russia
is preparing for war, as NATO moves closer to Russia. And, by the way, remember something very important, which is often forgotten:
missile defense. Russia's tried to compromise on where this missile defense would be located. Russia has proposed it to be joined,
Russian-American. What did the U.S. do? They gave the missile defense project to NATO, so missile defense is now part of the NATO
expansion. It's not just NATO bases coming towards Russia, it's the missile defense. Now, U.S. says the missile defense is not directed
at Russia, but American scientists have said, in its fourth stage it will be able to strike down Russian missiles as the rise towards
their ultimate trajectory. Now, that means that Russia will not have the deterrent and the nuclear peace that had been kept for 45
years, on this crazy theory - but it has worked until now - that we won't attack you because we know if we attack you, you will attack
us and vice versa - missile defense could end that.
SS: Also, just recently, the U.S. has shipped tanks, soldiers, armored vehicles to the Baltic states - I
mean, it's the first time since the end of the Cold War, that U.S. has shipped armed vehicles into Europe. What threat is that aimed
at?
SC: Look, this is driven by the Ukrainian crisis. There's a theory in the West of what the meaning of Ukrainian
crisis is - that the Ukrainian crisis was started by Putin - that isn't true, but that's believed, that's the ideology - and the
Ukrainian crisis is only the beginning, that Russia, the Kremlin, Putin, Russian imperialism is going to move on to the Baltics,
to Poland. It's all ridiculous, there's no evidence for it. But, there's been a group in NATO that for at least 15 years - you remember,
there was an agreement between NATO and Moscow, that even if NATO would expand, there would be no NATO permanent military bases in
these countries that came in closer to Russia - but there's been a group in NATO for years who wanted to do that, they've seized
the Ukrainian crisis at the NATO Wales summit, month ago, to create this so-called rapid deployment force of 4,000 men. What good
are 4 thousand man against the Russian army? Zero, but there's a reason: there going to go bases, communication centers, barracks,
air strips in Poland, in three Baltic countries, maybe in Romania - Romania hasn't quite agreed - and that would be not only NATO
expansion politically, which is what it was previously, and now it's an actual military expansion. In addition, there is a plan,
as you know, to build land-based missile defense installations in Poland and in those countries, so you're right, for the first time
there's a military expansion of NATO, not just political, towards Russia - but it's not too late to stop it. It's not too late, if
leadership does what leadership is supposed to do, if statesmen and women do what they are supposed to do - we can end this Ukrainian
crisis and stop this military expansion of NATO, it's not too late, but it's five minutes to midnight.
SS: How hard is it for you to get your point across the American public when it comes to mainstream media,
because, you know, you're always welcome here, at RT, but do you get a platform where you can talk and do you think you're getting
your point across?
SC: Let me say a word about RT. Some people say if you go on RT it's unpatriotic - it's complete nonsense. It's
just that they don't want to have a debate. In the U.S., I'm not alone, there's a very famous American professor John Mearsheimer
in Chicago, who has published a big article in the most important American journal of the elite, "Foreign Affairs" with the title
of which is something like "America caused the Ukrainian crisis" - it was a sensation. I've been arguing that for several months,
I was very happy that professor Mearsheimer joined this debate. Jack Matlock, you remember who he is?
SS: Yeah, I've actually interviewed him recently.
SC: You know what Jack thinks. He agrees this was reckless, this was bad Western policy. Here's the problem -
the three major opinion-shaping newspapers in the U.S., Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal do not actually…
SS: The New York times actually called you "dissenting villain" because of your views on Russia.
SC: When I was a kid, there was a saying "sticks and bones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me"
- but names do hurt you, because they stigmatize you, they make people not invite you on mainstream television. The problem is that
the Washington elite depends primarily on mainstream television and on the three newspapers: The New York Times, Washington Post
and Wall Street Journal. Our point of view never, since last February, when the crisis began, has appeared on their opinion pages,
never. We've been excluded. Jack Matlock hasn't been there, professor Mearsheimer hasn't been there, my articles have been rejected.
I've never seen this before in America, this is something very strange to me, because newspapers used to like controversy, but on
this issue, they seem to have convinced themselves there's only one point of view.
SS: Alright, you've got about 90 seconds. Tell me, how does the situation affect the policy-making, decision-making,
in the White House. Do you feel there's lack of expertise on Russia?
SC: Yes. We don't even know who advises Obama. In the past, we always knew to whom the President listens, even
if those people were not in the government. But we know, for example, that probably among the wisest men about Russia today in the
U.S. is Henry Kissinger. He's 92 years old - Obama hasn't talked to him.
SS: He has also actually said that demonizing Putin is not a policy.
SC: "It's an alibi for not having a policy." I think it's worse; it's an alibi for having a bad policy. I'll
tell you what we do: I'm old, I've been through this before, I went through this in 70s… those of us who think as I do, we keep speaking
out when we can, we're organizing, we try to talk to Senators and Congress people who are willing to listen to us. The problem is,
most of them are Democrats and they don't want to come out against Obama, because there are Congressional elections coming in November.
They don't want to do anything to be critical of Obama publicly, because the Democrats are having a hard time holding the Senate
and the House. This is not about Russia, this is about our social welfare programs, our Supreme Court, about helping poor people,
about social justice in America - it's a very important issue, I don't fault them. But, what I say to them: "Ok, after the elections
I expect to see you on TV saying this Ukrainian crisis is a disaster and we are also guilty, not just Russia". We'll see if they
say anything. What else can you do?
SS: Thank you very much, Stephen Cohen, very famous American scholar on Russian studies, thanks a lot for
this interview.
Gary Seven
"We've been excluded. Jack Matlock hasn't been there, professor Mearsheimer hasn't been there, my articles have been rejected.
I've never seen this before in America, this is something very strange to me, because newspapers used to like controversy,
but on this issue, they seem to have convinced themselves there's only one point of view."
"We don't even know who advises Obama. In the past, we always knew to whom the President listens, even if those people were
not in the government."
This is important b/c to me at least, it signals a new level gained in elitist message management. Before, you could
have a "debate" within predetermined parameters of debate. Some of it actually made sense, but this new phase is now the full
censorship mode in effect.
No debate of any type. I've seen it in many journals. Look how horribly you are treated by discussing any topic that suggests
a conspiracy that is not sanctioned by the MSM or paints the establishment in a derogatory manner not acceptable by the elites.
MH17 is a in-your-face conspiracy that begs a real investigation yet, it is not to be discussed in the West outside of the
usual Rebel bashing sort. It's all connected and we ignore it at our peril.
Maxim Wexler
"The expansion of NATO was done for one main purpose - to increase security in Europe." Security is secondary; the main
purpose is to spread Chicken McNuggets east and take Russian resources west.
Quote: "In modern history, no U.S. administration has proved more inept at dealing with Russia." Despite typical for US MSMs large
amount of neocon, Fox news inspired and absurd comments there are several commentators for this the Atlantic article well worth reading
(see below)
....The U.S. did not have to travel down this road, but it did, and there appears to be no way to turn back-or no way leaders
in the West or Russia are prepared to take. The newly precarious state of affairs derives, in great measure, from a failure on the
part of Western, and mostly American, leaders to understand Russia, which they should have tried to do, given its strategic importance,
nuclear arsenal, continental dimensions, natural resources, and potential as a troublemaker-or dealmaker-in many troubled parts of
the world. It also stems from America's refusal to recognize Russia's concern about the eventual expansion of NATO, a military bloc
inherently inimical to it, into more terrain along its western border-terrain that is closer to Moscow than the Baltics. How would
the United States react to a Russian incursion in the Western hemisphere? This is no hypothetical question. In 1962, President Kennedy
took the world to the brink of atomic war to force the Soviet Union to withdraw its nuclear missiles from Cuba.
A deal ended that confrontation, and one is needed now. But to strike one, Western leaders would have to reassess their view of,
and policies toward, Russia. Russia, for reasons of history, culture, size, and geography, is what it is: not Western, not Eastern,
but sui generis, its own world. Predicating policy on the hopes of a peaceful uprising and the triumph of democracy here-or, conversely,
on predictions of the country's collapse, with a new, West-friendly government emerging from the rubble-is futile. In the same vein,
announcements of economic sanctions designed to make Russia "pay" for annexing Crimea or stirring up trouble in eastern Ukraine ring
hollow to Russian ears.
And with good reason....
... In any case, Russia has set about decoupling from the West, concluding a major hydrocarbons deal with China, helping Iran
weather the effects of Western sanctions, planning its own alternative to the interbank messaging service SWIFT, and establishing
financial institutions to counter the World Bank and the IMF. It could at any moment derail the United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan;
the route home for American troops and materiel leads across Russia. Moscow cannot be bullied into changing course.
While Putin is undeniably popular in Russia now, I am not arguing that Russian democracy has survived. It has not. But Putin's
icy demeanor, agate-blue eyes, and judo-trained physique all befit the current mood in Russia: seething anger over everything lost
with the fall of the Soviet Union-superpower status, national pride, a generous social-welfare state, a low crime rate, and more.
Democracy, barely tried in the 1990s, did not confer those things on Russia. Putin-plus high oil prices-did. Or such is the popular
perception.
Whether or not Westerners agree with how Putin rose to power or rules today, they need to recognize that in the interests of peace
and stability, Russia's interests have to count and be accommodated in some way. Russia must have a place at the table. The West
did not exclude it (entirely) during the Cold War years. It cannot afford to do so now.
Nikita Glushkov -> Riley 1066
"He is this and that by definition" is, by definition, an example of crude partisan hackery. If you want to be taken seriously,
at least attempt to back up your arguments with evidence. Questionable privatisation, corruption and cronyism is what happens
when a given group of elites captures the apparatus of the state - these phenomena are found in every modern society and their
presence is merely a matter of degree, and do not provide evidence of dictatorship, merely that people with power use it to enrich
themselves and their friends. "Steals other peoples money regularly" - Which people and and on what occasions ? Evidence ?
By the way, in case you are trying, as your brethren often do, to canonize Khodorkovsky as a glorious freedom fighter, its worth
reminding you that his wealth was ill-gotten during the Yeltsin years. Putins popularity is not a mystery - During his tenure,
living standards for the majority of the population, especially the dozens of millions of people who live outside the big cities
of Moscow and St. Petersburg have improved vastly, especially when compared with the 90s. People buy cars and consumer goods,
take foreign vacations, etc. etc. etc. Putin's electorate is not located in the capital - thus the 60% with which he won the election
is not unpredictable - those precentages represent the percentage of the population who have been the biggest beneficiaries of
the Putin years.
If we conclude, as is obvious, that corruption and nepotism is a feature of all governments and the elites who man them, It
becomes clear that is not corruption or nepotism that Washington and its lackeys are concerned about, but rather the unwillingness
of Moscow to dance to Washington's tune.
Bulos Qoqish -> Nikita Glushkov
He's not a "dictator" in the strict sense of the word. But he IS a classic, far-Right, nationalist, jingoist, manipulative,
corrupt demagogue, who cynically abuses mob hysteria (particularly on topics like "NATO encirclement", "support for our Russian-speaking
brothers and sisters being 'oppressed' in places like Ukraine and the Baltic States", "re-building our military so we're feared
by every other country", "Russia is favored by God, so says the Patriarch of Moscow" and most of all, homophobia) to advance his
personal political popularity.
In other words, he's reading right from the U.S. Republican playbook, going at least as far back as Ronnie Rayguns. He's certainly
learned from the best... hasn't he? All you right-wing Republicans and Tea Partiers should be proud. Congratulations, Dr. Frankenstein,
the experiment was a success!
Bulos Qoqish -> Riley 1066
So there is absolutely NO justification -- of any type, under any circumstances, whatsoever -- for Russian "anger" with the
West in general, or the United States in particular... do I have that right?
What typical, self-righteous, U.S. neo-con nonsense posturing.
IAF101 -> Riley 1066
Who are YOU to decide what is "legitimate" ? Who gave you that authority ??
What makes Obama "legitimate" ? What makes George W Bush "legitimate" ?? What makes Regan "legitimate" ??
Putin has higher approval ratings in Russia than Obama ever had in America today. What does that tell you ?
You or your country are not the sole arbiter of what's "legitimate", "just", "right" or wrong. First, hand over George W Bush
to the ICC for War crimes trials for illegally invading Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, rendition flights, waterboarding etc - THEN
come and question Putin's legitimacy or Russia's "aggression".
Bulos Qoqish -> Riley 1066
Whatever you think of Putin personally (and as I have stated elsewhere, I think he's a cynical demagogue), his election
as President of Russia (not to mention the election to the Duma), was far, FAR more "free and fair" than ANY national level American
election, what with its gerrymandering, 2-party oligopoly, minority voter suppression, absurd over-representation of thinly-populated,
rural, white, conservative jurisdictions (Montana gets the same number of Senators as California), antiquated "Electoral College"
system, and, last but certainly not least, its grotesquely-inflated amounts of money spent by rich people and corporations to
buy elections.
Don't like hearing that, my American friends? Don't like hearing the (true) statement that an average Russian, has far more
say over his or her government, via elections, than does the average American?
Then SHUT THE F UP, go fix your system, clean it up, and THEN come back to me with your self-righteous accusations of "rigged
Russian elections". Until you do that, don't you DARE lecture me (or any foreigner), about "democracy". You wouldn't know it,
if it bit you on the leg.
Bulos Qoqish -> Riley 1066
How about "you're bluffing with a hand of deuces, pardner".
What's the matter?
I guess you're more comfortable debating people who don't know very much about how your country really works (as opposed to
the propaganda version of it, that the U.S. nationalist Right, wants everyone else to believe in)? Are you maybe unprepared for
a POV that doesn't come from, say, FOX (sic.) "News"?
Don't get me wrong. I have no special hate for the United States. There are many sensible, peaceful, reasonable Americans,
some of whom are my friends. The American political system (while antiquated and grossly unrepresentative of the wishes of 90%
of its voters), isn't hugely worse than equally-bad systems in some other so-called "Western Democracies". It's just that you
then get up on this high horse and start calling yourself "exceptional".
It's drivel, and outside your country, we know it is. Before you take it upon yourself to try to fix Ukraine's (and Russia's...
or Syria's... or Iraq's... or... "anyone's") problems, how about you fix up your own, and THEN come back and tell us how "perfect"
and "exceptional" you are.
Bulos Qoqish -> Riley 1066
Ah, I see, I SEE -- everybody who disagrees with your U.S.-triumphalist, Russophobic POV is an "idiot"... do I have that right?
I guess the world must be just FILLED with "idiots", with all the "smart" people (like you) exclusively populating "God's 'exceptional'
country"... right? (Funny, you know... from the way it looks out here, it seems much more like the other way around. Maybe that
has to do with repeated street-level tests where the Average American voter can't place either Iraq, Ukraine, or -- for that matter
-- even India, on a globe or map.)
Now as to your comments about the political situation in the United States and your supposed (I think, feigned... but as I
don't know you personally, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt) abhorrence of the crew of right-wing lunatics (e.g.
the Koch Brothers, FOX "News" and the whole lot of 'em) to whom I referred in an earlier posting.
Bulos Qoqish -> Riley 1066
To which "totalitarian friends" of mine do you refer, sir? If you had read any of my postings (I guess you're not much up on
"reading", are you?), you'd have seen that I have roundly condemned Putin and his clique.
YOUR problem, sir, is that I condemn ALL totalitarians and authoritarians -- including the cruel, jingoistic, cynical, 2-party
elite plutocracy and oligopoly that runs the United States. You're fine with people yelling at America's "devil figure of the
week" (happened to be Putin a few weeks ago, this week it's ISIS, a few months ago it was Iran's leadership, next month it'll
be someone different... names and faces change, but the song remains the same, because fundamentally it's an exercise in propaganda
and media manipulation), but you get mad when I point the finger back at your own country.
Remember what they say about people who live in glass houses?
Bulos Qoqish -> Riley 1066
Are you hard of hearing? How many times do I have to (re)explain that I despise Vladimir Putin and his clique of crony-capitalist
stooges?
The real reason you keep repeating nonsense like "you defend Putin" is that your simplistic, "four legs good, two legs bad",
pro-American, anti-Russian propaganda narrative can't account for someone like me, who likes NEITHER Putin NOR his U.S. elite
antagonists.
Well... too bad, squire. The world is a complex place and "the enemy of my enemy ISN'T (always) my friend". That's the truth,
whatever you may be hearing back in "God's 'exceptional' country."
Srikanth -> Riley 1066
The western governments are just a power hungry, blood leeching community; first of all they should stop interfering in to
issues of other countries -- in the name of humanitarian aid they should stop invading other countries...Western media - a propaganda
machine, should stop spreading false news, they just brainwash ppl with false news. USA is the biggest dictator in the world,
they try to dictate foreign policies of other nations, sanctions are their primary weapon, they are just bad !
I hope the power centre will move to Russia and Asia, so that there will be a power balance in this world....
Brendon Jaramillo -> Srikanth
cultural misunderstanding. we live on one planet. and win win situations do exist. if only russians werent so paranoid and
understood economics.
Bulos Qoqish -> Srikanth •
I agree with your depiction of the Western governments (and their motivations); but it's naive of you to think that Russia
-- particularly under Putin or another leader cut from the same cloth -- would likely be any better. Historical precedent suggests
otherwise.
The world doesn't NEED a "policeman". The world needs to enforce international law and stop larger powers from bullying smaller
ones... whether that's the U.S. bullying (for example) Venezuela, or Russia bullying Ukraine.
Bulos Qoqish -> IAF101
"America seems to believe they can do anything without consequences."
Of course they do. They're "exceptional", you see.
Being "exceptional" means that America gets to do things (like, "kidnap helpless victims off the streets of foreign lands and
spirit them away for torture and years of arbitrary confinement, in a world-wide Gulag of political prisons", "launch bombing
raids against countries with which one is not at war", "invade and occupy other nations", "threaten first use of nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear opponents", "ignore treaty obligations", "ignore U.N. resolutions", "apply its own domestic laws, extra-territorially,
in other countries around the world", "exempt its soldiers and mercenaries from local laws, even when they rape and murder citizens
of other countries", "violently intervene in the internal affairs of other nations", etc., etc. etc.) that -- if undertaken by
ANY OTHER NATION -- would immediately have screams of outrage emanating from the Washington, D.C. plutocratic elite, along with
demands for "America's young 'heroes' in the Armed Forces to 'teach this lawless enemy a thing or two' about the norms of international
conduct" (the cruise missiles would be flying within the hour).
That this nonsense propaganda -- which IS the unquestioned state dogma of official Washington and the U.S. military-industrial
plutocracy (including so-called "liberals" like Obama) -- is simply Soviet-style agitprop, is so painfully obvious as not to merit
further elaboration. Any American politician who dares to suggest that the United States isn't, in fact, "God's 'exceptional'
nation, mandated by the Lord Himself to divinely 'lead' the rest of the world to Truth, Justice and the American Way", will be
immediately ruled out of contention (by the pundits of the elite media) for national public office -- particularly the Presidency.
There is a level of monolithic elite agreement on this subject that rivals, for example, Soviet-era doctrine on "democratic centralism".
The only real difference is what's on the flags, and the language that the propaganda is spoken in.
What worries ME, frankly, is that having become used to playing the "exceptional" card almost exclusively against weaker nations
(or failed states) such as Iraq, Yemen and Serbia, the U.S. elite -- facing steady economic decline at home and needing something
else to distract American workers from their falling standard of living -- will at some point think that they can get away with
it, against a country that can and will call the U.S. elite's bluff. It might come in a confrontation with Russia over Eastern
Ukraine, or possibly with China over the South China Sea. Maybe it will come somewhere that we can't yet imagine.
But when that day comes -- as surely it will, given the mindless, jingoistic belligerence, siege mentality, opportunism and
cynicism of the U.S. military-industrial-plutocratic elite (and particularly, its Republican / Tea Party lunatic right wing fringe...
these are guys who make Vladimir Putin look like Mother Theresa) -- I am really, really afraid of what might happen next.
After all... an "exceptional" nation, never backs down, after it has started a confrontation... does it?
Start digging your shelter.
David Giles -> MatterOverMind
Actually, you are completely wrong. The USA started the fire. First by starting a war against Gadaffi and overthrowing a long
standing Russian ally. Then by training and arming Muslim Extremists in Jordan to launch an insurrection in Syria, then by using
chemical weapons in Syria in an attempt to discredit Assad and justify direct American intervention. Remember Oclown's red line.
Despite the massive howls of the American public against action in Syria, Oclown was going to bomb Syrian military forces anyways.
That is until Russia moved their Black Sea Fleet out of Sevastopol Crimea into the Mediterranean in front of Syria and told the
US that attacking Syria would mean war and quote from Putin and Medvedev "once wars start their is no telling where they can lead,
nuclear war is possible".
Oclown backed down from attacking Syria. But in response to Russia's defense of Syria the USA CIA and State Department gave
$5 billion dollars to criminal gangs in Ukraine to stage an uprising against the legitimately elected government of Ukraine. They
then sent in their special forces snipers that they have used in several civil disturbances to cause them to get violent, Libya
and Syria being two examples. The goal in toppling the Ukrainian government is multifaceted; the biggest prize being depriving
Russia of the use of the navy base in Crimea. We know how that turned out NOT!
Other goals include capturing the newly discovered vast natural gas fields in Western Ukraine and developing those fields to
supply Western Europe's energy needs. Doing this deprives Russia of much needed funds through the sale of their natural gas to
Europe. Further, 90% of Russia's natural gas sales to Europe go through pipelines in Ukraine. Physically controlling these pipelines
puts the West in a much stronger position to negotiate prices for Russian gas as the Western Ukrainian fields are brought on line.
Or so they think.
The likely scenario is Russia is going to get really pissed and cut off the flow of gas right in the middle of winter. America
will try and take up the slack by shipping liquified natural gas in tanker ships. Expect severe disruption of this attempt both
in US and European ports.
In the meantime, Al-Maliki in Iraq was aligning with Iran and consequently Russia and refused to sign the status of forces
agreement with Oclown. Because of ongoing failures in Syria, Oclown turned his ISIS creation loose on Iraq to disrupt and over
turn the Al-Maliki government. It didn't matter to Oclown and the leaders in Washington that countless thousands have been brutally
murdered by their ISIS puppet. Now using the pretext of combating their own creation they are again calling for bombing Syria
and arming "moderate" rebels. However, the truth on the ground speaks volumes. ISIS is driving US military vehicles and using
US made weapons. As soon as Congress passed the aid bill, just days ago, ISIS made huge advances in Syria. This is no coincidence
as the US military and Intelligence Agencies had the weapons on site and ready for transfer before the bill was signed. That is
why it only took days from signing the bill to ISIS gaining control of more cities in Syria.
What you really need to understand is what this is all about. BANKING and control of the worlds monetary system.
Every country the US invades or topples doesn't support the IMF and World Bank but are debt slaves to those institutions after
invasion is complete. And many including Syria, Iraq, and Libya planned on a new gold standard that would undermine the US dollar's
control of global oil markets.
Even in this article (a well written one), it mentions Russia's creation of alternatives to the IMF and World Bank. This is
the real reason the West is trying to go to war with Russia. Putin has often openly spoke of combating a global evil, one out
to control all nations and install a world government, an evil who's most public face is the IMF and World Bank. Putin is a religious
man as is most of Russia today. It would not surprise me if they see Satan behind the West Globalist institutions, certainly Iran
doesn't hesitate to say that is the case.
And while you may think that taking down these regimes is good and the US has peoples best interests at heart...and that we
are the good guys. Look at the results of ALL of the Arab Spring. Look at our ally Saudi Arabia driving tanks into Bahrain to
put down that countries democratic uprising. That western media neglected invasion of a sovereign nation by a totalitarian state
to put down people demanding freedom and democracy, an invasion called for and supported by Washington because the people of Bahrain
would tell the USA to get the F out of their nation and take their navy base with them if they ever had a voice.
Your simplistic view of the events transpiring in the world indicates you need to lay of the US MSM koolaid.
provocateur -> David Giles
Funny, most nations don't have a problem with the world bank..only backwards, intolerant, self important countries like Russia
do. Whats that? They don't like dancing to the American's tune? Well build a better country and then you can call the shots. Until
then, post rambling, incoherent nonsense (like your post) or kindly shut up. People realize how terrible this planet would be
with Russia in charge.
Nikita Glushkov -> provocateur
Your comment provides an interesting insight into the American imperial psychosis - "Well build a better country and then you
CAN CALL THE SHOTS." You literally are functionally incapable of concieving that other great powers are not motivated by a desire
"to call the shots" everywhere in the world. You forget that Putin does not go on television talking about "Indispendible Russia
Leadership, only about local Russian national interests. You forget that only in Washington do the power elites peddle self-serving
propaganda about "American global leadership." It would be great if Washington stopped forcing itself down everyone's throats
and focused it's interests on it's own immediate borders, but they aren't going to do that, are they ? They would rather send
Mrs. Nuland of the State Department to stage right-wing coups in Kiev. We don't want to be in charge of the world, we want Washington
to stop cocking it up in our local sphere of influence.
Funny, plenty of nations and international organization, especially those that represent developing economies, have problems
with the World Bank, primarily because of it's promotion of the Washington concensus and conditional predatory lending that eviscerates
pensions, social spending and domestic production and investment and perpetuates a vicious cycle of dependency whereby the developing
world is forced to provide raw materials to the Western nations, who then create added value which the producers never see. It's
really very simple.
provocateur -> Nikita Glushkov
Yeah yeah. Russia just wants everyone to get along in their multi-polar pinko paradise. The World Bank, and global economy
in general is primarily an American institution as it is based on rampant capitalist ideals. You are clearly (and maybe rightfully
so) frustrated at what you see as American hegemony in the financial arena. That's what happens when the state of California makes
more money than 80% of the countries on Earth. As I said before, when poor, bullied Russia gets that kind of power, I wonder if
you will still be whining?
Nikita Glushkov -> provocateur
What on earth are you blathering on about ? Did you bother reading my comment above at all ? We couldn't care less who "gets
along" in a "pinko paradise" - we have always operated on the assumption that individual states engage in policy actions motivated
by their proprietary interests and this ensures a durable, if imperfect balance of stability in the world system. Like I said,
WE, unlike your people in Washington, don't presume that for some reason, we are fit to tell other states how to conduct their
affairs near their borders. We couldn't care less which countries the World Bank is currently beggaring, as long as Washington
keeps it various institutional attack dogs away from our doorstep. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp ? The State of
California makes more money than 80% of individual sovereign states ? - care to provide evidence for that fantastical claim ?
Russia would have been "bullied" in this case if we allowed Obama to get away with Ukraine in one piece - as it is, our goal,
guaranteed non-expansion of NATO, has been achieved at relatively little cost and the immediate threats to our national security
have been brought under control. We don't have designs for global domination. because we operate under the assumption, unlike
Washington, that it's an impossible goal. So, no, we won't acquire "that kind of power" (whatever that means) because acquiring
"that kind of power" was never on the agenda to begin with - leave us alone in our backyard, and we won't bother you in yours.
How difficult is that to wrap your head around ?
provocateur -> Nikita Glushkov
Just blindly assuming that I'm American because I dont agree with your tin foil hat theories. Im from England. Typical Russian
flattering himself about how NATO wants to encircle your country. Only a Russian could not see the irony of a massive bloated
nation crushing its neighbor and then making claims about how you are being "bullied." Also, LOL @ "world domination." Your paranoia
is truly incredible.
Maybe the countries next to you are ASKING to join NATO because Russia is a deceitful menace to them? Isn't that more probable
than whatever Nazi Alien Anti-capitalist rant you are spouting? Your writing doesn't do much to dismiss the widely held image
of Russians as cabbage eating, drunken liars.
DrOph -> David Giles
I see where your heart is, which is nice. But your intel is all mixed up. The fact that this exchange has garnered so much
attention (regardless of the poor perspectives they both offer) is a testament to the prevailing ignorance which reigns supreme
in the world. Thank god nobody cares about comments. Read the article. This is a very well articulated and reasoned piece. Heed
this warning, and check this hideous rashness
Bulos Qoqish -> David Giles
What I'd like to know is, "if a group of far-Left revolutionaries (including a large number of Trotskyists who were publicly
pledging to 'cleanse Mexico of its filthy Jewish capitalist scum'), who were dissatisfied with the outcome of a recent election
in Mexico and with the pro-American policies of the resulting Mexican government, started staging a series of violent street demonstrations
in Zocalo Plaza -- thereby resulting (eventually) in the violent overthrow of the elected Mexican government, and its replacement
by a far-Left successor regime far more friendly to Russia or Cuba... what would be the reaction of the United States?"
Because substitute "Mexico" for "Ukraine" and "United States" for "Russia", and there you have an EXACTLY parallel situation.
Yet America whines and shrieks about Russia's behavior. I would suggest that you Americans check the history books regarding
your own track record, in Latin America, before you entertain us with your stupid posturing about "the awful Russians".
Nikita Glushkov -> SgtKonus
I'd wager it's because there cannot exist separate standards for the foreign policies of various great powers - unless said
separate standards can be enforced. In a world of realist power politics, it is nonsensical and disingenuous for one power to
attack another for not being moral, friendly, or nice, when the prevailing state of the world is one where being moral, friendly
or nice will compromise your security and survival. Feel me ?
hailexiao -> Bulos Qoqish
If we instigated and supporteds separatist/US annexationist movements in Baja California and Coahuila, we would be in the wrong,
just as Russia is in the wrong right now. Just because we won't do any better doesn't mean Russia or anyone who acts similarly
isn't also wrong. Glass houses need to be broken by thrown rocks anywhere they exist without exception.
Bulos Qoqish -> hailexiao
Suppose "we" (by "we" I assume you mean "the United States"... remember, I'm not an American) did that (note that you are,
here, disingenuously implying that ALL the separatist movements in Crimea and Ukraine were purely and simply created by the Russians,
out of whole cloth, and that they have absolutely no popular support in places like Crimea or Donetsk... an assertion that is
obviously false).
It would still not make America's likely reaction any different. So the entire point is irrelevant. The point IS, of course,
that, in true, hypocritical "U.S. exceptionalist" style, all of the Russia-baiters on these forums are frothing at the mouth to
denounce Russia for doing things that their own country also does (actually, does much worse), on a routine basis.
Whether or not this kind of nonsense propaganda is appealing to Americans, I can personally attest that it has ZERO credibility
or traction, outside of "God's 'exceptional' country".
Nobody out here particularly likes Putin or his cynical tactics in Ukraine. But the United States comes into this dispute as
a hopelessly tainted, discredited interlocutor. America's past track record of gross violations of international law and cavalier
disregard for the rights of less powerful nations, disqualifies it from being a positive force not only in this dispute... but
in ALL disputes.
Jack P -> David Giles
Cogent post. Thought I'd mention it because I've been through the ringers dealing with the drivel on the Russia-Ukraine situation,
and commiserate. Apparently anarchists, communists, progressives, some libertarians like Ron Paul, socialists, syndicalists, and
others are Putin trolls or Kremlin shills because they contradict the State Department party line. Better yet, Larry King,, Amy
Martin on Breaking the Set, and economist Max Keiser are Putin trolls because they're on Russia Today. The brainwashed boneheadedness
of many of these commentators is rather pathetic.
Hristo -> mtbr1975
First off. As everybody knows it started with a coup against the legit Ukrainian government. This coup was initiated and backed
by US mainly and EU following the "bigger brother", cause this is what they best do. They are followers. Secondly the russian
"invasion" actually never happened. It wasn't confirmed by any of the official observers. Ukrainian government came up with it
cause they were ashamed of loosing to significantly smaller army. So they needed an explanation. And knowingly that the west is
going to hope in the wagon for political reasons they invented the "russian invasion".
Hristo -> xi557xi
"an agent of irrational Russian behavior"
Wow finally you called somebody to come and help you with the writhing. Unfortunately for you it sounds, how to put it mildly
- stupid. Send this person back home. You were doing better without him. Now some answers:
1. Russia proposed cheap gas and 15 billion USD loan to Ukraine. EU proposed-wait for it-nothing. Yanukovych of course the pragmatic
he is new that it will take years for the Ukrainian economy to be able to integrate with EU. So he chose the logical one. That
is the truth. Everything else is just your wet dreams.
2. It is good that you have evolved as a result of our discussion and now you acknowledge that there wasn't a Russian invasion.
If there is (and this is a big if) any " Russian military officers, vehicles, weapons, equipment, and training involved" it is
only fair since there are American such in Ukraine. Somebody's got to level the play field, eh
3. I don't know but I would guess that you do. Since the Dutch in their report didn't come with an answer either, one may suggest
that you probably was the one shooting the plane, cause this is the only way to now with any certainty.
Jack P -> Kevin
"Supported various genocides such as Syria." That's a real howler. The anti-Syria jihadists - the origin of IS - was supported
by US/NATO via Turkey and the CIA. Yeah, I'm sure that conflict had nothing to do with Georgia's independent policies that irked
the kremlin" is a classic straw man argument. It doesn't refute that Georgia and Saakashvili, with arm stockpiles provided by
the US, perpetrated the murderous assault on South Ossetia. Chechnya is Russian Federation land. And yes, there is evidence that
Russia has shown itself to be "caring humanitarians." Witness the three aid convoys bringing food, water and other supplies to
Eastern Ukraine. What exactly has Kiev brought to that region?
Bulos Qoqish -> MatterOverMind
"Appeasement". The standard, nonsense "nuclear weapon" used by the U.S. neo-con Far Right to shut off debate and stop any
intelligent, reasoned, fact-based discussion of any topic that the Right doesn't want to examine.
How typically... "American".
Nikita Glushkov -> MatterOverMind
Yes, my man, a fine question. Let's examine the history, shall we ? At the end of the 80s, Gorbachev, bless his heart, decided
to pretend that realist great power politics ceased to exist and decided to unilaterally surrended Soviet interests on out Eastern
border. In return, his naive expectation was in the absence of a "threat", Washington and it's West European lackeys would do
the same. in fact, Baker, then Bush Srs. Secretarty of State, told Gorbachev clearly that if he were to allow the reunification
of Germany, NATO would not be advanced, and I quote here, "not even an inch to the East." We know very well with hingsight that
those promises were shat upon - instead, we got a Clinton-manufactured war to dismantle Serbia and make Kosovo essentially a huge
offshore US military base, we got pretty obvious NATO expansion, we got Bush-era attempts to place so-called ABM installations
on our borders (Oh, don't pay any mind to the fact that there are outside your door, they are actually aimed at the Iranians.
What, the Iranians have no long range missiles ? Oh well.) So don't give me Putin restablishing the Soviet empire shtick, it's
just juvenile. Thoughout this crisis, we have made clear that we will be perfectly satisfied with a non-aligned, neutral Ukraine
along the Finland model - because that is the only sitation that allows for the preservation of our security interests. Putin,
unlike your people,
boca_grande
Russia, has always wanted to be part of Europe. St. Petersburg was a testament to that wish, a capital built in Europe and
meant to impress Europe's then heads of state. (Royal Europe) but Russia was barely European mostly Asian. And it's early history
was not civilized as was Europe. Millions of uneducated surfs wedded to the land, no hope of emancipation. After this emancipation
in the revolution came an expanded more enlightened population, but also a feeling of national inferiority lingered. Everything
had to be Russian and big, not the best, but the biggest. The communist system failed and this empathized their degree of sophistication
in governing, manufacturing and arts. Yes, Americans managed to insult the Russians, but I think they would have never really
integrated with the west, as this Raw Russian history would prevail and they would have turned away from the civilized west. They
see the west as decadent, and reject principles we impose on them like the extreme degree's of free speech etc.
Putin is trying to build a Russia with more discipline and control then the west. Something like the US was in the
50's. It will be time that tells just what will come of it. Putin shows his citizens how he can thumb his nose at the EU and US
and get away with it. And China is going right along with him. They are forming a new hemisphere more energetic and exciting,
the west just isn't offering. The tables are turning way from he west and they know it. American leaders realize the same but
don't know what to do. Cut debt??? I think the only thing the world knows universally, is American leadership has faltered and
the world is in a mess or influx.
David Giles -> boca_grande
The Civilized West you mention created ISIS and is currently arming them despite that organizations brutal, murderous, genocidal
behavior. They are doing this to take down nations that don't adhere to their banking systems. The great civilized west killing
for money again. Russia has no desire to align with the godless, homo loving, baby killing west.
American leadership has not faltered, it has failed. It has failed to live up to its oath of office for over 100 years now, all
selling out to the One World Government movement and betraying the American public and nation.
End the Federal Reserve, end fiat currency, end the license to steal and kill.
Jack P -> SgtKonus
Only partially true. The US/NATO was arming and training Al Nusra in Turkey to go into Syria. The CIA was also involved. Of
interest is that well-known picture of McCain meeting with several of the "legitimate" opposition in Syria. Who's t he guy sitting
across from McCain, front left (those who want to can easily find the pic). He ends up being the head of ISIS.
Jack P -> SgtKonus
Link to a treatment of McCain purportedly meeting the "legitimate Syrian opposition." The author of the commentary contacted
the McCain camp wondering if he was meeting a later ISIS head. At first they said it wasn't the same person, to which the author
asked for the name. They didn't provide it. So either it is a cover-up, or McCain and his camp didn't vet who he was meeting.
In the case of the latter, it puts to shame the point that arms were being shipped to non-radical elements in Turkey and Syria.
Wow, you really are deluded. Well try then Saudi Arabia. How many be headings and stoning s have they performed this year?
And this differs from ISIS how? And they are whose allies? This thing about Iraq's weapons is hog wash and just a phony alibi.
SWalkerTTU -> Laura •
Maybe we should consider the policy of the Roman Empire, which Tacitus (I think?) sarcastically described as "They make a desert
and call it peace."
Laura -> SWalkerTTU
What peace is, is a complex thing. If everyone is dead, that's pretty peaceful. If one side is cowed into silence, that's peaceful.
Jack P -> vkg123
Not deep in the woods at all. Given that there are Chechen separatist terrorists in the area who are going under the radar
after Russia gaining control of the territory. Some of the volunteers who went to East Ukraine were formerly fighting the terrorists
- or separatists however you want to look at it - in previous Chechen battle. Many of them went elsewhere, to places like Turkey
and eventually where they gained US/NATO largesse.
In fact Right Sector thug Yarosh, currently in high position in the Kiev government, praised Right Sector Alexander Muzichko
for his role in fighting against Russia in Chechnya. Muzichko is known for torture and murder of prisoners. That's the side that
transmuted into the Syrian "opposition" and eventually the current ISIS.
Quote: "This is a shocking misrepresentation of the "facts," but one that is believable to most Americans because it is the
tale we have been repeatedly fed by the corporate media". Imagine Washington's response if Russia were to politically intervene
in Canada in order to install an anti-US government.
This week US President Barack Obama addressed the UN General Assembly and the unintended irony in his speech would be humorous
if it were not so cruel-and dangerous. Obama touched on a variety of global issues from the Ebola epidemic to the Ukraine to the
Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS). So what was this unintended irony so prevalent in Obama's speech?
Well, here are a few choice nuggets for you to consider:
"We see the future not as something out of our control, but as something we can shape for the better through concerted and
collective effort."
Obama neglected to note that the reason that the future may seem out of control is directly related to US interventionist
actions in faraway regions such as Iraq and the Ukraine. The illegal and unilateral action-rather than a legal collective effort
through the United Nations-to conquer and occupy Iraq lies at the root of the new US intervention in that country and in Syria.
"Russia's actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order. Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular
protests and calls for reform, their corrupt President fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed."
This is a shocking misrepresentation of the "facts," but one that is believable to most Americans because it is the tale we
have been repeatedly fed by the corporate media. After being told by our political leaders and the corporate media at the time
that the protests by the Euromaidan movement in Ukraine constituted a popular uprising, the events that followed laid bare that lie.
The Euromaidan movement represented a section of the Ukrainian population that was allied with US and EU interests. Furthermore,
it was being supported by Washington long before the protests began in order to destabilize the country and overthrow the democratically-elected
president because he was more closely-aligned with Russia than Western Europe. While Russia is undoubtedly meddling in the Ukraine,
at least it is a neighbour with intimate and even ethnic ties to manyUkranians. Imagine Washington's response if Russia were to politically intervene in Canada in order to install an anti-US
government.
On Facebook, critics of the U.S. and its Arab allies, calling them "aggressors" and the "Crusade Coalition," dominated the postings
Tuesday by almost 10 to 1.
The attacks against the Islamic State militants were openly welcomed by rebels who have fought for three years against the government
of President Bashar al- Assad.
Raad Alawi, the commander of a smaller group of fighters, the Squadrons of Al Haq, told McClatchy he was very angry."Starting
the war with the bombing of Nusra is an indication that this is a war against the revolution and not Daash," he said, using the
pejorative Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. "Maybe next they will bomb the bases of the Free Syrian Army."
The Hazm movement, which also receives U.S. and international support, issued a statement condemning the airstrikes, the failure
to consult the Free Syrian Army and the deaths of civilians.
- It proves that McClatchy has a good set of reporters in the Middle East and that they don't toe the official US government
line. But how many people read McClatchy on line ?
- McClatchy reporters are regularly interviewed by Scott Horton (http://scotthorton.org).
Horton used to do these interviews for www.antiwar.com but had to set up his own website/shop after Antiwar had to cut back
on spending in 2011/2012. (I have regularly visited Antiwar.com since say mid 2005).
- The articles prove my (biased ??) view that those air attacks are "not helping" on how the Middle East looks upon (predominantly)
the US and its allies.
Demian | Sep 24, 2014 5:51:37 PM | 21
@Willy2 #11:
As I recall, McClatchy was the only anglophone wire service which, during the run up to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq,
ran stories casting doubt on claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
xxx
Lavrov tells Kerry a few home truths "In an interview given to the Russian Channel 5 prior to his meeting with US State Secretary
John Kerry on Wednesday, Lavrov said that combating terrorism requires fighting terrorists everywhere, not classifying them as
good because they're trying to topple a duly elected and legitimate leader that the sides making these classifications happen
to dislike personally.
"According to this logic, the only bad terrorists are the ones who only kill U.S. citizens," he said, wondering how the Americans
failed to see the terrorist threats before".http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=172709&cid=22&fromval=1&frid=22&seccatid=45&s1=1
Posted by: harry law | Sep 24, 2014 6:06:56 PM |
23
xxx
Posted by: harry law | Sep 24, 2014 6:06:56 PM | 23
Please don't link to the truth it scares the sheeple;) The one thing
I like most about Russian leaders is that if you didn't understand what they just said than your an idiot. Its to the point
but Kerry will miss the whole thing spout off some insane BS as usual.
The one thing I like most about Russian leaders is that if you didn't understand what they just said than your an idiot.
Russian leaders don't do postmodernism, which Western elites have embraced. Postmodernism is a pseudo-left embellishment on
the concept of doublethink. I can't think of a better recent
example of doublethink than
Obama's address to the UN General Assembly.
"We fight for our ideals, and are willing to criticize ourselves when we fall short. Because we hold our leaders accountable,
and insist on a free press and independent judiciary."
Russia tops ISIS threat, Ebola worst of all? Lavrov puzzled by Obama's UN speech
Published time: September 24, 2014 21:47
Edited time: September 25, 2014 04:44 Reacting to the speech, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke with astonishment.
"We earned the second place among the threats to international peace and stability," Lavrov told journalists on the sidelines
of the UN assembly.
Not only the ranking of international threats seemed bizarre to Lavrov, especially in the light of the current strikes in Iraq
and Syria that bypassed the UN mandate, but also Obama's certainty that the world has become "freer and safer."
"I didn't understand whether he was serious or not and whether there was an Orwellian element in it. Because George Orwell
invented the Ministry of Truth and it looks like this philosophy is lingering." http://rt.com/news/190392-russia-lavrov-obama-threat-speech/
The story is a complex exploration of the attitudes people hold on what constitutes a barbarian versus a civilized society
and the attitudes on colonialism and racism that were part and parcel of European imperialism.
Fascinated that airstrikes in Syria targeted and destroyed/degraded "ISIS controlled oil fields" (which represent most of Syria's
flagging oil industry) -- As far as I can tell Syria's oil industry was nationalized in the 1960's and I can find no evidence
it was ever re-"privatized" (although foreign exploration resumed in the late 1970's and remains highly subsidized domestically
(to keep prices down for the domestic market).
According to the BBC, this "blackmarket oil smuggling" has been in existence for decades and is low level and largely a "local
market" so this may be another "strike" against terrorism that makes life even more bitterly difficult for the locals.
France reportedly bombed ISIS in Iraq (and Syria) -- allegedly in "retaliation" for the beheading of a "tourist" ... interesting
precedent.
"Having nearly provoked war over Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia, the Obama administration has now launched a full-scale crusade
in Iraq and Syria against the evil Saracens of ISIS. ... The new plan seems to be: "Kill'em all and let God sort them out," a Vietnam-era
slogan echoing the original from the Middle Ages."
Having nearly provoked war over Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia, the Obama administration has now launched a full-scale crusade
in Iraq and Syria against the evil Saracens of ISIS.
America's aerial might, including B-1 heavy bombers, is plastering ISIS miscreants. Washington's Arab allies and rightwing governments
in Canada and Australia have joined the fray. The British will be next.
ISIS reserved particular venom for the French, referring to them as "dirty, spiteful" French (the Brits will love this one) whose
warplanes joined the bombing crusade.
The new plan seems to be: "Kill'em all and let God sort them out," a Vietnam-era slogan echoing the original from the Middle Ages.
The real problem is that the White House's strategy looks like it's being run by two angry women, Susan Rice and UN ambassador
Samantha Power. Neither they nor President Barack Obama seems to have any grasp of military or geopolitical strategy. It's amateur
hour driven by a frenzy of alarmist hysteria from politicians and the media.
Iran's president put it perfectly when he called America's new Syria-Iraq a "blunder," adding "certain intelligence agencies
have put blades in the hands of madmen, who now spare no one."
While the US is cooking up a new, bigger mess in the Levant, the old mess in Afghanistan only gets worse. Last week, Washington's
colonial bureau finally managed to cobble together a political deal in Afghanistan between two rivals for the presidency, Ashraf
Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah.
... ... ...
Taliban virtually eliminated Afghanistan's drug trade save in the region controlled by the Northern Alliance. Today, Afghanistan's
drug production and exports have reached what the UN calls "record highs."
The US remains the proud owner of the world's leading producer of heroin. The drug lords that kept Karzai in power are all close
US allies. But no one in Washington cares to talk about the dirty underside of Afghan politics or how its government runs on drug
money. Foreign aid is the only other source of government income.
Most Pashtuns detest the suave Abdullah Abdullah and his fellow Tajiks. For their part, Tajiks look down on Pashtun as backwards
mountaineers. Everyone mistrusts the minority Uzbek and Hazara, both of whom also collaborated with the US occupation or Iran.
Taliban, Afghanistan's most popular and authentic political movement, is predominantly Pashtun. Washington's refusal to talk directly
to the demonized Taliban ensures that there will be no real political compromise in wretched Afghanistan, which has been at war for
the past 35 years.
The half-forgotten Afghan War has cost the US close to 2,500 dead, 17,000 wounded and over $1 trillion. The "reconstructed"
Afghan army will be as likely to collapse without direct US support as was Iraq's army, three divisions of which ran away at first
contact with ISIS fighters.
So why does Washington keep pumping billions into Afghanistan, which has no oil? Because, in keeping with imperial logic and
strategy, it remains the best pipeline route to export the oil riches of the Caspian Basin south to Karachi on the Arabian Sea.
And because Afghanistan overwatches Central Asia, where China is increasingly active.
Lastly, because the mighty US military industrial complex cannot accept being defeated by Pashtun tribesmen. Nor can the American,
Canadian, British and French politicians who sent their soldiers to fight and die in this useless war.
Obama's new wars in Iraq and Syria are totally immoral as well as illegal under US and international law, RPI Chairman Ron Paul told
RT's Abby Martin yesterday. The idea that US force will solve the problem is also mistaken, he said. "US action will increase the
violence," rather than reduce it, he added.
In a lengthy interview, broadcast on RT's popular "Breaking the Set" program, Dr. Paul
wonders why the countries in the region, feeling the pressure from ISIS, do not get together to solve the problem.
Said Dr. Paul about US involvement in the fight:
Why should someone 6,000 miles away, that has been stirring this pot for so long, be the group that is going to bring everyone
together and organize the fight?
The fearmongers who have terrified many Americans into supporting another war in the Middle East are "not concerned with the defense
of America," said Ron Paul. But the weapons manufacturers are making out very well, with the US bombing its own weapons that have
fallen into the hands of ISIS.
After a few years of publishing on the web to an audience of more than a million readers a month, it became clear to us that the
old David v. Goliath struggle of left pamphelteers battling the vast print combines of the news barons is beginning to equal up.
On a laptop's 12-inch screen CounterPunch stands as high as the New York Times or Rupert Murdoch, who shelled out $580 million for
Myspace.com in 2006 when he belatedly realized the world had changed.
Jeff Bezos, the titan of Amazon, plunked down $250 million of the decrepit Washington Post. Why? Vanity? What's an oligarch without
his own paper? The old newspaper empires are dying or dead.
Twenty years ago the Los Angeles Times was a mighty power. Today it totters from once savage cost-cut and forced retirement
to the next. Will the broadsheets and tabloids vanish? Not in the foreseeable future, any more than trains disappeared after the
advent of the Interstate system. A mature industry will yield income and attract investors interested in money or power long after
its glory days are over. But it's a world in decline and a propaganda system in decay.
The left is so used to being underdogged that it is often incapable of greeting good fortune when it knocks at the door. Thirty
years ago, many of the pieces we run daily in CounterPunch challenging the official nonsense peddled in the mass-market press, would
have been doomed to small-circulation magazines or 30-second summaries on Pacifica radio. Thirty years ago, to find out what
was really happening in Gaza, you would have needed a decent short-wave radio or a fax machine. Not any more. Now we can get a news
report from Gaza or Ramallah or Oaxaca or Vidharba and have it out to a worldwide audience in a matter of minutes.
Naturally, the state doesn't like the loosening of control. Of course, it could start policing the Net more heavily and
start taking down sites more often. Cost of access could shoot up. All of these things could happen and, absent resistance,
may well happen. But right now there are new opportunities to be explored and turned, at last, to the advantage of radicals.
Russia's President Putin is reported to have said in a conversation a while back that he could be in Kiev in two
weeks. In our press, this was reported as yet more evidence of aggressive intentions, but, given even a moment's thought, that is
a patently false interpretation. It is also further evidence, as if more were needed, of the level of desperation American propaganda
around events in Ukraine has reached. It is almost as though America's intelligence/news media alliance started mimicking the almost
forgotten Soviet apparatchiks of decades ago.
Yes, undoubtedly, the Russian military could be in Kiev in a couple of weeks. The very fact that they are not only shows what
nonsense we hear from America and the coup-installed government in Ukraine. Clearly, Putin's words were to the effect, "I wouldn't
have to tolerate the mess on our borders in Ukraine if I truly had aggressive intentions. For goodness sakes, use your brains, I
could be in Kiev in two weeks."
This deliberate misinterpretation of a casual statement stands out for me as one of the most pathetic of many pathetic things
coming from Western politicians and media. And it is deliberate, for if it were the truth that the intelligence service of a superpower
could only interpret statements with such feeble understanding, the world would have entered a new era of extreme danger, with idiots
advising the commander who has his finger on the launch button. But I know there's no genuine danger of that. The interpretation
is intended only to shape American public opinion, never very well informed at the best of times. It's a sound bite not intended
to provide real information, just a momentary association of something very negative with the name of Russia's president, indeed
one of a stream of sound bites broadcast recently as though they meant something, as though they were news.
It is a classic method of propaganda, closely related to the technique in advertising of repeating a phrase or slogan or jingle
over and over, no matter how silly its actual content is on analysis, and like all the best propaganda, it starts with a truth no
matter how insignificant, incompletely reported, and removed from context. But there are two deeply concerning aspects to what otherwise
would just be garbage. First, it flows from the writers and editors of what is supposed to be a free and open press, not advertising
agencies trying to sell personal hygiene products, and thus demonstrates once more how meaningless is the term, "free and open press."
When the American government has a point to make, even a point that is dishonest or silly, in supporting some ill-conceived and dangerous
policy, the entire press instantly enlists to echo it across the land, offering saturation access to the public that could not be
bought for millions of dollars. At least in matters of foreign affairs, American journalism does not exist outside the childish fantasies
of young journalism students thinking they are going to dig for the truth and serve the right to know once they graduate. You know,
the bilge about the press being the fourth branch of government, the tribune of the people, and keeping citizens informed.
But more worrying is why the government or the press in America wishes now to cast aspersions on one of the world's most important
leaders? It has been more than three decades since Russia and the United States were commonly understood as enemies, each capable
of obliterating the other. Why would anyone want to look backward to that? And why would anyone deliberately attack a man who has
proved himself a sophisticated statesman, one whose words and behaviors show more consistency than those of any of our Western leaders,
and especially president Obama who has not spent a day of his time in the White House without killing someone somewhere and surely
has matched George Bush for lack of character.
Such cheap propaganda is symptomatic of aggressive intent. I believe the United States' establishment is starting to feel a new
sense of its relative decline in the world, and it is desperate to shore things up by hurting new competitors. The so-called pivot
towards China is one of its tactics, and the expansion of NATO right against the face of Russia is another. Both are provocative
and risky. And I only wish the world could understand that the United States is not that far from being a de facto bankrupt.
It has no money for anything except by the unsound and unethical practice of printing more of it, knowing its special position as
a world reserve currency allows it to cheat holders of dollars around the entire planet with their devaluation. And devalue it will,
sooner or later, effectively leaving most of the bill for its stupid wars to be paid by others.
Geography and many other factors, such as the distribution of energy and other natural resources, say that Russia and Europe are
over the long term destined to be strong, natural economic partners. But the United States has been Europe's partner – indeed, a
good deal more than a mere partner since WWII – and it does not like the prospect of Russia in any way displacing it. It is utterly
backward thinking, but we are discussing brains driven by hormones here, not by logic or good will. I recall at an energy conference
I attended during the Reagan era meeting a representative from the American State Department whose main message was that we had to
stop Russian gas pipelines into Europe. As a believer in people freely buying what they need from others freely selling what they
have, I didn't agree with him and said so, and the people of Europe clearly weren't convinced because many pipelines exist and many
billions of cubic feet of gas flow.
The United States has taken every effort to get some return for its costly investment in a half-failed scheme to destabilize Ukraine,
and with each deft move of Russia, it has played the old "look out for the commies" theme, just tarted up a bit so it doesn't seem
laughably out of date. The combination of the expansion of NATO plus scare-mongering about Russia buys some time against what I believe
is inevitable. And minds driven only by the hormonal impulse of being dominant – full-spectrumdominance is the grotesque
Washington insider expression – are incapable of clearly analyzing a situation, regardless of their intelligence and technology and
information resources. And they are certainly not capable of acting on behalf of the great basic principles of rights and freedoms
with which they sloppily wallpaper their every public statement. They are blind to the chances they take, to the risks they expose
all of us to, and to the damage they create for the happiness and prosperity of millions of people.
America's elaborate dirty tricks in Ukraine were intended to make Russia considerably less secure. You can almost imagine the
buzz-cut thugs at Langley having a good laugh over expense-account steaks and martinis when they first thought they had succeeded,
the laughter one expects from sociopathic American frat-boys who've just played a very dirty joke on someone, as by drugging some
poor girl's drink at a party and raping her. Perhaps the intentions included a plan ultimately to base missiles in Ukraine near Russia's
border, which would be a tremendously provocative act. Certainly it was hoped that gradually Ukraine would become more western-oriented,
although the prospect for a poor country like Ukraine, one with shaky democratic credentials and not a good record in human rights,
becoming in our lifetime full members of Europe is simply not in the cards. After all, the U.S. keeps pushing for Israel to become
part of major European organizations, but that is too much even for some of America's yes-men in Europe to accept.
Accusing Russia of looking out for what's happening on her borders isn't an accusation, it's what all states do everywhere. Goodness
knows the case of Cuba should provide perspective and food for thought. The United States has needlessly hurt that country for half
a century with its embargo, many of the chief traditional products of Cuba having been things to satisfy the American markets, such
as sugar and tobacco. But an embargo alone was never enough to secure the desired dominance. The United States invaded Cuba with
a proxy army of Cuban refugees it trained, supplied, and paid. It tried to assassinate Cuba's leader, many, many times, and it periodically
sent terrorist forces to blow or shoot up things in Cuba. Ships in ports were shot up, hotels were attacked, and an airliner full
of people was bombed. When Cuba asked for the return of America's base at Guantanamo, a base only leased from Cuba originally under
duress, the United States simply refused and still illegally occupies the land half a century later.
Of course, America was quite ready to hurl the world into nuclear war when it discovered that the Soviet Union had placed missiles
in Cuba as a way both of protecting its ally against new invasions and as increased leverage in dealing with an often inflexible
and aggressive United States. The missiles were provocative, but most thinking people felt they were not adequate cause for nuclear
war. Fortunately, President Kennedy was able to stand up against the terrible pressures of the military-intelligence establishment
and reach a negotiated settlement with Premier Khrushchev, an act which many believe, including this author, later cost him his life
in Dallas. Well, all that gives you just some idea of how America responds to what it considers trouble or meddling, even a hundred
miles from its border.
We hear the accusation that Russia arms the rebels in Ukraine, as well as the Assad government in Syria. My answer is that America,
which spends as much on its military as all others on the planet combined, is also the world's largest arms dealer as well as a ready
covert supplier to groups anywhere it deems as serving its interests, whether extremist groups, including ISIS, set up to destroy
Syria or the Nazi-like groups affiliated with Ukraine's new government and employed in its coup. America runs a virtual conveyor
belt of death machines and munitions to Israel to keep it well supplied in upsetting peace throughout the Mideast and suppressing
millions of people it took prisoner half a century ago, a situation which has ranked in my view as the world's most dangerous until
now. A great deal of the aggression and repression of Israel have to do with the fact that their best minds recognize the unfavorable
situation into which they are locked: no population growth versus high population growth for Arabs, the most highly subsidized national
economy in the world affording poorer prospects for most residents than their native places would, an interminable series of wars
and repressions and acts which the world sees as atrocities, early dreams all soured by a sense of no way out, and perhaps a sense
of having committed a colossal blunder in starting it all.
So in a very real sense, both America and Israel, unwilling or unable to deal with their tremendous problems in a statesmanlike,
realistic, and enduring way, dance a hideous danse macabre, with the entire world forced to watch in fear and horror.
When you compare Europe today to, say, Europe of fifty years ago, something more than a little disturbing becomes apparent. Then,
despite the height of the Cold War presumably giving reason for greater solidarity with America, there were many independent voices
in Europe. France had a consistently strong and decisive voice, and it was determined not to be subservient to NATO. Britain, today
perhaps the worst example of subservience to America in all things, also showed independence at critical points, as when it refused
to send troops to the holocaust of Vietnam despite great pressure from President Johnson. Today, there are no independent voices,
and despite the clear, long-term interests of Europeans in having good relations with Russia, we see country after country acquiesce
to America's demands for destructive sanctions. Even Holland, a country we think of as fair and tough-minded, issued an interim report
on the destruction of Malaysian Airlines' MH17 which told us nothing we already didn't know. That was clearly at the insistence of
the United States, unwilling to see its proxy government in Ukraine revealed for the violent and incompetent operation that it is.
NATO, an obsolete organization by any measure, has been expanded, serving primarily the interest of continued American hegemony in
Europe, and America pushes the idea of every member spending more on its military. The United States also has Europeans committing
to plainly idiotic purchases, as in buying the F-35, a plane one great American fighter jet designer called the worst ever conceived.
The plane cannot ever do what it was supposed to do because it was foolishly commissioned to do a bit of almost everything, and the
Pentagon wants as many others chipping in to subsidize the immense cost of salvaging something from the wreck. Perhaps the F-35 is
emblematic of a conquered Europe, throwing away money on junk because America expects them to do so.
In the light of international developments, the German media demonstrates "selective empathy," says the website Propagandaschau.
Tearful stories ARD and ZDF about war crimes and victims of armed conflicts only serve as an excuse for military intervention of
the West. However, they ignore inconvenient or treat as having no political importance similar facts and events in Ukraine, such
as the recently discovered mass graves in the East of Ukraine.
Authors of the website Propagandaschau not the first time noted
peculiar to the German media "selective sympathy", using which such large public-law broadcasters as ARD and ZDF manipulate the audience.
When it is the USA that is a target of a terrorist attack, the daily broadcast is interrupted by the emergency news release with
direct interventions from the event, comments and interviews. If something similar happens in Russia, this event is covered in short
newscasts, and the blame for the incident is often blamed on the Russian government.
The author emphasizes that the same thing is happening now. Fact of killing of civilians by "Kyiv junta" are suppressed. German
media ignore the fact that the Ukrainian "justice" does not investigate the causes of the fire in the House of trade unions in Odessa.
ARD does not report kidnapped and murdered Russian journalists. All because it does not fit into the political agenda, the purpose
of which to represent Russia as the criminal. German viewer, explains the author, should not understand the logic of the actions
of the Donetsk resistance fighters and especially he should be empathize them, as this will prevent the brainwashing of the image
of "criminal Russia". War crimes are usually put in the air only to justify military intervention of the USA and their "political
vassals, even if these actions violate international law", says Propagandaschau.
When a citizen of France hervé Gurgel gets captured and executed, ZDF and ARD resort to all available means of emotional manipulation,
telling a detailed biography of the victim and lighting occurred in the most complete and expressive form. The viewer the impression
that they would be willing to show the process of execution in detail, if they were not restrained by any moral and ethical taboos.
These detailed reports were required to perform a specific political goal: to justify military bombing by Western countries of Syria
and Iraq.
However, at the same time in the East of Ukraine were found mass graves of civilian that were tortured and killed by junta neo-Nazi.
Including woman. Those evidence was transferred to the OSCE. There are visible signs of torture on the dead bodies, and two of them
were even beheaded. A mass grave has dozens of corpses. But German media are silent. Apparently, for them it is an event of zero
political importance.
The editor of BBC Radio 4's Today has said the programme needs to find new ways of covering "bad foreign news" stories after the
summer of conflicts in Ukraine, Syria and Gaza proved a turn-off with listeners.
Jamie Angus said some listeners had stopped tuning in to Today and had told him they could not take any more of "this terrible
thing that I can't influence".
By driving a wedge between President Obama and President Putin over Ukraine, America's neocons and the mainstream media
can hope for more "shock and awe" in the Mideast, but the U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill, including $1 trillion more on nuclear
weapons, writes Robert Parry.
The costs of the mainstream U.S. media's wildly anti-Moscow bias in the Ukraine crisis are adding up, as the Obama administration
has decided to react to alleged "Russian aggression" by investing as much as $1 trillion in modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons
arsenal.
On Monday, a typically slanted New York Times
article justified
these modernization plans by describing "Russia on the warpath" and adding: "Congress has expressed less interest in atomic reductions
than looking tough in Washington's escalating confrontation with Moscow."
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup
leaders.
But the Ukraine crisis has been a textbook case of the U.S. mainstream media misreporting the facts of a foreign confrontation
and then misinterpreting the meaning of the events, a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out." The core of the false mainstream
narrative is that Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated the crisis as an excuse to reclaim territory for the Russian Empire.
While that interpretation of events has been the cornerstone of Official Washington's "group think," the reality always was that
Putin favored maintaining the status quo in Ukraine. He had no plans to "invade" Ukraine and was satisfied with the elected government
of President Viktor Yanukovych. Indeed, when the crisis heated up last February, Putin was distracted by the Sochi Winter Olympics.
Rather than Putin's "warmongering" – as the Times said in the lead-in to another Monday
article – the
evidence is clear that it was the United States and the European Union that initiated this confrontation in a bid to pull Ukraine
out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit.
This was a scheme long in the making, but the immediate framework for the crisis took shape a year ago when influential U.S.
neocons set their sights on Ukraine and Putin after Putin helped defuse a crisis in Syria by persuading President Barack Obama to
set aside plans to bomb Syrian government targets over
a disputed Sarin gas attack and instead accept
Syria's willingness to surrender its entire chemical weapons arsenal.
But the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" allies had their hearts set on another "shock and awe" campaign with the goal
of precipitating another "regime change" against a Middle East government disfavored by Israel. Putin also worked with Obama to resolve
the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, averting another neocon dream to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
The Despised Putin
So, Putin suddenly rose to the top of the neocons' "enemies list" and some prominent neocons quickly detected his vulnerability
in Ukraine, a historical route for western invasions of Russia and the scene of extraordinarily bloody fighting during World War
II.
National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, one of the top neocon paymasters spreading around $100 million a year
in U.S. taxpayers' money,
declared in late September 2013 that Ukraine represented "the biggest prize" but beyond that was an opportunity to put Putin
"on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
The context for Gershman's excitement was a European Union offer of an association agreement to Ukraine's elected President Viktor
Yanukovych, but it came with some nasty strings attached, an austerity plan demanded by the International Monetary Fund that would
have made the hard lives of the average Ukrainian even harder.
That prompted Yanukovych to seek a better deal from Putin who offered $15 billion in aid without the IMF's harsh terms. Yet, once
Yanukovych rebuffed the EU plan, his government was targeted by a destabilization campaign that involved scores of political and
media projects funded by Gershman's NED and other U.S. agencies.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover who had been an adviser to Vice President
Dick Cheney, reminded a group of Ukrainian business
leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European aspirations." Nuland, wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan,
also showed up at the Maidan square in Kiev passing out cookies to protesters.
The Maidan protests, reflecting western Ukraine's desire for closer ties to Europe, also were cheered on by neocon Sen. John McCain,
who appeared on a podium with leaders of the far-right Svoboda party under a banner honoring Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. A
year earlier, the European Parliament had identified
Svoboda as professing "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views [that] go against the EU's fundamental values and principles."
Yet, militants from Svoboda and the even more extreme Right Sektor were emerging as the muscle of the Maidan protests, seizing
government buildings and hurling firebombs at police. A well-known Ukrainian neo-Nazi leader, Andriy Parubiy, became the commandant
of the Maidan's "self-defense" forces.
Behind the scenes, Assistant Secretary Nuland was deciding who would take over the Ukrainian government once Yanukovych was ousted.
In an intercepted phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland
crossed off some potential leaders and announced that "Yats" – or Arseniy Yatsenyuk – was her guy.
The Coup
On Feb. 20, as the neo-Nazi militias stepped up their attacks on police, a mysterious sniper opened fire on both protesters and
police killing scores and bringing the political crisis to a boil. The U.S. news media blamed Yanukovych for the killings though
he denied giving such an order and some evidence pointed toward a provocation from the far-right extremists.
As Estonia's Foreign Minister Urmas Paet
said in another intercepted
phone call with EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Asthon, "there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it
was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition."
But the sniper shootings led Yanukovych to agree on Feb. 21 to a deal guaranteed by three European countries – France, Germany
and Poland – that he would surrender much of his power and move up elections so he could be voted out of office. He also assented
to U.S. demands that he pull back his police.
That last move, however, prompted the neo-Nazi militias to overrun the presidential buildings on Feb. 22 and force Yanukovych's
officials to flee for their lives. Then, rather than seeking to enforce the Feb. 21 agreement, the U.S. State Department promptly
declared the coup regime "legitimate" and blamed everything on Yanukovych and Putin.
Nuland's choice, Yatsenyuk, was made prime minister and the neo-Nazis were rewarded for their crucial role by receiving several
ministries, including national security headed by Parubiy. The parliament also voted to ban Russian as an official language (though
that was later rescinded), and the IMF austerity demands were pushed through by Yatsenyuk. Not surprisingly, ethnic Russians in the
south and east, the base of Yanukovych's support, began resisting what they regarded as the illegitimate coup regime.
To blame this crisis on Putin simply ignores the facts and defies logic. To presume that Putin instigated the ouster of Yanukovych
in some convoluted scheme to seize territory requires you to believe that Putin got the EU to make its reckless association offer,
organized the mass protests at the Maidan, convinced neo-Nazis from western Ukraine to throw firebombs at police, and manipulated
Gershman, Nuland and McCain to coordinate with the coup-makers – all while appearing to support Yanukovych's idea for new elections
within Ukraine's constitutional structure.
Though such a crazy conspiracy theory would make people in tinfoil hats blush, this certainty is at the heart of what every "smart"
person in Official Washington believes. If you dared to suggest that Putin was actually distracted by the Sochi Olympics last February,
was caught off guard by the events in Ukraine, and reacted to a Western-inspired crisis on his border (including his acceptance of
Crimea's request to be readmitted to Russia), you would be immediately dismissed as "a stooge of Moscow."
Such is how mindless "group think" works in Washington. All the people who matter jump on the bandwagon and smirk at anyone who
questions how wise it is to be rolling downhill in some disastrous direction.
But the pols and pundits who appear on U.S. television spouting the conventional wisdom are always the winners in this scenario.
They get to look tough, standing up to villains like Yanukovych and Putin and siding with the saintly Maidan protesters. The neo-Nazi
brown shirts are whited out of the picture and any Ukrainian who objected to the U.S.-backed coup regime finds a black hat firmly
glued on his or her head.
For the neocons, there are both financial and ideological benefits. By shattering the fragile alliance that had evolved between
Putin and Obama over Syria and Iran, the neocons seized greater control over U.S. policies in the Middle East and revived the prospects
for violent "regime change."
On a more mundane level – by stirring up a new Cold War – the neocons generate more U.S. government money for military contractors
who bestow a portion on Washington think tanks that provide cushy jobs for neocons when they are out of government.
The Losers
The worst losers are the people of Ukraine, most tragically the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, thousands of whom have died
from a combination of heavy artillery fire by the Ukrainian army on residential areas followed by street fighting led by brutal neo-Nazi
militias who were incorporated into Kiev's battle plans. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Romantic' Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers."]
The devastation of eastern Ukraine, which has driven an estimated one million Ukrainians out of their homes, has left parts of
this industrial region in ruins. Of course, in the U.S. media version, it's all Putin's fault for deceiving these ethnic Russians
with "propaganda" about neo-Nazis and then inducing these deluded individuals to resist the "legitimate" authorities in Kiev.
Notably, America's righteous "responsibility to protect" crowd, which demanded that Obama begin airstrikes in Syria a year ago,
swallowed its moral whistles when it came to the U.S.-backed Kiev regime butchering ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine (or for that
matter, when Israeli forces slaughtered Palestinians in Gaza).
However, beyond the death and destruction in eastern Ukraine, the meddling by Nuland, Gershman and others has pushed all of Ukraine
toward financial catastrophe. As "The Business Insider" reported on Sept. 21, "Ukraine
Is on the Brink of Total Economic Collapse."
Author Walter Kurtz wrote:
"Those who have spent any time in Ukraine during the winter know how harsh the weather can get. And at these [current] valuations,
hryvnia [Ukraine's currency] isn't going to buy much heating fuel from abroad. …
"Inflation rate is running above 14% and will spike sharply from here in the next few months if the currency weakness persists.
Real wages are collapsing. … Finally, Ukraine's fiscal situation is unraveling."
In other words, the already suffering Ukrainians from the west, east and center of the country can expect to suffer a great deal
more. They have been made expendable pawns in a geopolitical chess game played by neocon masters and serving interests far from
Lviv, Donetsk and Kiev.
But other victims from these latest machinations by the U.S. political/media elite will include the American taxpayers who
will be expected to foot the bill for the new Cold War launched in reaction to Putin's imaginary scheme to instigate the Ukraine
crisis so he could reclaim territory of the Russian Empire.
As nutty as that conspiracy theory is, it is now one of the key reasons why the American people have to spend $1 trillion to modernize
the nation's nuclear arsenal, rather than scaling back the thousands of U.S. atomic weapons to around 900, as had been planned.
Or as one supposed expert, Gary Samore at Harvard, explained to the New York Times: "The most fundamental game changer is Putin's
invasion of Ukraine. That has made any measure to reduce the stockpile unilaterally politically impossible."
Thus, you can see how hyperbolic journalism and self-interested punditry can end up costing the American taxpayers vast sums of
money and contributing to a more dangerous world.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
Western owned media is a tool for implementing color revolutions and as such is a direct threat to sovereignty of any nation. Unfortunately...
that means the USA is powerful force of spreading totalitarism on the planet as any government now understand the threat of color revolution
pretty well and is forced to take defensive measures. Just like recently Russia -- the target of the next color revolution -- just did.
Russian politicians are seeking to reduce western ownership of its media.
The Financial Times reports that a bill to limit
foreign investment in its media to 20% has received parliamentary support.
At present, foreign stakes in radio and television are capped at 50%, but no such restrictions have previously applied to print
media.
Significantly, the proposal was supported by president Vladimir Putin's
party, which suggests it has a strong chance of becoming law.
If it does, the shake-out would affect several of the world's leading media groups. They include Condé Nast, Disney,
Bauer, Burda and German's Axel Springer. And
Russia's leading business daily, Vedomosti, is part owned by the
Financial Times and the
Wall Street Journal.
Given the role played by media with foreign sponsorship in Ukraine, to harness, propagandise and promote the Maidan protests -
the "cover" for the coup d'etat - it is absolutely no surprise that Russia might take this defensive measure.
People in the
Britain (or just England really) try not to talk about the direct personal role played by Rupert Murdoch, via his media, in pretty
much deciding who will control parliament. For the last 35 years it has been possible to identify the winner of an upcoming election
by looking at headlines in The Sun and spotting those small news stories about which politician has been "summoned" to Murdoch's
yacht.
Obviously in Ukraine it was a more focussed and planned strategy to create multi-media platforms for what was a mass propaganda
drive, EuroMaidanPR, InterpreterMag Kiev Post (in English) etc. Not only Ukrainians were the targets of this strategised propaganda
but also the diaspora and us citizens of "Nato countries".
It looks like the "Maidan Moscow" plan of Western intelligence & their "pet" Russian oligarchs will not succeed, the RF government
has already taken a variety of anti-subversion measures. Of course the media and internet are important "weapons" to seek to destabilise
another country.
It won't stop the US trying of course....returning Russia to economic & political chaos is their objective, just like Bush1
in the 90s.
Russian politicians are seeking to reduce western ownership of its media. The Financial Times reports that a bill to limit foreign
investment in its media to 20% has received parliamentary support.
=========
what is % of foreign pownership in BBC,. CNN, ABC etc...I mean REAL foreign ownership as Murdoch as an Australian is hardly
REAL ALLIEN for UK or USA....
The arguments for "free market" private ownership of media as being beneficial for an open pluralist society, that some people
make in complete ignorance of reality, are confounded when one observes two things:
-- the process of concentration through
corporate acquisition
-- the overlap on corporate boards across companies (and sectors) of a relatively small number of people, their political connections
and the "revolving door" covert corruption of legislature--private interests--regulatory bodies.
"Free market" is a confidence trick and a lie that conceals the reality of corporatism and oligarchy. This has corroded
and hollowed out what is euphemistically still called "democracy" in the US, and increasingly in the UK.
"Foreign ownership" is a key tool to promote transnational corporatism and the media is one of the keys to controlling and
manipulating populations into being blind to the confidence trick (and to corruption).
Another step towards Putin's total suffocation and control of the media in Russia. Once he invokes
'emergency powers' and shuts of the Internet he can do a 'China' and have almost total control.
Whilst we're all so terribly concerned about the 14 year path of social development in Russia, from the very low base of chaos
and kleptocracy of Yeltsin's era -- just 14 years --, one could also wonder about the concentration of media control in
the US as well as their Patriot Act-NDAA provisions, not to mention the ever handy 'continuity of government' tool always handy.
Oh, and the mass surveillance of the Echelon grid.
Suffocation and control indeed. US military grade anthrax, when needed to
silence discussion of particular ideas, also proved exceptionally effective.
Mr. Russian, 24 September 2014 8:27pm
Russia finally acknowledged that MSM is used as weapons inside the country. Anyway, whoever wanted to read BBC in Russian will
continue doing so and whoever was reading RT in English will do so as well.
Neoliberalism and by extension the USA elite now has problem selling its dirty propaganda... that means that Russia today has the
edge, despite being a state owned outlet. For the same reason as Soviet people listen BBC and Voice of America, despite bothe being
jammed. None of them assumed that they are telling truth. they just wanted alternative view to find the truth themselves. So Western
readers now naturally gflock to Russia Today despite it being jammed and villified as in the article of Atlantic. But what it interesting
that by trying to reveal the propaganda kitchen of Russia the author actually releavs the propaganda kitchen of Guardian, NYT and all
Western MSM. That's probably one important vlue of the article, side effects probably unforseen by the auhtor ;-)
The United States, meanwhile, is struggling with its messaging to the outside world.
... ... ...
Now Russia is exporting its reality-reinventing model through the hundreds of millions of dollars that it spends on international
broadcasters like the rolling, multilingual news channel RT (Russia Today). Domestically, RT helps convince Russians that their government
is strong enough to compete with the CNNs of the world. In the United States, RT isn't taken too seriously (if the channel manages
to sow some doubt among Americans, all the better in Moscow's view). But in Europe, Russian propaganda is more potent, working alongside
the Kremlin's influence over local media as well as economic and energy pressures.
The situation is tensest in the Baltic countries, whose large Russian populations are serviced by Russian-language TV channels
like the Latvia-based PBK, which receives Kremlin programs at very low rates. ''Huge parts of our population live in a separate reality
created by Russian media," says Raul Rebane, an expert on propaganda in Estonia, where a quarter of the population is ethnic Russian.
"This makes consensual politics impossible." In his research on how Bulgarian media covered the conflict in Ukraine, Christo Grozev,
of the Bulgaria-based Risk Management Lab, found that the majority of the country's newspapers followed Russian rather than Ukrainian
narratives about events such as the downing of Flight MH17. "It's not merely a case of sympathy or language," Grozev says. "The Russian
media just tell more and better stories, and that's what gets reprinted." Organizations like the Ukraine-based StopFake.org have
been working hard to expose disinformation in Russian and foreign media. But for every 'fake' they catch, Kremlin-allied news outlets
produce a thousand more. These news organizations don't care if they're caught in a lie. They care only about clicks and being compelling.
As the Kremlin's propaganda campaign intensifies, the West is having its own crisis of faith in the idea of 'truth.'
Like its domestic equivalents, RT also focuses on conspiracy theories-from 9/11 truthers to the hidden Zionist hand in Syria's
civil war. Western critics often snigger at these claims, but the coverage has a receptive audience. In a recent paper, "The Conspiratorial
Mindset in the Age of Transition," which examined conspiracy theories in France, Hungary, and Slovakia, a team of researchers from
leading European think tanks reported that supporters of far-right parties tend to be more likely than supporters of other parties
to believe in conspiracies. And right-wing nationalist parties, which are often allied ideologically and financially with the Kremlin,
are rising. In Hungary, Jobbik is now the second-largest political party. In France, Marine Le Pen's National Front recently won
25 percent of the vote in elections for the European parliament.
"Is there more interest in conspiracy theories because far-right parties are growing, or are far-right parties growing because
more conspiracy thinking is being pumped into the information space?" asks Gleb Pavlovsky, a little wickedly.
The United States, meanwhile, is struggling with its messaging to the outside world. America is in an "information war and we
are losing that war," Hillary Clinton told Congress in 2011, citing the success of Russian and Chinese media.
* * *
Just as the Kremlin's international propaganda campaign intensifies, the West is having its own crisis of faith in the idea of
'truth.' It's been a long time coming. Back in 1962, Daniel Boorstin, who would later serve as librarian of the U.S. Congress, wrote
in The Image about how advances in advertising and television meant, "The question, 'Is it real?' is less important than, 'Is it
newsworthy?' ... We are threatened by a new and a peculiarly American menace … the menace of unreality." By the 2000s, this idea
had moved from the realm of commerce to the realm of high politics, captured in the now-legendary quote from an unnamed George W.
Bush aide in The New York Times: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that
reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will
sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
The pressure on reality from capitalism and Capitol Hill coincides with an anti-establishment drive in the U.S. that likewise
claims that all truth is relative. In a Prospect magazine review of Glenn Greenwald's No Place to Hide, for instance, George Packer
writes, "Greenwald has no use for the norms of journalism. He rejects objectivity, as a reality and an ideal." (Similarly, RT's managing
director once told me that "there is no such thing as objective reporting.") Examining the sins of omission, biased value judgments,
and half-truths in Greenwald's book, Packer concludes that "they reveal a mind that has liberated itself from the basic claims of
fairness. Once the norms of journalism are dismissed, a number of constraints and assumptions fall away." The ties that bind Greenwald
and the Kremlin consist of more than a shared desire to ensure Edward Snowden's safety. In some dark, ideological wood, Putin the
authoritarian gay-basher and Greenwald the gay, leftist-libertarian meet and agree. And as the consensus for reality-based politics
fractures, that space becomes ripe for exploitation. It's precisely this trend that the Kremlin hopes to exploit.
Ultimately, many people in Russia and around the world understand that Russian political parties are hollow and Russian news outlets
are churning out fantasies. But insisting on the lie, the Kremlin intimidates others by showing that it is in control of defining
'reality.' This is why it's so important for Moscow to do away with truth. If nothing is true, then anything is possible. We are
left with the sense that we don't know what Putin will do next-that he's unpredictable and thus dangerous. We're rendered stunned,
spun, and flummoxed by the Kremlin's weaponization of absurdity and unreality.
Peter Pomerantsev is a TV producer based in London. He is the author
of a forthcoming study on Russia's weaponization of information, culture, and money, and a forthcoming book,
Nothing Is
True and Everything Is Possible, about working inside Vladimir Putin's postmodern dictatorship.
Russia and the Menace of Unreality
How Vladimir Putin is revolutionizing information warfare
[...]
Like its domestic equivalents, RT also focuses on conspiracy theories-from
9/11 truthers to the
hidden Zionist hand in Syria's civil war. Western
critics often snigger at these claims, but the coverage has a receptive audience. In a recent paper, "The
Conspiratorial Mindset in the Age of Transition," which examined conspiracy theories in France, Hungary, and Slovakia, a team
of researchers from leading European think tanks reported that supporters of far-right parties tend to be more likely than supporters
of other parties to believe in conspiracies. And right-wing nationalist parties, which are often allied ideologically and financially
with the Kremlin, are rising. In Hungary, Jobbik is now the second-largest political party. In France, Marine Le Pen's National
Front recently won 25 percent of the vote in elections for the European parliament.
"Is there more interest in conspiracy theories because far-right parties are growing, or are far-right parties growing because
more conspiracy thinking is being pumped into the information space?" asks Gleb Pavlovsky, a little wickedly.
The United States, meanwhile, is struggling with its messaging to the outside world. America is in an "information war and
we are losing that war," Hillary Clinton told Congress in 2011, citing the success of Russian and Chinese media.
* * *
Just as the Kremlin's international propaganda campaign intensifies, the West is having its own crisis of faith in the idea
of 'truth.' It's been a long time coming. Back in 1962, Daniel Boorstin, who would later serve as librarian of the U.S. Congress,
wrote in The Image about how advances in advertising and television meant, "The question, 'Is it real?' is less important than,
'Is it newsworthy?' … We are threatened by a new and a peculiarly American menace … the menace of unreality." By the 2000s, this
idea had moved from the realm of commerce to the realm of high politics, captured in the now-legendary quote from an unnamed George
W. Bush aide in The New York Times: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
The pressure on reality from capitalism and Capitol Hill coincides with an anti-establishment drive in the U.S. that likewise
claims that all truth is relative. In a Prospect magazine review of Glenn Greenwald's No Place to Hide, for instance, George Packer
writes, "Greenwald has no use for the norms of journalism. He rejects objectivity, as a reality and an ideal." (Similarly, RT's
managing director once told me that "there is no such thing as objective reporting.") Examining the sins of omission, biased value
judgments, and half-truths in Greenwald's book, Packer concludes that "they reveal a mind that has liberated itself from the basic
claims of fairness. Once the norms of journalism are dismissed, a number of constraints and assumptions fall away." The ties that
bind Greenwald and the Kremlin consist of more than a shared desire to ensure Edward Snowden's safety. In some dark, ideological
wood, Putin the authoritarian gay-basher and Greenwald the gay, leftist-libertarian meet and agree. And as the consensus for reality-based
politics fractures, that space becomes ripe for exploitation. It's precisely this trend that the Kremlin hopes to exploit.
Ultimately, many people in Russia and around the world understand that Russian political parties are hollow and Russian news
outlets are churning out fantasies. But insisting on the lie, the Kremlin intimidates others by showing that it is in control
of defining 'reality.' This is why it's so important for Moscow to do away with truth. If nothing is true, then anything is possible.
We are left with the sense that we don't know what Putin will do next-that he's unpredictable and thus dangerous. We're rendered
stunned, spun, and flummoxed by the Kremlin's weaponization of absurdity and unreality.
The Atlantic is a piece of shit rag that I wouldn't wipe my ass with even if it was the only source of paper available. Its hilarious
2006 article on the state of Russia's economy was written as if Russia was still in 1996. The above piece of propaganda tries
to smear RT as a conspiracy website. Sure thing there, lying fucks, if a TV station interviews more than just the establishment
approved pundits then it must be a tin foil hat operation. Right.
Does anyone here think that the Peter Lavelle moderated talk show is a tin foil hat operation? Anyone sane would not. The Atlantic
is caught in a paradox created by its own arrogant lying. The western media is repeating the brain dead propaganda of the war
criminal Kiev regime like an echo chamber. Perhaps the appeal of RT may have something to do with people that have functional
brains wanting to have real news reports and not regurgitated press releases.
George Packer is a malicious fool, and his stock in trade is deliberate misrepresentation: his indignation at Greenwald's alleged
"rejection of objectivity" is the kind of jaw-dropping projection that regularly sees the western press pretend to virtue and
support for freedom while it supports a government which murders its own citizens for the crime of claiming their right to self-determination.
I don't need to spank him till he cries – someone has already eviscerated him,
here.
The really comical irony,
if irony can be said to be comical (and believe me, it is more often than is not) is that Max Weber's insight on ethical dilemmas
– from which Packer draws heavily for his criticisms – almost eerily describes America's simplistic reasoning and the bad decisions
it makes as a result of its deliberations; to wit, "a specific kind of unworldliness, which assumes that from good actions only
good things come, and from evil actions only evil." Read Crooked Timber's critique – I think you will find yourself nodding along
as I did.
Re 'conspiracy theories' and 'far right parties' in Europe being close to the Kremlin or paid by Putin: that's a very interesting
slur.
It seems to me that it's the Think Tanks which are succumbing to conspiracy theories, in order to smear further these 'far right'
European parties. They can see full well that said parties, far from being 'far right', are an ever growing threat to the establishment
parties in the EU. The establishment parties in most EU countries call themselves conservative or socialist or liberal, but except
for their party colours there is no difference between their policies. The latest election results from Germany and Sweden show
that these parties, now gaining a steady 10-13% of votes, are 'hoovering up' votes from all parties, or are 'poaching' votes from
the establishment parties, in the words of German journalists.
Just as here in the UK, where UKIP is causing the collapse of the Liberal Democrats (coalition partner in the current government),
so the German FDP, their liberal party, is nearing obliteration.
Note well: these parties are 'liberal' in the European sense, not in the US sense where liberal=left.
Thus it is no surprise to me to see this latest smear coming from those Think Tanks. They, after all, strive to keep the status
quo, where across countries the politicians of the establishment parties are interchangeable and do what they're told by powerful
international lobbies.
Us peasants and our new parties are a thorn in their flesh, and must be vilified by all and any means possible to save the status
quo.
On CNN yesterday, the question was asked "where are the anti-war voices on TV?" I've pondered that question myself. Don't you
remember, at the outset of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the abundance of speakers who opposed these wars? You know, one major network
had the popular "Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul Report," while another provided us with the "Justin Raimondo/Angela Keaton" panel discussion.
Programs like these presented us with minds from across the political spectrum: Bob Higgs, Chris Hedges, Paul Craig Roberts, Amy
Goodman, Tom Woods, Glenn Greenwald, John Pilger, Jim Bovard, Karen Kwiatkowski, Anthony Gregory, Daniel Ellsberg, Tom DiLorenzo,
Jacob Hornberger, Laurence Vance, and . . . well, you'll recall the popularity of such people – and others of equal stature I have
inadvertently overlooked – in their prime-time appearances on television.
You don't remember how their opinions dominated TV programming in those days? Have you forgotten how eager the networks – along
with the Republican party – were to get Ron Paul to elaborate upon his opposition to war during political debates? Perhaps all of
these people just got tired of discussing peace, their opposition to war, and decided to retire into lives of luxury provided by
their erstwhile popularity.
I suppose that, if the "anti-war voices" no longer choose to appear on TV, the networks will have no alternative but to bring
on retired generals and admirals, neocon activists, other representatives from the military-industrial complex, along with journalists
and academics eager to suck up to the political establishment, to make up for the anti-war opinions the establishment is so eager
to have presented to an inquiring public!
As an alternative, I would suggest that you – along with the CNN authorities that deigned to put this question on the screen –
try looking at other channels for anti-war discussions. The Internet is the most fruitful source of varied opinions, but some cable
channels provide alternatives to the propagandizing it has long been the purpose of the mainstream media to provide. Al Jazeera is
one such choice, as is "Democracy Now," or what has become my favorite news channel, RT (or Russia Today).
Exclusive: The mainstream U.S. media is hazing German Chancellor Merkel and President Obama for sidestepping the "I-word" –
invasion – in reference to Russia and Ukraine. But the MSM goes mute on Ukraine's "N-word" for "Nazi" so as not to disrupt the pro-Kiev
"group think," says Robert Parry.
The New York Times, in its ceaseless anti-Russian bias over the Ukraine crisis, now wants everyone to use the "I-word" – for "invasion"
– when describing Russia's interference in Ukraine despite the flimsy supporting evidence for the charge presented by Kiev and NATO.
The evidence, including commercial satellite photos lacking coordinates, was so unpersuasive that former U.S. intelligence analysts
compared the case to the Iraq-WMD deception
of last decade. Yet, while ignoring concerns about the quality of the proof, the Times ran a front-page story on Friday mocking Western
political leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Barack Obama, for not uttering the "I-word."
The Times' article by Andrew Higgins essentially baited Merkel and Obama to adopt the most hyperbolic phrasing on the crisis or
risk being denounced as weak. The Times couched its criticism of their "circumspect" language – or what it called "terminological
fudges" – as a victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But the Times and other U.S. mainstream news outlets have engaged in their own "terminological fudges" regarding Ukraine's "N-word"
– for Nazi – by hiding or burying the fact that the Kiev regime has knowingly deployed neo-Nazi militias to wage bloody street fighting
against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
This grim reality has become one of the most sensitive facts that U.S. State Department propaganda and MSM coverage have sought
to keep from the American people who surely would recoil at the notion of siding with modern-day Nazis. Yet, to fully understand
the role of these neo-Nazi extremists, Americans would need a translator for the circumlocutions used by the Times and other U.S.
news outlets.
Typically, in the U.S. press, Ukraine's neo-Nazis are called "nationalists," a term with a rather patriotic and positive ring
to it. Left out is the fact that these "nationalists" carry Nazi banners and trace their ideological lineage back to Adolf Hitler's
Ukrainian auxiliary, the Galician SS, and to Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose paramilitary forces slaughtered thousands upon
thousands of Poles and Jews.
Other MSM references to the Nazis are even more obscure. For instance, the neo-Nazi militias are sometimes called "volunteer"
brigades, which makes them sound like the Boy Scouts or the Rotary Club.
But usually there is just the simple omission of the Nazi "N-word." On Thursday, for instance, the Times published a contentious
article critical of Putin's plan for resolving the Ukraine crisis while also noting that the peace talks faced obstacles from elements
of both sides: "Moscow does not fully control the separatists; nor is it clear that Kiev can automatically rein in the armed militias
it has unleashed alongside its military in the east."
Filtered out of that sentence was the "N-word." The reason that those "armed militias" might resist peace is because they consist
of neo-Nazi ideologues who want a racially pure Ukraine. They are not reasonable people who favor living with ethnically diverse
neighbors.
Ukraine's militias include openly neo-Nazi battalions such as the Azov brigade, which flies a version of the "wolfangel" banner
that was favored by the Nazi SS. Azov leaders espouse theories of racial supremacy deeming ethnic Russians to be "Untermenschen"
or subhumans.
Sidestepping the N-word
But the Times sidesteps the Nazi "N-word" because otherwise readers might start doubting the "white hat/black hat" narrative that
the Times has spun since the beginning of the crisis last winter. Usually whenever Ukraine's neo-Nazis are mentioned, it is in the
context of the Times dismissing their presence as a myth or as simply "Russian propaganda."
Other times, the reality is buried so deep in articles that very few readers will get that far. For instance, an Aug. 10
Times article by Andrew E. Kramer mentioned
the emerging neo-Nazi paramilitary role in the final three paragraphs of a long story on another topic.
Given how extraordinary it is that armed Nazi storm troopers are being unleashed on a European population for the first time since
World War II, you might have thought that the Times missed the lede. But the placement of this juicy tidbit fit with the newspaper's
profoundly unprofessional treatment of the Ukraine crisis throughout.
You had to get to the third-to-the-last paragraph to learn: "The fighting for Donetsk has taken on a lethal pattern: The regular
army bombards separatist positions from afar, followed by chaotic, violent assaults by some of the half-dozen or so paramilitary
groups surrounding Donetsk who are willing to plunge into urban combat."
Then, the next-to-the-last paragraph told you: "Officials in Kiev say the militias and the army coordinate their actions, but
the militias, which count about 7,000 fighters, are angry and, at times, uncontrollable. One known as Azov, which took over the village
of Marinka, flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Discovers Ukraine's Neo-Nazis at War."]
The conservative London Telegraph provided more details about the Azov battalion in
an article by correspondent Tom Parfitt, who wrote: "In Marinka, on the western outskirts [of Donetsk], the [Azov] battalion
was sent forward ahead of tanks and armoured vehicles of the Ukrainian army's 51st Mechanised Brigade. …
"But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk 'people's republics', proclaimed
in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov,
with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky,
their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their
banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites."
In interviews, some of the fighters questioned the Holocaust, expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and acknowledged that they
are indeed Nazis, a fact known by Kiev authorities, the Telegraph reported.
Andriy Biletsky, the Azov commander, "is also head of an extremist Ukrainian group called the Social National Assembly," according
to the Telegraph article which quoted a recent commentary by Biletsky as declaring: "The historic mission of our nation in this critical
moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen."
[See Consortiumnews.com's "Ignoring Ukraine's
Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers."]
Russian Claims 'Essentially True'
Recently at the port city of Mariupol, Foreign Policy's reporter Alec Luhn also encountered the neo-Nazis of the Azov and other
Ukrainian government militias. He
wrote:
"Blue and yellow Ukrainian flags fly over Mariupol's burned-out city administration building and at military checkpoints around the
city, but at a sport school near a huge metallurgical plant, another symbol is just as prominent: the
wolfsangel ('wolf trap')
symbol that was widely used in the Third Reich and has been adopted by neo-Nazi groups. …
"Pro-Russian forces have said they are fighting against Ukrainian nationalists and 'fascists' in the conflict, and in the
case of Azov and other battalions, these claims are essentially true."
But this inconvenient truth is not something that the U.S. State Department and the mainstream U.S. press want you to know. Instead
they have spun a false narrative that blames the entire Ukraine crisis on Russia's President Putin and his diabolical design to reclaim
countries to his west for a revival of the Soviet Union.
The actual reality was that Putin wanted to maintain the status quo in Ukraine by supporting elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
It was the West that stirred up trouble in Ukraine with neocon U.S. officials like Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and
Sen. John McCain actively supporting a coup – spearheaded by neo-Nazi street fighters – that overthrew Yanukovych on Feb. 22.
After the coup, in recognition of the crucial role played by the neo-Nazis, they were given several ministries and their militias
were later incorporated into the Ukrainian military for the offensive into eastern Ukraine to crush the uprising of ethnic Russians
who had supported Yanukovych and favored closer economic ties to Russia. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
But that more nuanced narrative – recognizing the complicated reality of Ukraine's history and politics – would destroy the white
hat/black hat storyline favored by the New York Times and the MSM, making the coup regime in Kiev the "good guys" and making Putin
and the ethnic Russians the "bad guys."
To protect that narrative, everyone has to go silent on Ukraine's "N-word."
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's the real motive for taking this
extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism,
asks Robert Parry.
A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even neighboring Belarus that there would
be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that
Official Washington's current war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.
So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all the major media pundits – devoted
so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the need to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this
eminently avoidable – yet extremely dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?
Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people of Ukraine and that Russian
President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the
breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that "group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence
eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp
down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."
Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve it. Democratically elected President
Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and
hold early elections so he could be voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych
and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly
endorsed the coup regime that emerged as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for
instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance to the putsch, was studiously
ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in the spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine,
now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup regime's brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's
imperial designs or to bring "democracy" to the Ukrainians.
... ... ...
The Neocons' 'Samson Option'
So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine, the sheer recklessness of
the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that
is central to their being.
That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative obsession with Israel's interests
in the Middle East.
Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put themselves at the center of the
coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive: they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between
President Obama and President Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year
ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.
Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change"
in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential"
necessity.
Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have supplanted Israel's powerful position
as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine
crisis was the perfect explosive for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled
to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing, causing a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist
Obama on tricky foreign policy predicaments like Syria and Iran.
As I wrote last April, "There is a
'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger,
more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their
sponsors with 'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly, you escalate the subversion
of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
"Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on
war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to
agree to constraints on its nuclear program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim
at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.
"You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the
actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of
eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.
"When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed
by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive
a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'
"Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with a propaganda barrage that would
do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts
– is fine."
Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old lady swallowing a horse – the neocons
have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty. It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option,"
the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom – and across the mainstream media
spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
the Ukrainian army field care are just horrible - like amputations without anesthetic, and wounded soldiers being exploited to
pay for supplies and care. If, as it appears likely, the real number of dead Kiev Junta soldiers is anywhere near the 30'000+
figure, then this is something absolutely unique in modern warfare.
The Junta forces were absolutely massacred in an horrible
butchery which cannot completely be explained by the superb fighting skills of the Novorussians: clearly the Junta has used these
forces as cannon fodder with not even a modicum of care, never mind support, for them. Yes, the Novorussians had morale, common
sense, the Truth, history, decency, international law, covert support from Russia and whatever else on their side but that does
not explain the mind-boggling casualty figures of the Ukrainian side.
In the middle of all of this, Poroshenko invented a new democracy tactic, dismissing Parliament to eliminate his opposition.
This also killed any official calls for investigations into the ongoing strategy debacle. Entire brigades have started to desert
now, with the Palace Guard special forces (who have not been fighting) being sent out to try to round them up
The Malaysian MH17 time bomb awaits its day of reckoning. Russia's UN ambassador Mr. Churkin has been taunting Kiev about when
do they think they will be able to find and turn over the air traffic control tapes of that day. The US joined them as an accessory
after the fact by withholding its own satellite images and communications intercepts, which everyone knows we have.
Kiev is walking the tightrope now. With their economy destroyed, they are hemorrhaging what money is left. They have not provoked
the Soviet invasion that the US really wanted, in order to crank up the sanctions wars. And the EU people have now figured out
that they were duped by the US - something their leaders should all resign for, because it was an astounding betrayal of their
own people.
The Donetsk Forces are clearing the coastal area from the Russian border to Crimea. Mariupol is under siege now, with the oligarchs
and big wigs having left the town to some sacrificial troops to hopefully get a massacre out of. With that port open, fuel supplies
will be assured for Donetsk and Lughansk for the winter, with the Russian navy covering their backs to the sea. If Kiev thinks
it is going to play hardball, wait until it hears Old Man Winter laughing.
RMThoughts, September 5, 2014
of this fiasco, with the 1st and 17th Tank Brigades, 25th, 79th, and 95th Airborne Brigades and 80th Airborne Battalion, 24th,
28th, 30th, 51st, 72nd, 92nd, 93rd, and 128th Mechanized Brigades, the 19th Rocket Brigade, and the 11th, 26thm and 55th Artillery
Brigades, and the 3rd and 8th Spetsnasz Regiments.
The only mostly intact units are the 17th and 92nd, which were not yet committed
to the fight, and the Rocket and Artillery Brigades which don't go near the frontlines. If you can point to where the remaining
units are functioning in full complement on the front, everyone would feel enlightened. Additionally, Kiev committed Interior
Ministry National Guard and Border Guard and volunteer Battalion troops to the fight in strength of 10's of thousands. Remember
that in total Kiev is on its 3rd mobilization of manpower.
So I personally believe that figures under 30k are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE TRUE and that the real result is over 40k. Also,
it is well know that the Junta systematically inflates the number of KIA and prefers to speak of MIA or ever desertions.
smoothieX12, September 5, 2014 2:39 PM
Kiev's casualties have been high
Actually, the so called "second mobilization" was wiped out. The casualties are simply catastrophic, which even with the ratio
of forces of 2 to 1 (in favor of Kiev's forces) does not allow to maintain even the semblance of the coherent front--hence the
innumerable envelopments. If not for the relatively small number of rebels, those pockets would have been reduced much faster
and mopping up would have proceeded with greater pace. Mass by itself doesn't matter much unless it is concentrated properly and
is ably led--none of it is present in Kiev. The operations of the rebels (as I already stated many times) will be, if not already,
studied in every serious military academy in the world. It will also give some people (mostly on the COIN side) some headache.
smoothieX12, September 5, 2014 1:58 PM
They made substantial progress retaking ground, reducing separatist-held territory by more than 50 percent
Mr. Ambassador
here is, obviously, in dire need of taking some basic courses in military history and operational art. He would be strongly advised
to get himself acquainted with the basics of military tactics and tactics of the combined arms operations (I can only dream about
him reading Combat Manuals). Maybe then will he understand what are objectives in war, how attaining of military objectives corresponds
with attainment of a political (strategic) ones. And if he thinks that "retaking ground" alone without maintaining combat cohesion
of the units, let alone supporting their combat capability is OK, then he really needs to concentrate on his "diplomatic" job
and abstain from making assessments on the "performance" of the so called Ukrainian Army. Any serious observer knew already in
June that the so called "Anti-Terrorist Operation" of Kiev's forces was doomed. For once--the trend in the attrition was visible
already then, the same as the utter demoralization of the army, not to speak about astounding incompetence of Ukrainian generals
and their foreign handlers, who thought that they could go toe to toe with GOU GSh (Main Operational Directorate Of General Staff).
I am not even talking about first-rate intelligence rebels were (and are) receiving. I'll give a hint: Chuikov's 62nd Army at
Stalingrad. The second hint--avoidance by junta's troops a direct fire contact with rebels whenever they could.
Ukraine was
a typical neoliberal color revolution.
With standard set of players known from Iraq and Libya. And standard methods. But this time the goal was actually not Ukraine but Russia.
And this crisis has shown pretty well that the EU is not an independent player. It is a vassal of Washington.
Notable quotes:
"... by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change." ..."
"... Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. ..."
"... There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. ..."
"... Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity. ..."
"... "You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base. ..."
"... "When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.' ..."
Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's the real motive for taking this
extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism,
asks Robert Parry.
A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even neighboring Belarus that there would
be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that
Official Washington's current war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.
So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all the major media pundits – devoted
so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the need to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this
eminently avoidable – yet extremely dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?
Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people of Ukraine and that Russian
President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the
breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that "group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence
eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp
down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."
Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve it. Democratically elected President
Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and
hold early elections so he could be voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych
and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly
endorsed the coup regime that emerged as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for
instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance to the putsch, was studiously
ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in the spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine,
now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup regime's brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's
imperial designs or to bring "democracy" to the Ukrainians.
That skepticism – combined with the extraordinary danger of stoking a hot war on the border of nuclear-armed Russia – has caused
many observers to search for more strategic explanations behind the crisis, such as the West's desires to "frack" eastern Ukraine
for shale gas or the American determination to protect the dollar as the world's currency.
Thermo-Nuclear War Anyone?
The thinking is that when the potential cost of such an adventure, i.e. thermo-nuclear warfare that could end all life on the
planet, is so high, the motivation must be commensurate. And there is logic behind that thinking although it's hard to conceive what
financial payoff is big enough to risk wiping out all humanity including the people on Wall Street.
But sometimes gambles are made with the assumption that lots of money can be pocketed before cooler heads intervene to prevent
total devastation - or even the more immediate risk that the Ukraine crisis will pitch Europe into a triple-dip recession that could
destabilize the fragile U.S. economy, too.
In the Ukraine case, the temptation has been to think that Moscow – hit with escalating economic sanctions – will back down even
as the EU and U.S. energy interests seize control of eastern Ukraine's energy reserves. The fracking could mean both a financial
bonanza to investors and an end to Russia's dominance of the natural gas supplies feeding central and eastern Europe. So the economic
and geopolitical payoff could be substantial.
According
to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, an
inviting target especially since other European nations, such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria, have resisted fracking technology
because of environmental concerns. An economically supine Ukraine would presumably be less able to say no. [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Beneath the Ukraine
Crisis: Shale Gas."]
Further supporting the "natural gas motive" is the fact that it was Vice President Joe Biden who demanded that President Yanukovych
pull back his police on Feb. 21, a move that opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias and the U.S.-backed coup. Then, just three
months later, Ukraine's largest private gas firm, Burisma Holdings,
appointed Biden's son, Hunter
Biden, to its board of directors.
While that might strike some of you as a serious conflict of interest, even vocal advocates for ethics in government lost their
voices amid Washington's near-universal applause for the ouster of Yanukovych and warm affection for the coup regime in Kiev.
For instance, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
dismissed
the idea that Hunter Biden's new job should raise eyebrows, telling Reuters: "It can't be that because your dad is the vice president,
you can't do anything,"
Who Is Behind Burisma?
Soon, Burisma – a shadowy Cyprus-based company – was lining up well-connected lobbyists, some with ties to Secretary of State
John Kerry, including Kerry's former Senate chief of staff David Leiter, according to lobbying disclosures.
As Time magazine reported,
"Leiter's involvement in the firm rounds out a power-packed team of politically-connected Americans that also includes a second new
board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter
Biden have worked as business partners with Kerry's son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a private-equity
company."
According to investigative journalism
in Ukraine, the ownership of Burisma has been traced to Privat Bank, which is controlled by the thuggish billionaire oligarch Ihor
Kolomoysky, who was appointed by the coup regime to be governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a south-central province of Ukraine. Kolomoysky
also has been associated with the financing of brutal paramilitary forces killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Also, regarding this energy motive, it shouldn't be forgotten that on Dec. 13, 2013, when neocon Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Victoria Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their
"European aspirations," she was at a conference sponsored by Chevron. She even stood next to the company's logo.
So, clearly energy resources and the billions of dollars that go with them should be factored in when trying to solve the mystery
of why Official Washington has gone so berserk about a confrontation with Russia that boils down to whether ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine should be allowed some measure of autonomy or be put firmly under the thumb of U.S.-friendly authorities in Kiev.
There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping
the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. According to this
line of thinking, the U.S. and its close allies need to bring Moscow to its geopolitical knees – where it was under the late Boris
Yeltsin – to stop any experimentation with other currencies for global trade.
Again, the advocates for this theory have a point. Protecting the Mighty Dollar is of utmost importance to Wall Street. The financial
cataclysm of a potential ouster of the U.S. dollar as the world's benchmark currency might understandably prompt some powerful people
to play a dangerous game of chicken with nuclear-armed Russia.
Of course, there's also the budgetary interest of NATO and the U.S. "military-industrial complex" (which helps fund many of Washington's
"think tanks") to hype every propaganda opportunity to scare the American people about the "Russian threat."
And, it's a truism that every major international confrontation has multiple drivers. Think back on the motives behind the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among a variety of factors were Vice President Dick Cheney's lust for oil, President George W. Bush's psychological
rivalry with his father, and the neocons' interest in orchestrating "regime change" in countries considered hostile to Israel. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "The
Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]
There are also other reasons to disdain Putin, from his bare-chested horseback riding to his retrograde policies on gay rights.
But he is no Stalin and surely no Hitler.
The Neocons' 'Samson Option'
So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine, the sheer recklessness of
the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that
is central to their being.
That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative obsession with Israel's interests
in the Middle East.
Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put themselves at the center of the
coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive: they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between
President Obama and President Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year
ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.
Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change"
in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential"
necessity.
Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have supplanted Israel's powerful position
as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine
crisis was the perfect explosive for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled
to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing, causing a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist
Obama on tricky foreign policy predicaments like Syria and Iran.
As I wrote last
April, "There is a 'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply
move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel,
you target their sponsors with 'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly, you escalate
the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
"Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on
war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to
agree to constraints on its nuclear program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim
at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.
"You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the
actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of
eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.
"When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed
by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive
a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'
"Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with a propaganda barrage that would
do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts
– is fine."
Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old lady swallowing a horse – the neocons
have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty. It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option,"
the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom – and across the mainstream media
spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
Ukraine was
a typical neoliberal color revolution.
With standard set of players known from Iraq and Libya. And standard methods. But this time the goal was actually not Ukraine but Russia.
And this crisis has shown pretty well that the EU is not an independent player. It is a vassal of Washington.
Notable quotes:
"... by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change." ..."
"... Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. ..."
"... There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. ..."
"... Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity. ..."
"... "You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base. ..."
"... "When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.' ..."
Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's the real motive for taking this
extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism,
asks Robert Parry.
A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even neighboring Belarus that there would
be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that
Official Washington's current war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.
So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all the major media pundits – devoted
so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the need to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this
eminently avoidable – yet extremely dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?
Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people of Ukraine and that Russian
President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the
breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that "group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence
eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp
down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."
Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve it. Democratically elected President
Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and
hold early elections so he could be voted out of office if the people wanted.
However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych
and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly
endorsed the coup regime that emerged as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for
instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.
The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance to the putsch, was studiously
ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in the spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine,
now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup regime's brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's
imperial designs or to bring "democracy" to the Ukrainians.
That skepticism – combined with the extraordinary danger of stoking a hot war on the border of nuclear-armed Russia – has caused
many observers to search for more strategic explanations behind the crisis, such as the West's desires to "frack" eastern Ukraine
for shale gas or the American determination to protect the dollar as the world's currency.
Thermo-Nuclear War Anyone?
The thinking is that when the potential cost of such an adventure, i.e. thermo-nuclear warfare that could end all life on the
planet, is so high, the motivation must be commensurate. And there is logic behind that thinking although it's hard to conceive what
financial payoff is big enough to risk wiping out all humanity including the people on Wall Street.
But sometimes gambles are made with the assumption that lots of money can be pocketed before cooler heads intervene to prevent
total devastation - or even the more immediate risk that the Ukraine crisis will pitch Europe into a triple-dip recession that could
destabilize the fragile U.S. economy, too.
In the Ukraine case, the temptation has been to think that Moscow – hit with escalating economic sanctions – will back down even
as the EU and U.S. energy interests seize control of eastern Ukraine's energy reserves. The fracking could mean both a financial
bonanza to investors and an end to Russia's dominance of the natural gas supplies feeding central and eastern Europe. So the economic
and geopolitical payoff could be substantial.
According
to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, an
inviting target especially since other European nations, such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria, have resisted fracking technology
because of environmental concerns. An economically supine Ukraine would presumably be less able to say no. [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Beneath the Ukraine
Crisis: Shale Gas."]
Further supporting the "natural gas motive" is the fact that it was Vice President Joe Biden who demanded that President Yanukovych
pull back his police on Feb. 21, a move that opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias and the U.S.-backed coup. Then, just three
months later, Ukraine's largest private gas firm, Burisma Holdings,
appointed Biden's son, Hunter
Biden, to its board of directors.
While that might strike some of you as a serious conflict of interest, even vocal advocates for ethics in government lost their
voices amid Washington's near-universal applause for the ouster of Yanukovych and warm affection for the coup regime in Kiev.
For instance, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
dismissed
the idea that Hunter Biden's new job should raise eyebrows, telling Reuters: "It can't be that because your dad is the vice president,
you can't do anything,"
Who Is Behind Burisma?
Soon, Burisma – a shadowy Cyprus-based company – was lining up well-connected lobbyists, some with ties to Secretary of State
John Kerry, including Kerry's former Senate chief of staff David Leiter, according to lobbying disclosures.
As Time magazine reported,
"Leiter's involvement in the firm rounds out a power-packed team of politically-connected Americans that also includes a second new
board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter
Biden have worked as business partners with Kerry's son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a private-equity
company."
According to investigative journalism
in Ukraine, the ownership of Burisma has been traced to Privat Bank, which is controlled by the thuggish billionaire oligarch Ihor
Kolomoysky, who was appointed by the coup regime to be governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a south-central province of Ukraine. Kolomoysky
also has been associated with the financing of brutal paramilitary forces killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Also, regarding this energy motive, it shouldn't be forgotten that on Dec. 13, 2013, when neocon Assistant Secretary of State
for European Affairs Victoria Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their
"European aspirations," she was at a conference sponsored by Chevron. She even stood next to the company's logo.
So, clearly energy resources and the billions of dollars that go with them should be factored in when trying to solve the mystery
of why Official Washington has gone so berserk about a confrontation with Russia that boils down to whether ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine should be allowed some measure of autonomy or be put firmly under the thumb of U.S.-friendly authorities in Kiev.
There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping
the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. According to this
line of thinking, the U.S. and its close allies need to bring Moscow to its geopolitical knees – where it was under the late Boris
Yeltsin – to stop any experimentation with other currencies for global trade.
Again, the advocates for this theory have a point. Protecting the Mighty Dollar is of utmost importance to Wall Street. The financial
cataclysm of a potential ouster of the U.S. dollar as the world's benchmark currency might understandably prompt some powerful people
to play a dangerous game of chicken with nuclear-armed Russia.
Of course, there's also the budgetary interest of NATO and the U.S. "military-industrial complex" (which helps fund many of Washington's
"think tanks") to hype every propaganda opportunity to scare the American people about the "Russian threat."
And, it's a truism that every major international confrontation has multiple drivers. Think back on the motives behind the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among a variety of factors were Vice President Dick Cheney's lust for oil, President George W. Bush's psychological
rivalry with his father, and the neocons' interest in orchestrating "regime change" in countries considered hostile to Israel. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "The
Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]
There are also other reasons to disdain Putin, from his bare-chested horseback riding to his retrograde policies on gay rights.
But he is no Stalin and surely no Hitler.
The Neocons' 'Samson Option'
So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine, the sheer recklessness of
the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that
is central to their being.
That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative obsession with Israel's interests
in the Middle East.
Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put themselves at the center of the
coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive: they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between
President Obama and President Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year
ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.
Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change"
in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential"
necessity.
Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have supplanted Israel's powerful position
as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine
crisis was the perfect explosive for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled
to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing, causing a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist
Obama on tricky foreign policy predicaments like Syria and Iran.
As I wrote last
April, "There is a 'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply
move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel,
you target their sponsors with 'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly, you escalate
the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.
"Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on
war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to
agree to constraints on its nuclear program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim
at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.
"You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the
actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of
eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.
"When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed
by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive
a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'
"Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with a propaganda barrage that would
do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts
– is fine."
Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old lady swallowing a horse – the neocons
have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty. It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option,"
the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.
But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom – and across the mainstream media
spectrum – has bought into this madness.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to
various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
Nato leaders don't know what to do about Mr Putin and the civil war in Ukraine, and have been misreading this crisis since
it began
It is always revealing when politicians tell us that something is "unacceptable". What they mean is that, although people might
expect them to do something about it, they haven't got a clue what it is they can do. That was why, as the Western leaders gathered
for that Nato summit in Wales, several, including David Cameron, told us that President Putin's intervention in Ukraine was "unacceptable".
The real problem here is not just that our leaders don't know what they can do about Mr Putin and that horrible civil war in Ukraine,
which has already killed nearly 3,000 people and which the Russians seem to be winning hands down. It is that they and many others
in the West have been misreading this crisis ever since it began at the start of the year.
It cannot be said often enough that what triggered the crisis was not Mr Putin's desire to restore the boundaries of the Soviet
Union, but the ludicrously misguided ambition of the West to see Ukraine absorbed into the EU and Nato. There was never any way that
either Mr Putin or all those Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and Crimea were going to take kindly to seeing the country which
was the cradle of Russian identity become part of a Western power bloc. Russia would be even less happy to see the only warm-water
ports for its navy taken over by a military alliance that had been set up to counter Russia in the first place.
When 96 per cent of Crimeans democratically voted in March to join Russia, this was not, as Western politicians now tell us, because
Mr Putin wanted to "annexe" their country. It was because the 82 per cent of them who speak Russian as their main language wanted
to rejoin a country Crimea had been part of for two centuries.
Yet, at the very same time, the democratically elected government of Ukraine was being toppled by mobs of demonstrators in the
streets of Kiev, many of whom were being paid from Brussels funds to shout "Europe, Europe" at Baroness Ashton, as she urged them
to sign that "association agreement" which was the last step but one to Ukraine becoming a full member state of the EU.
That is why the EU, with America's backing, has been led by its own vainglorious delusions into the mess we see today. The Nato
leaders know there is little they can usefully do about it. For months they have been talking about those "sanctions", while being
only too uncomfortably aware that the EU depends on Russia for 30 per cent of the gas it needs to keep its cookers working and its
lights on. Even when President Hollande of France was urging David Cameron all those months ago to slam the doors of the City of
London on the Russian bankers and oligarchs who have Ł27 billion invested in the UK, we knew that Britain had Ł46 billion invested
in Russia.
So our leaders sat round the table in that ghastly concrete hotel in Wales, prattling about ever more sanctions. They send their
little "battle groups" to march round in circles in Poland. They huff and they puff about what is "unacceptable". But they know they
dare not risk trying to blow the house down.
Meanwhile, Mr Putin and the Russians of Ukraine's industrial heartland do exactly what could have been predicted, as they fight
to establish a semi-autonomous "buffer state" between Russia and the West.
Our leaders have been caught out by a crisis that anyone of intelligence should have seen coming, from the moment they so recklessly
and unnecessarily set it on its way.
[Sep 05, 2014] The memo to German Chancellor Merkel challenging the reliability of Ukrainian and U.S. media claims about a Russian
"invasion."
Ex-NSA Director, US Intelligence Veterans Write Open Letter To Merkel To Avoid All-Out Ukraine War
Alarmed at the anti-Russian
hysteria sweeping Washington, and the specter of a new Cold War, U.S. intelligence veterans one of whom is none other than William
Binney, the former senior NSA crypto-mathematician who back in March 2012 blew the whistle on the NSA's spying programs more than
a year before Edward Snowden, took the unusual step of sending the following memo dated August 30 to German Chancellor Merkel
challenging the reliability of Ukrainian and U.S. media claims about a Russian "invasion."
Wow! I really like these writers. They are writing with complete honesty, something you rarely see in American "patriots". The
final paragraphs are really good, and give good solid advice to the imperialist leaders:
The anti-coup federalists in southeastern
Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And
we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield
intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists
have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.
At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.
This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying.
What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not
in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the ragtag
army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.
P.S. I especially like that phrase about Ukraine's "ragtag" army – usually it's the Rebels who are ragtags – LOL!
You have to hand it to them. The United States media machine is unequaled at producing and disseminating misinformation. It begins
in the bowels of the State Department or White House or Pentagon and is filtered out through the government's front organizations,
otherwise known as Mainstream Media (MSM).
In 2014 the U.S. has succeeded in demonizing Vladimir Putin and Russia, precipitating a New Cold War that may yet become a hot
one. The evil empire is back. The White House has made proficient use of mass media propaganda to get the job done. First, they've
controlled the narrative. This is critical for two reasons: one, because it permits the White House to sweep the February coup in
Kiev into the dustbin of American memory, never to be seen again. Second, it has allowed it to swiftly assert its claim that Russia
is a dangerously expansionist power on the edges of a serene and peace-loving Europe. In other words, the omission of one fact and
commission of another.
On the former front, by the State Department's own concession, it spent some $5 billion in Ukraine, fomenting dissent under
the standard guise of democracy promotion. The myriad NGOs beneath the nefarious cloud of the National Endowment for Democracy
are little more than Trojan horses through which the State Department can launch subversive activities on foreign turf. We don't
know all the surely insidious details of the putsch, but there are suggestions that the violence was staged by and on behalf of the
groups that now sit in power, including bickering neofascists that were foolishly handed the nation's security portfolio.
On the latter end, a frightful portrait of a revanchist Russia will be presented for public consumption. But consider
the context before you consign Putin to the sordid annals of imperial tyrants. A belligerent superpower arrives on your doorstep
by fostering a violent coup in a neighboring nation with the obvious intent of ensuring Kiev accepts an IMF deal rather than a better
Russian one, and further that Ukraine become the newest and perhaps decisive outpost of NATO. Had you been in his shoes, would you
have permitted an illegitimate, Western-infiltrated government to challenge the integrity of your Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol?
Doubtful.
Crimeans swiftly organized a secession vote-swiftly denounced as fraud by Western media (with some credence, it should be added).
Given their Russian ethnic profile and quite credible fears of oppression from Kiev, whose nationalist bully boys were already posturing
about eviscerating Russian citizens rights, Russia's annexation of Crimea is certainly understandable to minds not saturated in Western
propaganda.
And yet the majority of the West, meaning the U.S. and Europe, seem content with this narrative of a recrudescent Russian
empire with imperial designs on Europe. The White House has successfully characterized Russia as the Slavic aggressor while
sweeping NATO's undeniably hostile behavior beneath the rug of its false rectitude. Claims of the need to defend another nation's
"sovereignty" are always a bit rich coming from the White House. Yet the rhetoric of outrage streams forth from Washington, and it
sometimes seems the principal qualification for a high-level appointment in an American administration is the capacity for a blithe
hypocrisy that brooks no irony.
This is no surprise. A sophisticated doctrinal system adept at manufacturing consent will succeed less by what it asserts than
by what it leaves out. The facts omitted are always inconvenient ones. Among other missing pieces of the story currently being peddled
by the MSM, is the issue of NATO's raison d'ętre, which vanished with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the
USSR. No matter, it has swiftly refashioned its mandate into a rapid-reaction force ready to descend on flashpoints around the globe,
like Serbia and Libya and Afghanistan. Despite promises to the contrary, it has essentially worked to bring all the former Warsaw
Pact countries into its U.S.-dominated embrace. The goal is self-evident: put missiles on Russia's doorstep, the better to alienate
Moscow from Berlin and ensure that Washington isn't left out in the cold by its rivals.
If recent history weren't sufficient to lay plain NATO's blueprint of aggression, consider the behavior of its chief spokesman,
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a frothing hawk who yesterday announced plans for a large and permanent military presence
in Poland and the Baltics. Ready with prefabricated war motifs, Rasmussen said the plan was to deploy, "…what I would call a spearhead
within [a] response force at very, very, high readiness." He generously conceded that such a rapid response unit would require "supplies,
equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters. The bottom line is you will in the future see a more visible NATO
presence in the east."
Sounds like war footing. Sounds like chest-thumping, drum-beating posturing. Sounds like NATO baiting the Russia Bear. No doubt
it hopes to lure Moscow into aggressive actions with which it can a) quickly smear Putin in the MSM, and b) use to rationalize a
massive arsenal in eastern Europe.
Note that Rasmussen's pronouncement was no doubt timed to coincide with a tęte-ŕ-tęte between Putin and Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko in Minsk, Belarus. What purpose exactly did the stillborn summit serve, given the bellicosity emanating from Brussels
by one of Ukraine's leading backers? One supposes the idea was to gain negotiating leverage, as if Russia hasn't been observing NATO's
covetous moves for the last twenty years.
In a domestic context, this scenario might be described as entrapment. The West seems intent on manufacturing a conflict, if not
a war, where none existed. Peace, described as elusive in the press, could be achieved in a matter of days if the White House were
so inclined. Instead, it prefers escalation. And sooner or later, Russia will move more visibly to defend the eastern rebellion,
stepping squarely into the trap. In fact, it may already have.
Yesterday NATO released U.S.-supplied satellite imagery supposedly showing Russian troops "establishing firing positions" inside
eastern Ukraine, a claim instantly ridiculed by Moscow. Naturally, the imagery was obscure. Impossible to verify, but not hard to
believe. Despite its own flood of propaganda, it would be credulous not to imagine the Russians supplying arms and tactical support
to the so-called "pro-Russian insurgents" in the east. Nor would it be astonishing to see Russian troops cross the border. Again,
the question arises: what would you do? Particularly given the Kiev-led brutality aimed at eastern "rebels"? Would you respond
like Putin has, or rather more recklessly, perhaps like John F. Kennedy when he heard of Russian missiles in Cuba? Or imagine
a pro-Russian Mexican government, installed by a Moscow coup, shelling pro-American citizens near the U.S. border. In imagining
how Washington might respond, the words 'restraint' and 'judicious' don't come readily to mind.
Little if any coverage is given to another critical piece of real story, namely the obvious economic rivalry underlying the
conflict. Ukraine is a major chip in the tussle for access to Black Sea resources, and for primacy in the provision of those
resources to European homes. Likewise, the importance of channeling that access and supply through IMF-engineered loans, naturally
denominated in dollars and central to the dollar's now-threatened role as the world's reserve currency.
Next, the false historical narrative will be distanced from the White House through internationalist channels which, although
they are fronts for American power, will be perceived by many as independent judgments that happen to agree with the American assessment.
U.S.-controlled NATO, the U.S.-dominated United Nations, and the U.S.-submissive EU will convene to censure Russia, ignore Kiev crimes
against its own population, and clamor for more sanctions and a provocative NATO build-up in eastern Europe. Short shrift has been
given to the news that the BRICS nations-representing some 40 percent of the world's population-have declined to join the West in
its sanctions regime.
But such history-distant or near-is trampled underfoot, beneath the crushing weight of MSM misinformation, thanks to which we
can expect millions of Americans to dutifully wave their star-spangled totems as our ships and drones and battalions reluctantly
set off to defend our freedoms once more.
Jason Hirthler is a veteran of the communications industry. He lives and works in New York City and can be reached at
[email protected].
Slowly, the Ukrainian government's Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) is succeeding, as the anti-Kyiv insurgents are reduced
to small areas within the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. The future is far from clear since there is no guarantee that all
the rebels will be captured and they appear to have ample weaponry at their disposal. Russia may or may not launch a full-scale
attack, though it seems increasingly unlikely. Its leaders will clearly not be happy at the outcome and the failure of the
Novorossiya vision embraced by some Russians and separatists.
One possibility-it will not appeal to the more nationalistically minded-is to cut losses and solidify what remains. Ukraine
might agree to the Donbas' full autonomy or even independence-but not its joining Russia-provided that the latter (as well
as the ATO) withdraw its troops and all aid to separatist forces, if the rest of the country were allowed by the West to take
certain irrevocable steps.
(….)
And if Ukraine cannot be preserved in full, then by now it should be recognized what is needed to maintain what is left. It
can no longer be attained, it seems, by means of peaceful diplomacy because its enemies do not recognize its right to exist.
But if the West is unwilling to protect Ukraine, then the government in Kyiv's options are very limited as long as the current
Russian leadership remains in place.
I can't believe this guy gets paid for his analysis and predictions. I was predicting this better than him even several
months ago, and I HAVE NO FUCKING TRAINING IN THIS!
This is par for the course. Daniel Jergin is infamous for his BS oil production and price forecasts but he keeps on racking in
millions as a respected consultant and go-to pundit for the media. The media establishment is populated by yes-men.
Spiegel in Germany speaks to the same audience as Guardian and Telegraph (though I do admit that the latter's comments section,
probably due to a large presence of UKIP supporters, is a much welcomed haven of common sense) in UK and Wall Street Journal and
New York Times in US. That is the pseudo-intellectual, ignorant, holier-than-thou, arrogant liberals (which is funny given Telegraph's
and WSJ's supposedly conservative credentials) that are a minority in every country they are found, yet act as if they speak for
all.
Most things are healthy in moderation, everything becomes poisonous in extreme and at the moment, both Europe and the world,
suffers from the extreme Lack of German nationalism, not the excessive amount of it.
That's an interesting thought, about lack of German nationalism. It's been actively suppressed for the last 70 years, and I wonder
if the close German neighbours on the continent would welcome it. I think that what is also lacking is German pride in their armed
forces. Being peaceful is very well, but having the armed forces treated and behave like chocolate soldiers isn't it. Come to
think of, it's not just the German Armed forces, it's others (Dutch, Italians, French) as well, given the reports from past conflicts
in the Balkans and Afghanistan. But then again, I acknowledge that I may well be prejudiced … after all, I confess that I enjoy
watching 'Trooping the Colour' …
Judah's reliability as a commentator on Russia is well displayed by the subtitle of his book 'Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell
In and Out of Love with Vladimir Putin'.
Ben Judah is a fucking arrogant self-absorbed cretin of the highest order – he thinks he is some sort of Russia, military, history,
economics and geopolitical expert. His latest article is so full self-righteous BS, lies and hyperbole – I don't know how I manage
to finish reading it. Judah writes like a A Level Government and Politics student.
Arm Ukraine or Surrender
MOSCOW - Russia and Ukraine are now at war. At least 2,200 people have died in the conflict; thousands more may die yet. The
Western powers - America, Europe, NATO - now have no good options, but they cannot do nothing. President Vladimir V. Putin has
left us with two dire choices, both fraught with risk: Either we arm Ukraine, or we force Kiev to surrender and let Mr. Putin
carve whatever territories he wants into a Russian-occupied zone of "frozen conflict."
Wouldn't get published if not for the mandatory drivel about "annexation" of Crimea. I guess having the clear majority vote for
REUNIFICATION with Russia is the new definition of annexation. I guess Western Germany annexed Eastern Germany then. I would also
call the US Civil War being an annexation of the Confederate states by the Union. But the latter is actually closer to physical
reality since the implication of the word annexation is to "take something by force".
Warren, September 1, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Ben Judah is a fucking child that screams "Russia is bad, Putin is bad" – not doubt he will have a career in the Western media
by peddling such drivel.
marknesop, September 1, 2014 at 4:35 pm
He eviscerated Judah. I stood up and saluted, I was that impressed. And he's right to point out that the New York Times is spiraling
down and down into tabloid territory – it's turning into a real rag with no objectivity at all.
The single most consistent thing about American push politics in the last two decades has been their stubborn unwillingness to
back away and cut their losses when the game is currently going against them, in the simpleminded belief that "exceptionalism"
will see them through if only they hold firm just a little longer.
The second most-consistent thing is their tendency to wail about that stupid intransigence in editorials once the damage is
done, and pretend that they never supported those interventions in the first place.
That's the one accolade I'll give Thomas Friedman – he acknowledged that he had been an idiot. It did nothing to prevent him
from repeating the transformation again and again, but at least he acknowledged that he was totally wrong on Iraq. Well done,
Thomas.
Even CNN is singing a different tune now.
Watch this video
– need to skip past an ad first.
The narrative below the video is the usual bullcrap about "Russian aggression" and how
NATO has to send troops to stand up to the Bear, etc.
But the correspondent herself (don't know her name) is on the ground in East Ukraine, and instead of sticking to the narrative,
she actually shows some of the victims of junta shelling, and includes a wounded lady crying out: "Poroshenko! Poroshenko! What
have you done to us?"
And then, on today's story, CNN was talking "hopefully" about granting rebels autonomy but keeping them in a unified Ukraine.
These same rebels that, up until a week ago, CNN were calling terrorists and baby-killers ('cause, see, they shot down that
plane, about which also nobody speaks any more).
Isn't it amazing how a few victories on the battlefield suddenly earn one instant Respect?
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
They are changing the narrative to one of 'federalization' because they are afraid of losing control of ALL of Ukraine. Mearsheimer
started it with his piece in Foreign Policy a couple of weeks ago and the McGovern crowd are describing the Novorossians as "federalists"
instead of "separatists".
"The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery
strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes,
significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at
this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces."
Mearsheimer is more subtle and more gentle than the McGovern people, but basically he is trying to tell the imperialist elite
the same thing: that the gig is up; they tried; they lost. They need to look reality in the face and salvage what they can from
Ukraine.
When I read it, I was thinking, "Ho hum, what's the big deal, Mearsheimer isn't saying anything new," but then I realized it
wasn't so much what he was saying as WHOM he was saying it to.
"When I read it, I was thinking, "Ho hum, what's the big deal, Mearsheimer isn't saying anything new," but then I realized
it wasn't so much what he was saying as WHOM he was saying it to."
Exactly, Yalensis. It was new to the Foreign Policy audience
and the CFR are paying him to do it, too!
Obviously, the VIPS crowd at Consortium News are not addressing Merkel as she has her own intel agency to tell her much more
than these "ex" spooks are going to publish in public. They have their channels to get to her in any case. Their usual audience
is the Obama faithful who need something to hang onto. Notice how they represent Obama as maybe slightly incompetent or kept in
the dark but never deliberately nasty.
In both cases, its "the opinion leaders" out there in punterland who are being addressed and given "the inside running" because
they are smart enough to know where to go to get the 'good oil'.
That's the difference between gods and mortals. When mortals f*&E up it is the mortals' fault. When gods f*&E up, it is still
the mortals' fault because gods always have the last word… and get to eat the cake. This guy is treated like a god so he behaves
like one.
The rest of us extremely keen amateurs simply won't do as we refuse to follow the script.
Putin said that if Russian troops were invading Ukraine, as claimed by the usual suspects, Russia could take Kiev in 2 weeks.
Guess how the MSM is reporting the story? Look no further than the headlines:
Ukraine Crisis: 'If I Want, I Will Take Kiev
in Two Weeks', Putin Warns EU's Barroso
How can anyone, in good conscience, even read a western newspaper any more?
I often wonder to what extent newspapers like Pravda were lies; I never read any of them, of course, and age and experience
have taught me that things are seldom in fact as the west presents them in abstract. It's possible they had some delusional moments,
and the remainder of their reporting was reasonable – I don't know. Whatever the case, someone mentioned the other day that we
seem to be living in some bizarro-world where the western media has changed places with the idealized Pravda, and relentlessly
hypes the state's ridiculous fabrications and falsehoods regardless of the fact that nobody has been able to show the spectral
Russian army except for a dozen paratroopers from Pskov, who made no discernible contribution to the war effort.
Soviet newspapers like "Pravda" did not actually print lies, to my knowledge.
I suppose one could say they lied by omission.
They omitted a lot of news, they omitted any international news that might paint capitalism in a good light, and they omitted
any domestic news that might paint Soviet government in a bad light, or was deemed to be sensationalistic. For example, murders
and rapes, social unrest, ethnic strife, and things of that sort were not usually reported on. Pravda was also known for holding
back on reporting industrial accidents and even natural disasters, until they had an editorial policy in place how to report them.
They also did a lot of ideological spins but, to my knowledge, no outright lies. (If somebody has a counter-example, I would be
willing to read it.)
Pravda also did not allow any opinions (in, say, op-eds), that went against Party policy. (Which is not unusual either since,
technically, Pravda was the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Communist Party). Also, Pravda usually focused
on boring domestic economic issues.
As far as I know, whenever Soviet papers reported on foreign affairs, for example, American imperialist war against Vietnam,
they did not lie at all, and their assessments were right on the mark.
I remember Soviet news consisting simply of endless production statistics and wonderful economic forecasts: there were no "human
interests" stories and no commenting by newsreaders in the fashion everywhere in the West, where two readers turn to each other
and express "wow" opinions.
I well remember first noticing a glaring example of this on the BBC years ago when a news reader
(woman, black) stated something like: "In Saudi Arabia [looks directly at camera with expression of amazement] where women
still do not have the vote, elections are taking place today".
This terrible practice comes from the corruption of American "morning news programs" where the anchors are supposed to be your
substitute family and friends; and hard news is reduced to personal banter.
Long gone are the days when a BBC newsreader, dressed in regulation evening suit (this rule applied to both TV and radio newsreaders),
serenely and articulately read the news using "Received Pronunciation" ("BBC" or "Oxford" English) thus:
This is the BBC
Home Service. Here are the news headlines:
Early this morning at around 7:15, an unidentified man farted loudly on the upper deck of a 32 Liverpool bus. No passengers
are reported to have been seriously injured…
A classic example of western MSM. I saw another one today in the morning freebie paper that's given out all over London. It's
seen by millions of commuters so its circulation is not negligible "Putin urges talks on Ukraine after EU sanctions threat".
Which is not wholly false but fails to include that Putin has been 'urging talks on Ukraine' roughly everyday since the crisis
began.
Here is NBC News
piece with Senior Propagandist Andrea Mitchell interviewing U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein.
[yalensis note:
Here is my transcription of the inteview, for those who don't speak English. In some cases, my comprehension of these ladies
midwest dialect was not so good, so I was forced to paraphrase their words somewhat, as best I could:]
Andrea: "Is there any way to stop Vladimir Putin? This guy just can't be stopped. He's like some kind of Japanese super-monster
like Godzilla or that giant turtle creature, he just rampages around the whole world destroying cities, and nobody can stop
him. In short, is there ANYTHING we can do to stop Vladimir Putin?"
Diane: "I think there ought to be some direct discussions with Vladimir Putin. I don't care what kind of monster he is,
you know what Eisenstein used to say: Moskva – bolshoi, Kazan – malenkiy. I mean, let's face it, we have to kiss Crimea good-bye.
We need to send some people into his lair and actually talk to him. I hear he doesn't bite … a lot…. You know how talking works,
right? You open your mouth and some words come out. Then the other person opens his mouth, and some words come out. It isn't
a pleasant process, but sometimes it needs to be done that way… Let's face it, Vlad is on a high right now, and he is really
enjoying this. Some people say sanctions bite. I dunno about that. The Russians are very brave and long-suffering people, hey,
I read my Dostoevsky in college lit class, I know how emotional those guys get! And they're really tough, too, I mean they
beat Napoleon and Hitler, and those guys were no pussies either… In summary, I don't think the sanctions are working, because
Russian people are just laughing at us, and they support their boss. So, we have no choice except to talk to him."
I've noticed more and more of late comments in British rags that portray the "terrorists" as clearly bloodthirsty killers acting
on the Evil One's commands, in that they rejected four "ceasefire" offers off Blessed-Be-The-Peacemakers Porky Poroshenko, which
line is a result again of Western disinformation: that pig's "peace deals" were all demands that the anti-Kiev forces capitulate,
namely a demand for unconditional surrender – followed, no doubt by processing in "filtration camps" and the likely deaths of
many that had surrendered.
Indeed – and it's exactly the same in the German papers. Here it is clear case of contributions not foaming at the mouth about
Putin not being let through. The stupid censors do let the occasional complaint about posts not appearing through, and some posters
have now taken to write that they can of course censor their post, but should at least read it first and ponder what is being
said. These are allowed through – and yep, they're not by Putin-haters.
More and more, European MSM are curbing free speech by closing comments entirely, or deleting as they go along.
The only open one is BreitbartLondon – provided one doesn't fall foul of the quirks in the disqus software which doesn't 'allow'
such bad words as fag, faggot, piss and similar scatological expressions – and of course the favourite English four-letter-word
means an instant no-post.
But, as per usual, these guys, the flower of the Ukrainian people, can
never admit that they are a bunch of bone-headed amateurs who tried to play professional soldier. Then discovered that fighting
against real soldiers is not quite as easy as strangling and burning unarmed pregnant women in a trade-union building.
Being incapable of admitting responsbility for their deeds, they need to place the blame for their defeat on somebody else,
and they have 2 candidates in mind:
(1) the Russian army, and
(2) the Ukrainian army "suits" who "betrayed" them.
Here are the words of Right Sektor warrior Andrei Denisenko, who is intent on giving the "Weeping Paratrooper" a run for his
money:
"This night I could barely contain my tears, and ahead of me, on the steps of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Government building,
I saw weeping Colonel V'acheslav Pechenenko. He (Pechenenko) related to me how the Russian interventionists shot up a column of
our troops and volunteers in Putin's so-called 'humanitarian corridor', through which the tin soldiers of the General Staff had
ordered the Ukrainian troops to move out of the Ilovaisk cauldron. Pechenko narrated how they (the Russians) shot at us like targets
at a shooting range (…), after which the Russians combed the fields and finished off the heavily wounded…."
That's a lie, and he knows it. Kiev was offered a humanitarian corridor on the condition they abandon their arms and walk out
without them. Kiev ordered them to fight their way out. And all that stuff about Russians combing the fields to finish off the
wounded exists only in his sick imagination. But of course the west will suck it up like custard, and it will go down in history
as another example of the savage and barbaric Russian subhuman.
Here in Hungary they have already announced this scene. "Rebels broke their promise to release Ukrainian """"""""""""""""""""""""volunteers"""""""""""""""""""""""
from the cauldrons under Ilovaysk and they MASSACRED them."
I am sick of this lying. They are achoing those banderist idiots
without a brain.
Well, boohoo hoo hoo. Poor "volunteers" who were busy slaughtering civilians for months with their insane random shelling of residential
areas in every village, town and city. They got their just desserts.
I need to remind everyone what the USA did to retreating
columns of Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait. It slaughtered them wholly. When I bring this point up in political discussions with some
of my colleagues I get the BS excuse that nothing makes such attacks illegal. So, right back at you, sanctimonious west.
No mention, I see, from sanctimonious bleeding hearts in the West that Ukrainian government forces are using Mariupol citizens
as a "human shield", an accusation that was often directed at the "terrorists".
It is striking and very disturbing to see that the MSM across the EU, as if in unison, report only and exclusively what the Kiev
regime's propaganda arm "reports", while at the same time misreporting and thwarting anything coming from Russia, or indeed anything
Putin says.
Frankly, I have not seen anything like that except during the very darkest days of the Cold War.
> And what IS Iraq now?
Ruined by American invasion country.
When H. Clinton were asked about that, she said: "Iraq war was worth it".
I wish that bitch to be cold and dead among the Iraqi peaceful people killed by US (including her personally) will for nothing.
Oh, it's not nothing, it's all about oil.
As people joke:
CNN: Monday. Scientists found oil under Antarctic ice.
CNN: Tuesday. NATO wants to liberate Antarctic region and to end penguins' dictatorship.
you know, cnn said it was genocide so it must be true...cnn never lies, as well as other western media...they are all for piece
in the world and they dont like to be warmongers...
Bad editorials based on bad intelligence producing bad propaganda.
"We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq then - we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now.
"Photos can be worth a thousand words - they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analysing and reporting
on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence.
"Suffice it to say that the images released by Nato on August 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with
invading Ukraine."
It seems NATO can expand its sphere of influence without limit - a North Atlantic alliance currently operating in Afghanistan,
for example - but any attempt to resist its advances, as in eastern Ukraine, where the majority appear to favour secession from
Kiev, even if they don't want to be absorbed by Russia, is classified as aggression. It seems that freedom to choose is only an
expression of democracy as long as you choose NATO.
Agreed. But NATO is not the only one. That is only one aspect of enforcement: military.
Neoliberalism is not just a mere economic ideology (as its apologists would like us to think) but the driving engine of the
convergence of institutions, an entire philosophy. I see it as both the cause of and the convergence of institutions itself. Each
facet is mutually enforcing of an ideology which runs counter to humanity's own long term interests. Religion is not always but
can be used for destructive ends or maintaining obsolete beliefs or privilege (e.g. House of Lords) simply because they are traditional.
Big Brother=Neoliberalism=The Market (Financial Branch: corporate plutocracy, all financial institutions up to World Bank and
IMF)=The Party (Political Branch: neoliberal governments)=Enforcement (Law Branch: police local to national, Military Industrial
Complex [including NATO], court system and Beliefs Branch: education system, compromised science [disinformation], The Media/PROLEFEED
[brainwashing and propaganda function], neoliberal thinktanks, lobbyists, bond rating agencies, religion [tribal beliefs and mythological
narrative])
If the Ukranians can find a long term settlement against the wishes of Washington and their own fascists, there will be an awful
lot of people with egg on their faces, including politicians and editors of the national press.
There are signs, most noticeably at the BBC, but also at the Graun that the media are rowing back from a position that has
been ludicrously counter factual, but the politicians are still pushing an impossibilist agenda, in order to get political backing
from their populations, to extend American hegemony up to Russia's borders.
It seems obvious that there is now a political battle between Poreshenko and whoever his backers are and Yats, who is "our"man,
according to Nuland. Poreshenko's position is perilous, but if public opinion in Ukraine has turned against the war on its own
citizens, his position may survive.
I take it that you have no memory before 2014. Before Maidan, there was plenty of discussion in the media about the dangers of
the various fascist and ultra nationalist groups in Kyiv. This was, of course before they became vital to the power games of Washington.
Unless you truly believe that western Ukranian opinion is absolutely 100% is of the same mind, then you must admit that there
are different strands of opinion in the country. At the last election involving the whole country, they elected a crooked oligarch,
just like all the other crooked oligarchs who have run Ukraine for their own benefit, but they did not vote for fascism. When
Poreshenko was elected by Western Ukraine, the share of the vote for the Fascist and ultra nationalist parties was pitiful and
yet by some magic process, they retained powerful positions in government, while the parliament has been dissolved as it didn't
support the ultra right attempt to call the defenders of Donbass terrorists.
Dissolving parliament because it was acting as an opposition to Right sector and the other rightists and banning opposition
political parties seems a pretty fascist thing to me.
come to big city and every day it fired 3 times a day: after Breakfast, lunch and
dinner from mortars, cannons, rocket launchers, aiming preferably in residential neighborhoods. After 3-4 months of shelling the
city from out of nowhere appears the Russian army.
Why Russian? Everything is simple. Everyone knows that the dead child, the wife of the dissected fragments, parents buried
alive under the rubble, destroyed the house - all of this nonsense and it doesn't matter, it cannot separate the true patriots.
Therefore, the army, which appears after the shelling of cities, consists exclusively of Russians, at least so says Kiev.
Guardian says: "Arming up the Ukrainians is possible and perhaps should be done".
And I ask, to what end? More shelling and
killing innocent civilians? Or to de-stabilize Russia in a proxy war on it's border? Because that would be an interesting goal
for NATO, now wouldn't it?
Carl Jones, 03 September 2014 9:52pm
Okay....I admit that I have not ready this article....no point, because it assumes that NATO and the NWO have options.
They don't. This is about the very bedrock of the West...its about the survival of the NY/City axis. This is about the
very survival of Amerika and the UK as going concerns.
Russia and the BRICS are decoupling...They are walking away from the US dollar, they are refusing to pay the US extortion money,
they won't be propping up the bankrupt US economy any longer...This is why they have it in for Putin.
"It is a matter of picking out the precise bit of military power, or the precise bit of political manoeuvring"
Surely, there shouldn't be an "or" in that sentence. Please replace with an "and".
"In Ukraine, Nato countries see a former partner becoming an adversary"
Their own fault. Not least the new Russophobic Nato-countries (yes, I'm looking at you, Poland and Lithuania).
The expansion of Nato in the 90's and 00's might very well result in the demise or at least watering down of the alliance.
Western Europe will hardly go to war for a cocky Baltic republic who's picking a fight with Russia (compare with Saakashvili's
bullish Georgia 2008, believing the West would come to his aid; a glorious naivety made even more spectacular by the fact the
he was the one who started the war).
I disagree with this article. Ukraine attacked its own people after the eastern regions voted to become autonomous, within a Federal
State of Ukraine. Its obvious that its own Army was not a willing butcher of its own people, and so many volunteers, including
Neo Nazis were recruited from many NATO nations. So this whole mess was created by Ukraine, not Russia.
Ukraine has consistently resisted talks with the Pro-Russian Rebels. Till the Ukraine Army and its volunteers were routed on the
Weekend. It seems more than 1,000 Ukraine soldiers were killed in these battles. Now the Ukraine Government have been told to
face reality by NATO and the Eu and the US. I suspect that promises were made, and have since been withdrawn on the basis of Putin
putting his foot down, and drawing the red line.
The US and NATO only attack weak countries with obsolete equipment. So I don't expect NATO or the US to attack Russia anytime
soon.
As for ISIS, this was created, funded and trained by the US to fight in Libya and Syria. When Syria started to win, they went
to Iraq. If the US were serious about ISIS, they would have been destroyed by now, and would have stopped been supplied and funded.
So this is another fake war IMO.
I expect Putin to again put his foot down if/when the US says it "wants to bomb targets" in Syria.
Pity poor NATO, well that's enough of that load of horlicks.
NATO spends a trillion bucks a year on defence spending, more than all the other military budgets of the world. They represent
nearly a billion people.
This editorial would like to present this over budgeted, warmongering bunch of lunatics as poor!
NATO cannot find any evidence of a Russian invasion since February of this year, but want us to take their word for it!
Fogh Rasmussen told his Danish parliament that he KNEW there were WMD's in Iraq, now he is telling us that there are Russian ground
forces in Ukraine.
Why doesn't the editorial team ask him about that lie?
Afraid he will point out how many invasions you printed were happening, without any of it being true?
Recently I made some comment that ideally it would be good for our country to be on friendly terms with both Russia and the Ukraine
and that I wasn't convinced that Mr Putin really resembled Hitler. So I was told that I was naive and a Putin supporter, which
I am not.
Amongst all the accusations and counter-accusations, trolling and accusations of trolling, one thing seems clear;
that the US supported a coup against an admittedly not-very-nice Ukrainian Government and the installation of a different not-very-nice
Ukrainian Government. If this is so, then I have to ask, what gave the US the right to intervene in another country's affairs
in this way? And is it then so surprising that Putin has reacted as he has done, given that he's the sort of person that he seems
to be and given that a significant proportion of Ukrainians seem to want to align themselves with Russia? (And a significant proportion
don't. Not justifying, just giving a reason.) Shouldn't we be trying to help find a solution rather than making threats and slapping
on sanctions?
Some while back, John Pilger wrote an article suggesting that the US actually wanted a war with Russia. So the ideological
conflict of the Cold War wasn't really so ideological but like all wars was about power and control? Who'd have thunk it? So the
US wants more bases in Eastern Europe to deter a possible Russian threat? Well, perhaps they could save a bit of money by removing
the ones that are still here in Britain nearly 70 years after the end of WWII. The ones that a US general once with commendable
frankness, described as 'expendable.'
While you cheer those statistics, I note that the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and ECB are still on multi-year programs
of quantitative easening (ie. printing money as fast as they can hit their computer keys) to prop up their banking system, causing
new bubbles on the stock and real property markets, while the EU is in a deepening recession caused by the residue of the 2008
banking crisis combined with the sanctions and the tensions arising from Ukraine situation. In case you are not aware, sanctions
hit both ways; just ask those Greek and Spanish farmers, and my guess is that the German industrial sector won't be far behind.
As usual, the US is more than happy, implementing the Wolfowitz Doctrine that does what we want to harm Russia, while war rages
in Europe and your economy is about to land in the crapper too due to your governing elites foolishly abiding by Washington's
dictates.
Maybe you forget that the flames of war were lit on your continent when the US and EU leaders put a match to the tinderbox
of Ukraine by supporting western Ukrainians, spearheaded by extreme nationalists of questionable character, overthrew the democratically
elected government and seized power in an entirely unconstitutional manner, and proceeded to put gas on that fire by supporting
their military suppression of the inevitable backlash of the eastern Ukrainians who protested seeing the electoral victories they
attained at the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 be reversed by the bullet.
In the meantime, which nations have been buying up all the gold in the world? Hint: their capital cities are Moscow, Beijing
and New Delhi. When the next bubble pops don't be surprised to see a new gold backed currency come to fore in the world economy;
it's unlikely to have a US president or queen on it.
Boy, the enemies against U.S. and EU are certainly piling up. Russia, ISIS, Assad, China with its oil rigs in the south-sea...
One wonders, does the West still find time, energy and finance to concentrate on domestic issues and problems? Because, lest they
forget, that is the reason why our dear political leaders were voted in office for in the first place.
Nato countries see a former partner becoming an adversary
Partner? Such a conceited outlook, couched in the self-satisfied language of US diplomacy. Russia was defeated then forced
to genuflect before trans-atlantic economic power. We repeated the mistakes of the Treaty of Versaille and now we must deal with
a cynical, indignant Russia. NATO requires Russia to be a potential opponent in order to justify its existence and so Russia could
never be considered a partner amongst equals. This editorial reads as if it were the product of a political think-tank rather
than a news media outlet.
Well, considering the US national security strategy (the "Wolfowitz Doctrine") states that we will take any necessary steps to
prevent any nation, or group of nations, to arise to a sufficient level of power of influence to prevent our unfettered hegemony
in international affairs, perhaps Russia has a valid concern. (The word "hegemony" is actually in the documents!)
After all, the US was never invaded by Mongol hordes, Charles XII, Napolean or Hitler, was it?
And Russia hasn't built a ring of bases on the border of the US, has it?
Why is everyone being so aggressive with Putin? Why should he have a collection of hostile gangsters running 'the Ukraine' on
his borders? These great Ukrainian patriots seem to me to be either neo-Nazi idiots or fugitives from international arrest warrants.
Yulia's mentor is doing time in a federal prison on some 200M dollar money laundering conviction, and someone needs to ask her
how much money she made as fuel negotiator.
So, we see the Ukraine going from being a socialist country where,presumably, there were no millionaires to suddenly becoming
a failed state led by dodgy millionaires, and we are supposed to commit our tax money and our young men to protecting these mobsters.
Great.
Here are some interesting views of NATO countries on the middle east that had to be taken into consideration, as expressed last
week by the US, state department, it has a brilliant closure:
We believe outside interference in Libya exacerbates current divisions and undermines Libya's democratic transition.
What is that? stupidity? the worst of jokes? or the kind of cynicism that should make us all storm the NATO headquarters?
Here are some interesting views of NATO countries on the middle east that had to be taken into consideration, as expressed last
week by the US, state department, it has a brilliant closure:
We believe outside interference in Libya exacerbates current divisions and undermines Libya's democratic transition.
What is that? stupidity? the worst of jokes? or the kind of cynicism that should make us all storm the NATO headquarters?
It is by Carl Gershman of National Endowment for Democracy. In it, he essentially argues, Russia and Putin are standing against
us taking over Syria. He says, if we take former Soviet republics out of his hand, and then cause him problem internally in Russia
he will be out of power. Then we can take over places like Syria with little effort. In his article he says the jewel in Putin's
possession is Ukraine, we can take it from him.
Gershman is a neocon, his organization goes around the world causes problems for governments neocons don't like. They manufacure
crises, their motto is Democracy, their aim is causing trouble and disharmony anywhere they have their cross hair on. Unfortunately,
he is not the only person and his organization playing this game. His view of Middle East is many small states divided by religions
and ethnicities all "democratic" thus friendly to the West. Meaning, small states at conflict with each other based on ethnicity
and religion, which would all need to have a protector in Washington, and thus they would be unable or unwilling to cause problem
for Israel.. This is the exact carbon copy of what Israel wants for the middle east.
These crowd who instigated the wars in the middle east, but have not been confronted at all, are still working their plans.
This time they have gone so far as challenging Russia into a confrontation. For their nonsense and beliefs, they apparently don't
even care to get close to a nuclear war. Their talking heads come on TV proposing arming Ukrainians and giving them intelligence
so that they can kill Russian troops and thus when dead bodies pile up in Russia the people in Russia overthrow Putin. This came
out of the mouth of William B. Taylor, former US ambassador to Ukraine, another neocon.
It is time to take the microscope off and look at what has happened in the past dozen years with a wide angle. The west needs
to confront neocons, as we believe the muslim world needs to confront ISIS and Al Qaeda. A good start is with exposing these people
publicly.
The problem for Europe and by implication NATO, is that the civil war in Ukraine was instigated by the US fro geo-political purposes,
to grab resources in Ukraine on Russia's boarder and so put impossible pressure on the real jewel in the crown.
Let's watch
as this genocidal conflict, backed by the West continues. True to form the US will not want peace, as a peaceful solution poses
problems for them, in terms of culpability.
While ever the MSM and Western politicians continue with this "with Putin it's personal" mindless reporting there will be no
road map to peace and that road will remain closed. As we have seen many time the US agenda is about full spectrum dominance and
aggression when it comes to the Global economy. Not peace.
fansince76, 04 September 2014 5:01am
"Although the rebels said they were local, they did not speak with local accents. Their kit looked new and included two modern
Dragunov sniper rifles and two rocket-propelled grenade launchers."
The Guardian reporters are now local accent experts as well.
"Fighters from Mariupol's Azov battalion, volunteers with neo-Nazi leanings, said they would continue to follow orders from
Kiev, but their uncompromising rhetoric suggested any deal between Poroshenko and Putin could test that loyalty."
The Guardian reporters interview neo-Nazi soldiers from Kiev, but have nothing to say about the refusal of these soldiers to
take orders from their President!
Just like the Maidan political agreements which were first accepted by Klitchko and his buddies, before the neo-Nazis refused
to accept that agreement.
Who is in charge of an independent brigade of Nazis fighting against a civilian population in East Ukraine?
Vladimir Putin is responsible for some awful human rights abuses in Ukraine, but Cameron drawing parallels to Hitler is
a cheap, politically motivated shot
The rights and wrongs aside, I would expect any politician to take actions that are politically motivated.
There is a difference between politics and party politics.
Politics has (or should have) the aim of doing the best for the country - party politics merely has the aim of winning next election.
What the PM is doing is the latter.
No it isn't. Napoleon did the same thing but he didn't burn whole villages down while locking the residents in the barn or build
huge concentration camps like Auschwitz... annexation of territory isn't an excuse for comparing Putin to Hitler, besides if he
really wanted to annex the whole of Ukraine rather than just assisting the rebels he would have done it by now.
"What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly
the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners.
For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they
had succeeded, we might be watching the S.S. men patrolling the London streets at this moment. Similarly, why are the Russians
fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly
in defence of Holy Russia (the "sacred soil of the Fatherland", etc. etc.), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered
form. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions - racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of
war - which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely
in themselves as to have lost all power of action."
I can't imagine Owen Jones writing anything similar in a million years.
If Cameron was to use Nazi comparison' he could start by looking at the ConDem's treatment of the Disabled and Chronically sick
I am sure IDS would love to set up a T4 camp.
It's a land grab by the Russian's to make sure NATO have no base's near it's borders. Made easier by what's going on with the
I.S.more conflict in the area will just lead to more death's.
Let Russia and Ukraine sort it out it's not our or NATO's business.
No. He (Putin) doesn't think it was a compliment. In fact he was absolutely furious about this. More Soviets died in WW2 than
from any other country, including much of Vladimir Putin's family. The fact of the matter is that comparing his actions to Hitler
was more effective than sending weapons to Ukraine. The Russians may still dream of the power and influence they wielded as the
Soviet Union (especially when playing military games with their neighbours, trying to stop them from getting too big for their
boots, joining the EU and thinking themselves better than Russians, like the Baltic States do) but most still do not want to be
scum!
Being compared to Adolf Hitler is a more hurtful insult than being compared to Satan for even the most religious Russian.
Well, perhaps you are right - at the moment, he is doing as Stalin did when supporting the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.
That is, indirectly helping the supporters of a legitimate government resisting a fascist regime that overthrew it.
It is clear that Putin has expansionary tendencies - he is happy for countries to be independent only as long as they align
with Russia, but if they don't he seeks to inflame political tensions and divide and conquer independent countries.
The EU and US weren't too happy when the Ukraine refused to align itself with them. They sought to inflame political tensions
to the point of supporting a putsch with neo-Nazis providing the muscle. They've now divided the Ukraine and have a government
in Kiev doing its economic bidding (slashing wages and pensions, increasing the price of energy).
The difference with 1939 is that the west was arming Hitler. Most of the top US corporations were building the trucks and
aircraft without which he could not have invaded Poland.
That is what made Hitler a powerful threat.
Don't make the mistake of thinking Hitler had today's German industrial colossus. He did not.
It is time that Western governments stopped supporting Ukraine as its government is responsible for shelling and bombing its own
citizens.
Putin is an opportunist and old fashioned Russian nationalist who doesn't like others poking around in Ukraine as
most Russians think the Ukraine is part of Russia.
Western leaders denigrating Putin will achieve nothing. Sanctions will achieve nothing. Best to let Russia and Ukraine sort
things out amongst themselves and if that means the Ukraine goes bust and the gas is cut off, sobeit. Until Ukrainian nationalists
realise that they have to treat their Russian speaking citizens equally and with respect, those citizens will seek to leave Ukraine.
Russia is Ukraine's major export market, so getting on the wrong side of Russia is plain stupid.
On the eve of the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was repeatedly compared to Hitler, with Donald Rumsfeld even casting George W Bush
in the role of Winston Churchill.
The media abounded with such parallels in the build-up to the Iraq disaster, with one Telegraph article headlined "Appeasement
won't stop Saddam any more than Hitler" and even suggesting Iraq could bomb Southampton. On either sides of his rapprochement
with the west, Libya's Colonel Gaddafi faced the Hitler treatment, too.
How times change eh? 'Friends of the West' suddenly become our enemies, when they no longer have a use.
It is likely that the local population wants greater autonomy, but it is perfectly clear that they want that within in a peaceful,
united Ukrainian nation to which they seem to feel they belong.
" According to David Cameron, the west risks "repeating the mistakes made in Munich in '38","
That would be the policy
endorsed by the tories in the 1838 by-elections, described by their opponents as a 'vote for Hitler'?
"The campaign was intense and focused almost entirely on foreign affairs. Hogg supported Chamberlain's appeasement policy.
Lindsay opposed appeasement; his campaigners used the slogan "A vote for Hogg is a vote for Hitler." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_by-election,_1938
Blobby is risking the further enragement of his kipper tendency who seem somewhat enamoured of Pootee
Ukraine is just another regime change job. Unfortunately the media avoid at all costs to admit this because then it would
become blindingly obvious that, as in Iraq and Libya, it is another failure of western policy.
Proof, if proof were still needed, that Cameron is utterly out of his depth and a serious international embarrassment.
Two days ago, ISIS were a "generational" threat, the worst ever faced. Now Putin is Hitler. These comments have all the in-depth
aunderstanding, reasoned quality of zero-scoring sixth-form trolling on CiF.
Putin is a clever, effective, and dangerous chancer, but psychotic global threat he is not. A new form of "Cool War" scenario
across Europe seems to be the likely outcome of recent US (via NATO) and Russian manoeuvrings. Stasis will be reached. Borders
may be adjusted. Then again in another 30 years.
ISIS are a culturally-insular, defensive force. It's aggressive defence, to be sure, but they believe they are trying to protect
Islam (and a particular selection of elements of broadly Middle Eastern culture) from outside interference. We must recognize
them for what THEY think they are, and what we think "WE" are if we wish to find channels through which to avoid exacerbating
global terrorist violence. Stealing (or perhaps "chaperoning") resources in territories claimed and run by other groups of people
is probably not a useful way of doing this.
No easy answers, obviously. But we must ask meaningful questions before bombing, invading, and supporting the iniquitous regimes
that provoke people - real, ordinary people - to turn to either "Russian-speaking militias", or "medieval theological zealots".
So according to many of the comments here, it's okay for Obama and Cameron to intervene in Iraq because ISIS have killed few American
and British citizens but Putin is not allowed to intervene in eastern Ukraine where mercenaries funded by the Ukrainian government
and oligarchs have killed hundreds of ethnic Russians?
Cameron being childish ... is he next going to call Putin fat or maybe ugly or maybe stupid ... wait and watch our childish leader.
Russia should be a close ally, they did a lot more for us that the USA did during WW2. Without Russia we would now be speaking
German, without the USA's involvement the Germans would still have been defeated.
The German invasion of the Soviet Union caused a high rate of fatalities: 95 percent of all German Army casualties that occurred
from 1941 to 1944, and 65 percent of all Allied military casualties from the entire war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
Let's repeat that; the Russians incurred two thirds of all allied casualties while causing 95% of all German casualties after
1941. I say it again, we could not have won the war without the Russians.
But let's not pretend Ukraine's government are champions of human rights either. According to Human Rights Watch, they have
been using "indiscriminate rockets in populated areas" in violation of international humanitarian law.
When 'international humanitarian law' is also flouted - quite frequently in some cases - by the likes of the Chinese, US, Israel...
who is actually enforcing this law or even respecting it? Anyone?
The World is run by hypocrites and tyrants. I am actually so weary of the massive amounts propaganda, lies, and hypocrisy in
the media at this point that I'm actually struggling to care at all, about the seemingly endless atrocities being commited, daily.
Any sense of anger at all of the lies, hypocrisy, the constant injustices being carried out are being whittled down to little
more than a futile acceptance. Then, that's sort of the point of propaganda, isn't it?
Cameron is a amateur dictator himself...puffing hot air onto flames just ignites the situation...comparing Mr a Putin to hitler
that's inflammatory for a start...Cameron doesn't think before he opens his mouth.
Wow you're really after a fair debate aren't you! Did you even read the comment?
I agree that the EU and US backed the coup
in Kiev, my comment refers to the Russian involvement in the fighting in Eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.
The west supporting a coup and Russia sending troops and weapons into the country are two very different things.
Shalom. Everything around Ukraine is, lets say, not accurate, not accurate at all.
Beside Mr. Cameron, he is just talking as they always do. Talking, making air, being for nothing..
The Western MSM doing not much different when writing; "Ukraine and Russia reach permanent ceasefire.." and so on. How is that
possible? The Ukraine is a conflict between interests of the EUS and some inside interests, and the people of Ukraine disagreed.
It was never a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a inside conflict initiated by the EUS to harm Asia and keep the US$ as world
currency alive. End of story. Everything else is not true, simple it is.
Well since World War 2, there was the disastrous partioning of India which left millions dead and displaced. Then there's Ireland,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and there's supporting and arming Israel in their apartheid and genocide, then there's the bombing of
Libya, and continuining unabaited support for American foreign policy and their insidious drone campaigns etc, this country has
some serious blood on its hands.
The simple truth is that there is world campaign for the domination of all world resources, in the Ukraine once again Gas and
Oil reserves are on the agenda.
Born seven years after WWII, Vladimir Putin hardly can be a Nazi: his older brother died during the Siege of Leningrad (see http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140127/186958249/Putin-Pays-Respects-to-Brother-Victims-of-Leningrad-Siege--.html)
Of course comparing Putin to Hitler is completely ridicules and self-serving propaganda, there is no question about that because
the whole situation is completely and utterly different. (just a reminder to some of the history "buffs" here who think it works:
Austria annexation was never challenge by the "west" or Austrian themselves thousands of them join the German army , Czechoslovakia
was NOTHING like Ukraine, there was no puch that removed legitimate government , there was no riots or fighting between different
fractions/nationalist, there was no civil war and 200.000 German refuges in Germany…. Just so we are on the same page)
But I think the problem is not in the propaganda against our "enemies" but rather in the fact that we (well…by "we" I mean western
politicians and media….and public that follows these clown) can't no longer distinguish or compare our actions (Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria,…etc;) to those that we oppose…. There is NEVER even an effort to measure others the same way we "measure" ourselves…
WE are always RIGHT (even if we are utterly wrong) …THEY are always WRONG… and this is the bottom line … like in the Bible…you
se the splinter in your opponent eyes but you don't see the ship mast in your own eye…with the "moral" highroad like that no wonder
that the WEST lost it's ALL credibility in the world
But is Ukraine a country or simply a renegade province? It basically fell off the old SU when that was at its weakest. Certainly
I have always considered places like Kiev and Kharkov and Odessa Russian. It is hardly like Portugal or Sweden which have been
countries in the strict sense of the world for a historically prolonged time.
The same consideration holds true for Byelorussia.
Drawing a line in the sand and declaring Ukraine an independent country seems to have been an opportunity seized to further
weaken the Old Enemy. Especially since that move would preclude that Old Enemy access to its Crimean seaports, a situation that
Russia, understandably from its point of view, has now rectified. To then make overtures toward Ukraine, as in the Baltics, Georgia,
Moldova, etc, holding the carrot of EU and NATO membership and, hooray, entry in the Euro, with all the unmentioned riches and
bliss that that <ahem> would bring, was at best cynical as everybody knew that that was not going to happen.
The outcry over the 'invasion of a sovereign nation' that we have been hearing about strikes me as opportunistic and an attempt
to make Putin look like, well, Hitler.
Of course comparing Putin to Hitler is completely ridicules and self-serving propaganda, there is no question about that because
the whole situation is completely and utterly different. (just a reminder to some of the history "buffs" here who think it works:
Austria annexation was never challenge by the "west" or Austrian themselves thousands of them join the German army , Czechoslovakia
was NOTHING like Ukraine, there was no putsch that removed legitimate government , there was no riots or fighting between different
fractions/nationalist, there was no civil war and 200.000 German refuges in Germany…. Just so we are on the same page)
But I
think the problem is not in the propaganda against our "enemies" but rather in the fact that we (well…by "we" I mean western politicians
and media….and public that follows these clown) can't no longer distinguish or compare our actions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Syria,…etc;) to those that we oppose….
There is NEVER even an effort to measure others the same way we "measure" ourselves… WE are always RIGHT (even if we are utterly
wrong) …THEY are always WRONG… and this is the bottom line … like in the Bible…you se the splinter in your opponent eyes but you
don't see the ship mast in your own eye…with the "moral" highroad like that no wonder that the WEST lost it's ALL credibility
in the world
Cameron is a little boy, who needs to get his hands out of his trousers. He is trying to impress his over-lord Obama et al,
who have caused this mess in the first place. What he has done is show how utterly childish undiplomatic and unprofessional he
is. He is delusional if he thinks he holds a candle to Churchill, or that Nato can push Russia around.
The Media has been awash with name calling and facts twisting to the extreme to serve their political masters.
Very few
journalists, had the courage and the clarity of thought to speak the truth.
America and Brittain and the Israelis has done a lot worse than that,yet no one called Blair or Bush or Netanyaho a Hitler.All
these countries claim to be the guardians of Human Rights,yet their history is full of Blood.It is time for these Politicians
to look in the mirror,I wonder at ,what will they See ?
England and David Cameron could do with a lot more empathy.
England hasn't been invaded since 1688 whereas Russia has been ravaged
by the Germans and French in comparatively modern times. Ukraine was until comparatively recently part of the same country as
Russia. There is a substantial Russian minority in Ukraine and the current Ukraine Government contains some very unsavoury characters.
It was Ukrainians not Russians who enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis.
So I think England should imagine itself to have been brutally invaded as much as Russia and with a substantial alienated English
speaking minority in France....
If Putin is a Nazi what about our friends in Saudi Arabia where people are regularly beheaded in public and women cannot even
drive a car ? The Saudi whose citizens funded ISIS and religious schools and mosques that are an existential threat to this country.
But we supply Saudi with the latest weapons and send Prince Charles off to sip tea with the reactionary tyrants that run the country.
England needs an urgent reality check. Putin is not our ideological enemy, the Saudi Royal family most definitely are.
The fact that Ukraine's Poroshenko seems ready to accept a ceasefire is understandable after recent
days' events: the losses of Ukrainian government forces and the land gains made by the separatists, who seem to be supported even
by regular army units from Russia, appear to have made Poroshenko realize that the military solution to the conflict he has been
aiming for since late June has failed. The additional front line opened by Russia near Mariupol in the very south of the Donetsk
region has increased pressure on Kyiv.
If there was a ceasefire, the bloodshed would end at last. But politically, Poroshenko and his government would take a high risk,
just ahead of the parliamentary elections scheduled for October. Many Ukrainians would feel offended, resenting the ceasefire and
the resulting de facto capitulation. That is particularly true for the many nationalist voluntary units who have seen big losses
in their own ranks over recent days. It's hard to imagine that those forces, politically difficult to control, will follow the political
logic of a ceasefire. Intense domestic tensions would be the result. In the elections, radical parties could make significant gains.
A partisan war in eastern Ukraine can also not be excluded.
Another loser
The European Union, and above all Germany, have pushed for an end to the fighting for weeks, campaigning for a political solution.
But if the situation turns into a frozen conflict there is a risk that parts of the Ukrainian society will turn their backs on Europe.
For weeks, Ukrainians heard rumors of a deal between Berlin and Moscow, according to which Poroshenko would end the fighting, and
virtually hand over Donetsk and Luhansk to the separatists. Many Ukrainians therefore feel betrayed by the EU and especially by Germany.
Several European countries share the impression that the EU's answer to Russian aggression against a neighboring country was not
resolute enough. A frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine would cause long-lasting aftershocks in the European Union. Relations with
Russia and with Ukraine are probably strained for years. Europe will not be able to return to the status quo before the conflict.
How Ukrainian authorities secure order and peace, Jen Psaki should ask the people of Donbass. But Western journalists prefer not
to speak with the people living in the war zone. They avoid citing any word which could cast doubt on Kiev`s policy.
On the other hand, they easily rely on official Ukrainian sources and repeat their false, office-made "news" about Russian aggression
and rebels killing their own population. Although only insane people would kill those who give them food and other support, a support
essential to the Donbass guerillas, the myth about rebels killing their own families is still alive.
If Westerners could see what is really going on in Donbass, they would have a completely different picture. Plenty of videos can
be found on various websites showing dead civilians, slaughtered by Ukrainian artillery or aviation. On the videos, survivors say
clearly that people are being killed by Ukrainians from Kiev and not by the rebels. But pro-Kiev media and its Western allies turn
a deaf ear to their sufferings.
After the Lugansk administration building was bombed by a Ukrainian aircraft on June 2, it became clear to all that the pro-Western
government in Kiev was ready to cross the red line. Here is a video taken
just after the bombing. Among the victims were several women and the video shows them still alive but mortally wounded.
On July 27, after the bombing of Gorlovka, there were as many as 30 corpses in the streets. Among them were a 23-year-old mother
embracing her little daughter, as witnessed in this video. Here one can
see the aftermath of the Ukrainian bombing of civilian neighborhoods near Lugansk on August 15: two old ladies torn apart by missiles
from Kiev. Their companion tells the cameraman the details of their death: the women didn`t manage to reach the basement in time,
where locals habitually hide from the "Ukrainian liberators".
Four days later a similar event took place: at least five residents of Makeevka near Donetsk were killed by
Ukrainian bombs. Here are the victims of the Ukrainian bombing of Zugres, in the
Donetsk region: a van full of corpses including a five year-old
child. And here is the result of another bombing in Donetsk: women and children
are regular victims of the Ukrainian army.
Such events have become part of everyday life for the inhabitants of Donbass. Independent cameramen are trying to bring the truth
to the Ukrainian and Western public but this is no easy task.
Firstly, it is very difficult to publish the videos, because internet connection is now a luxury for Donbass. The Ukrainian army
has destroyed not only electricity plants but water pipes and gas lines as well.
Secondly, Ukrainian forces are arresting journalists and people making videos, and treating them as criminals. Kiev has unleashed
a real war against freedom of speech. Any video or text criticizing the Ukrainian government is considered as "support for Donbass
terrorists." Making such videos means risking your life or freedom.
This affects journalists beyond Donbass as well. The Security Service of Ukraine (the equivalent of the American FBI) pays regular
visits to intractable reporters and throws them in prison with no scruples. Recently my empty apartment in Kirovograd was visited
by agents of the Security Service of Ukraine. I was lucky enough to be in Russia but my neighbors were questioned about me.
The desire to smash any kind of resistance in the country has become an obsession of the Ukrainian authorities. The declaration
recently made by the head of Ukrainian Officers' Union, Evgeniy Lupakov, where he said he wanted to hang the "Donbass terrorists"
on street poles, is of utmost importance and direst foreboding.
No, I think the warhawks in the US can be satisfied. They may have lost a battle but it was only the first one in the new "Cold
War". We will see more and more tensions between Europe and Russia. Putin will also get more paranoid when it comes to domestic
issues. Precisely what the warhawks in the US want. More opportunity to foment more unrest in Russia.
Remember the appointment of Donald Tusk ? He will certainly have a major influence as well on European-Russian relations.
Yes, this paper demolishes the case for the US and the EU backing the Kiev junta, from a point of view based on nothing but
US interests and a realist view of international relations.
Mearsheimer
nails it, without unpleasantly fluffing Putin. See, b. Easy!
The only mistake is that the source of European economic instability is Merkel, Cameron, Draghi, and a little French guy, you
know, the Neoliberal-socialist.
I feel Russia is playing his cards close to the vest and letting the true aggressor which is kiev/USG/NATO just stomp around and
act all bad, because he know it is really directed towards the USG/EU taxpayers . I think Putin understands that the west just
wants a reason to ramp up defense spending and drive a wedge between RUSSIA-EU relations. And this is evident in the way USG/NATO
is holding a "gun" to all its members to pony up their respective portions of GDP for that purpose, with most of that money if
not all, going to US defense contractors coffers. The entire west manufactured ISIS threat, which is nothing but al qaeda, is
another windfall to the MIC and intel complexes and resource battle. You see the western governments know that their QE bloated
economies are mirages, all shiny and pretty on the top and rotted to the core on the bottom. And the western govts. really don't
want to fix what they feel is not broken, let alone spend money on the 99%. So what better way to justify defense spending and
distract a war weary public than ISIS and poking the Russian bear.
Does the USG/NATO really want to put boots on the ground in Ukraine and start a RUSSIA-NATO shooting war? I don't think so,
it probably will be a dragged out proxy conflict which is a tragedy and unfortunate for the population of Ukraine. Eventually
the country will be split.
If the USG is serious about starting a shooting war with Russia, NATO will vote that Ukraine be awarded full NATO status. Because
if that were to occur, all the proxy bluffing, huffing, puffing and posturing would be over and the US population would likely
find out what belligerant zero sum politics result in.
Such comments as below in a conservative newspaper website suggest the State Department might be losing control over the narrative
and can't play offence as successfully as it used to.
The rebels should not accept a ceasefire until they have driven every last Ukrainian Neo-Nazi rat out of Eastern Ukraine and
built borders to keep them out.
The unelected Ukrainian government have been bombing, shelling, slaughtering and threatening ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine
with genocide for weeks and now have the front to complain that they are being fired upon when they are retreating?
They are only retreating because they don't have the upper hand any more.
If they could get away with it they would slaughter every ethnic Russian they could get their hands on. The Ukrainian Neo-Nazis
are utter filth.
The Ukrainian government has been using their Neo-Nazi thugs to bomb, shell, slaughter and threaten ethnic Russians with genocide
for weeks.
Now they are getting a hiding from the rebels they are claiming they are victims, when the reality is they are vicious thugs
who have slaughtered ethnic Russians in cold blood.
The EU are utter filth who are prepared to engage in mass slaughter in order to enforce their warped plan of European wide
rule. They care about nothing but establishing EU rule as far into Eastern Europe as possible.
Putting NATO troops in Ukraine, even for exercises, is an act of war. Putin should shut off the gas to Europe immediately and
advise Russian expatriates to return before the USG-led West hurds them into internment camps.
Moscow claims ; we are not sending in our troops, Kiev says yes you are
What are we to believe?
The EU's own observatory body the OSCE say, our people in Ukraine have not seen any evidence that confirms Kiev's allegations.
If this ceasefire is true, its remarkable 'good news'.
The bad news is NATO needs this war, without it member states would cut back on defence spending.
As far as the war and the EU is concerned, they haven't got a clue, and follow the USA with their eyes closed wide shut.
It must be terrible for Poroschenko to see 'his' troops shelling
population centres and having to explain to 'his' people that they are
instrumental in restoring democracy within the nation state.
Apparently, according to that what was written in this newspaper, the units
fighting on the front lines were predominately made up of the new
recruits of the National guard and privately funded volunteer units,
and the private militia's were recruited from the extreme far right.
Hundreds, many hundreds of Polish and yank mercenaries.
And the resistance is hitting them hard.
The death toll for each group is well into three figures - if not far higher.
Whew! Is there any country in the world which wasn't invaded, bombed, had overthrow government, had it's resources stolen,
oppressed, subjugated by USA?????
In prosecuting his widening war in Ukraine, [Putin] has also resurrected the tyranny of the Big Lie, using state-controlled
media to twist the truth so grotesquely that most Russians are in the dark - or profoundly misinformed
- about events in their neighbor to the west.
Most Russians get their news from state-controlled broadcast outlets, which have moved beyond mere propaganda into
outlandish conspiracy theories and unhinged jingoism.
To prove the Washington Post editors right the state-controlled Russian internet
outlet inoSMI, personally advised by Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, "moved beyond mere propaganda into outlandish conspiracy theories
and unhinged jingoism" by immediately translating the WaPo editorial into
Russian so that Russians can now dive further "into the dark" and "profoundly misinform" themselves by reading this editorial
of the Washington Post in their native language.
Dear Washington Post. Your funny pages can not beat Russian humor.
The following is a fundamental characterization of the east Ukraine conflict. It can be summarized in one sentence but I begin
with some background first.
The Russian government spokespeople have been saying repeatedly for months they've no intention of military interference in
Ukraine. They've also been saying it stronger, by saying there's no conceivable future set of developments that could change this
policy. The policy is: the Ukraine conflict is, and shall remain, an internal conflict in Ukraine. This was reiterated by Lavrov
today, 1 Sep 2014, when he said: "There will be no military interference [by Russia in Ukraine]. We are committed exclusively
to peaceful...." http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/747481 . (By
the way, Obama recently reiterated that, no matter what else happens, there will be no military interference by NATO in Ukraine).
On 29 Aug 2014 Russia called for "an immediate and unconditional ceasefire followed quickly by an inclusive national dialogue
in Ukraine." Similary Lavrov 26 Aug 2014 said "We firmly believe that ceasefire must be unconditional." An unconditional ceasefire
would put the separtists in possession of Donetsk and Lughansk cities. Kiev has repeatedly said it won't agree to that. Kiev says
that negotiations will only begin after the mititary capitulation of the separatists. The separtists are left with no choice but
to keep fighting. So, the Ukraine conflict is, and shall remain, an internal military contest in Ukraine. It is not, and
is not going to become, a political contest, nor an international contest.
On 17 Jul 2014 the US ambassador in Ukraine said: "Ultimately there's not going to be a military solution to this confrontation....
As long as the rebels in East Ukraine continue to receive material support from Russia, I don't think there's any way that Ukraine
can prevail military against that." (time 8:20 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y30NfxXAdVY
).
I disagree with the US ambassador. First of all, the material support the rebels get from Russia has been, is, and will be,
non-leathal only. It would be contrary to deep principles in the Russian foreign ministry to give weapons to the rebels. The same
principles are at the Kremlin. The US ambassador disagrees with me about that judgment. As to who's right, me or the US ambassador,
you'll have to decide for yourself from your own information sources, because I'm not going to take the time to demonstrate it
today. Assuming now it's me who's right, then east Ukraine is a military conflict that is only going to have a military solution,
and, as I said in a previous post, the rebels don't have the resources to win it in the long term (especially they don't have
enough fighting men). This is the key reason why Kiev is won't agree to an unconditional ceasefire. Kiev disagrees with the US
ambassador.
I was inspired to write the above by Lavrov's comment today that "There will be no military interference [by Russia in
Ukraine]."
That shows you how clueless the American elite is about Russia. The Soviet Union thought it needed to jam Radio Free
Europe. Post-Soviet Russia doesn't need to jam anything; it allows free access to all public information from anywhere in the
world. What it does with Anglophone media and outright propaganda outlets like Radio Free Europe is not block access to them,
but mock them.
American officials wail in outrage at Russia. But Russian officials mock the US establishment. Russians have always
been interested in other major cultures. It is part of the American self-understanding that America is God's gift to man,
so Americans don't even have a concept of other cultures. Either you are an American, or you are someone who can be made
to be like an American. Obviously, this cultural autism is having an increasingly detrimental effect on US foreign policy.
At talks in the Belarusian capital, the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics have urged Kiev to acknowledge
their autonomy within Ukraine, but said they wish to remain an integral part of the country.
LNR and DNR representatives urged the Ukrainian government to end their military operation in the country's east so that parliamentary
and local elections can take place freely.
"The president, government and [parliament] Verkhovna Rada should accept… decrees granting immediate recovery from the humanitarian
catastrophe, acknowledging the special status of the territories under the control of the People's Republics, creating conditions
- first of all stopping the 'anti-terror' operations - for free elections of local authorities and MPs," the document with
the republics' position reads.
The first victim in any war is truth... From comments: "Mr Poroshenko is trying to advertise their losses and blame Russia for it.
In fact it is well known that there has been huge amounts of desertions in the Kiev army ranks on top of their loses. However by playing
this card he is hoping to get NATO and the rest of the world involved in this conflict, instead of sitting on a negotiation table and
discuss the demands of eastern Ukrainians. "
The Ukrainians want us to believe that a Russian tank battalion and supposedly 1000 soldiers can turn the tide of a war? What
a joke.
This sort of reporting also exposes the so called idea of the free press in the West. When push comes to shove, even the most
'liberal' newspapers in the West like the Guardian turn into Western propaganda outlets.
What was the report on the Guardian a few days ago about a Guardian reporter witnessing Russian armored columns moving into
Ukraine? Whatever happened to that Guardian? Aren't reporters supposed to provide evidence? So is the Western standard of journalism
about publishing anything and expecting the readers to swallow it?
i really have no idea what the joke is, but something else that is funny, the guardian quotes this ex-general:
Vladimir Ruban, a former Ukrainian officer in charge of negotiations on prisoner exchanges
but fail to mention that he not only said in a recent interview that there were no regular russian army troops in the Ukraine,
but he had this interesting thing to say about the rebels:
my job is to free people from all sides .
UP is the interviewer, GR is the general (small edit for clarity/space saving)
UP: Well, in fact, yes. These are people who threaten the lives and well-being of innocent people.
EDIT
GR: I do not relate to those people as you would relate to the enemies. It is easy for you to take this attitude. But I
have known these people for a long time. There are officers who went through Afghanistan, who protested against Yanukovych
alongside us. There are people with whom we stood on the Maidan-Euromaidan. Only, we did not call it by that name.
UP: There-where is "there"?
GR: There-on the other side, behind the line, in the Lugansk and the Donetsk Republics.
UP: You mean, these people were with you during Maidan?
GR: Yes, they are now fighting the Ukrainian Army. They [who stood on Maidan -ed.] are on both sides.
UP: And why do they do it…?
GR: Why did Right Sector do it on Maidan? Or why did anyone stand on Maidan?
UP: If they were on the same Maidan, why do they now oppose those people with whom they used to stand hand in hand?
GR: Because the people who were on Maidan were satisfied with the removal of Yanukovych-that is all. None of the rest
of the demands was met. So, they decided to go all the way. For them, removing Yanukovych was not enough; they need a real
change. And most of the measures they demand are the same as were proclaimed on Maidan.
Even some in Kiev don't really believe the Russians are coming, the general in charge of hostage negotiations said
in a interview, as recently as the 20th of august, that there were no Russian regular armed forces involved in the conflict.
So, who to trust, the wailing politicians or the general in charge of negotiating hostage releases?
UP is doing the interview GR is the general
UP: But Russia does not recognize this as a war…
GR: What does Russia have to do with it?
UP: You believe Russia is not involved in this conflict?
GR: Did you see any Russian troops there?
UP: I saw militants there from Russia.
GR: Have you seen any involvement of Russian troops?
UP: Officially-no.
GR: You will also not see them unofficially-because they are not there. If you have seen someone who is Russian, or military,
this does not imply Russian involvement.
UP: Then what should it be called?
GR: Whatever you like. You know that mercenaries are fighting on both sides?
Just re-watched 'The Power of Nightmares'. Back in 1976 'Team B' advised that because there was no evidence of an advanced Soviet
submarine sonar, they must therefore have invented a 'non acoustic' sonar! Everything they said turned out to be pure fantasy
but has defined US and NATO aggression for decades.
shourav 01 September 2014 8:01pm
I think one should stick to articles by Paul Craig Roberts to figure out what exactly is going on in Ukraine. In fact, even the
former Guardian reporter Jonathan Steele, seems to be reportinig the events objectivly. His interview on Democracy Now was illuminating.
Cant trust these mainstream media houses.
Andrey Andreevich K, 01 September 2014 8:04pm
The last time Ukrainian army was surrounded, MH17 crashed. Fakes about army of Russian tanks at least suffer only rational mind
losses
'Russian tank battalion' ....its all lies!
I refuse to believe anything unless its in 3D, High-Definition, mega-mega-pixel resolution in surround sound, using Dolby Advanced
Audio for butt-kicking bass.
there.
---------------
best regards
The sound is impossible, but the rest is there. The USG has a geostationary spy-in-the-sky satellite with enough resolution
to pick up discarded beer botles and read the number plates of cars, permanantly parked over the Ukraine. "Where are the photos
of the Russian tank battalions?" I hear you cry. Well son, I'm afraid you'll just have to cry for them as they are classified
(like the contents of MH17's black boxes and probably for the same reason.)
While there were talks in Minsk today between representatives of Russia, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk self-proclaimed republics and
OSCE, Petro Poroshenko was busy on the phone with Washington:
- Poroshenko tries to convince Washington to declare 'Donetsk
and Luhansk People's Republics' terrorist organizations
- Poroshenko has conveyed his thanks to the U.S. Congress for its initiative to grant Ukraine major non-NATO ally status
Yet again, the US seems to step in to nip the chance of peace in the bud
PyotrGrozny, 01 September 2014 8:15pm
Discussion here seems to be polarised between those who take the Moscow line entirely and those who take the Kiev/Western line
entirely. There are positions in between. I can't see how the tide of war can be turned without Russian intervention but at the
same time think that the Russian intervention may be (reasonably) justifiable.
I can't see how the tide of war can be turned without Russian intervention but at the same time think that the Russian intervention
may be (reasonably) justifiable.
As has to be repeated here ad nauseum (because there's only been reporting in Ukrainian / Russian media), the tide of war hasn't
turned. The real war was happening in the South - without a single western report on it.
For at least 6 weeks most of Kiev's forces have been trapped in the Southern Cauldron being taken apart. Kiev then gambled
on a strike to split Donetsk from Luhansk - this was stopped at the reinforced Shaktersk / Torez / Snizhe line, and the remains
trapped in a new series of pockets.
What is happening now has been the inevitable end game for about 8 weeks.
The poor moral from the Kiev troops have been rampant for the last few weeks. Several pro-Ukrainian blogs show that they have
been making major gains against Kiev outing soldiers who had to cross the border to Russia and avoid certain death and in the
process gathering a lot of equipment such as tanks, artillery...
In some parts they have been surrounded (just like the Germans
in Stalingrad battle) and had to leave everything behind them. Also as no supplies and fuel were coming their way it made their
positions untenable.
If western medias were reporting accurately this information it would have come to no surprise that the Pro-Russians were going
to win their fight against Kiev. They do not need any armament supplies from Russia as they have been gathering a huge amount
along their victories on the battlefield.
Mr Poroshenko is trying to advertise their loses and blame Russia for it. In fact it is well known that there has been huge
amounts of desertions in the Kiev army ranks on top of their loses. However by playing this card he is hoping to get NATO and
the rest of the world involved in this conflict, instead of sitting on a negotiation table and discuss the demands of eastern
Ukrainians.
They did not want to be part of Russia, all they wanted was an autonomous, federal status. They did not want to give it to
them as they were afraid that this situation would turn to be similar to Crimea. Unfortunately there was no way that Russia would
have done the same thing as the pro-Russian population is less than the one in Crimea. So it was not viable for them to do it.
Now with this ongoing murdering of civilians through intensive shelling the divisions are going to be deeper between east and
Kiev. I think that there will animosity against what Kiev have been doing in the East and it will be very difficult to overcome
this division created in east Ukrainian minds.
Please Mr Poroshenko, cut on the bullshitting, stop lying and get real. Negotiate till there is some time left or you may loose
more than you intended to.
jfleetwood 01 September 2014 8:21pm
Ethnic cleansing and silent genocide against Russian speaking population of Donetsk and Lugansk republics by Kiev junta has failed.
I am glad that NATO and CIA planners lost here. Otherwhise we would have humanitarian crisis with few million refugees in Russia.
We already have almost one million refugees in Rostov and other border regions of Russia. Western media does not report how
these refugees live, what they eat, where they sleep. They are not interested for them. Total silence in Western so called free
press....
Robert Looren de Jong jfleetwood, 01 September 2014 8:34pm
silence is there because it is total rubbish only ethnic cleansing going on is from the terrorists kidnapping-holding for ransom-torturing
and executing people
Vlad Tatarsky -> Robert Looren de Jong, 01 September 2014 8:55pm
Oh, come on - just interview half a millions of refugees from East Ukraine, the silence exists only in West mass media and only
until rebels take over in this civil war. Kiev got from US une carte blanche supported by EU for a few thousands of civil collateral
damage accepted during the suppression of rebellion. But the limit has been exceeded!
Kaiama, 01 September 2014 9:04pm
The louder Kiev shouts, the more you know it is losing. The Minsk meetings will not produce an instant solution, but it is the
start of negotiations. Poroshenko cannot currently speak directly with the separatists or key figures in his administration and
certain allied oligarchs will withdraw their support from him.
Kolomoisky is currently the main obstacle to an agreement, but
pressure will be applied on him.
Today his Crimean assets were confiscated: this is a message for him to keep quiet, or the DPR will advance to occupy his territories
in southern and central Ukraine. Watch for further advances from the separatists as they take over Mariupol and proceed onwards
towards the Dnepr river.
The article is a pure neoliberal propaganda junk, but some comments are interesting. Looks like conservatives generally are more
resistant to brainwashing than I though and in some ways can give Guardian commenters a run for the money....
Mr. Peter Foster seems to have been following different news reports than the rest of us over this last year or so. There is a
stark difference between the Ukraine region and those other regions he mentioned (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia): it is that the
CIA and the Germans spent billions of dollars to effect the overthrow of the Ukraine government as a way of extorting cheap energy
out of Russia. And they compounded this crime by carrying out ethnic cleansing on the Russians living in the Ukraine region. Putin
-- who is almost universally loved in Russia -- understands that when the Soviet Union was fractured, there were more than 25
million Russians living outside the protection of Mother Russia. It is his duty to protect these people from German schemes that
would see these people turned into pitiful refugees. Anyone who thinks that NATO should march 1500 miles across Eastern Europe
to mess around in the Ukraine region is insane. And if Obama thinks he should be spending $5 billion of US taxpayer money to overthrow
governments 4500 miles from the US homeland, just so Germans can buy energy at below-market-rates, he's insane too. I wonder how
many American families have to pay federal income tax to total up to $5 billion?
Some Guy
If the Ukranian people have to pick between 2 evils, than I would pick Russia. At least they wouldn't force them to take 100k
African refugees per year, and high interest loans like the EU. The EU asks every country to pretty much give up their culture,
and identity upon entering, so that they can be inundated with 3rd world immigrants.
That is why I laugh when people think the west are "fascists" in the 20th century sense. It is a new dawn. The fascists are
the ones that are trying to destroy European countries altogether, and that includes Russia and the Ukraine.
Putin is right not to take Western Europe and the US seriously. There is no longer the guts necessary to stand up for ourselves.
All the countries right now are being invaded by third world "people", and nothing is being done. The people of the West have
been so brow beaten we will literally ostracize someone for standing up for the West i.e ourselves. Sure, we will beat up on the
ME, but who couldn't... We couldn't survive a true war
Sarastro92
What a delight to see an impotent martinet like Foster bleating on the sidelines of history. You want encirclement of Russia,
you want nuclear pre-emptive first strike, you want sanctions and confrontation, so you got it. Putin called your bluff and you're
exposed as a loutish war criminal.
Good. Thank you Mr. Putin.
Orenthal > Sal befor
Why should Putin fear Obama? The Ukraine region is 4500 miles from the USA homeland, and the USA has absolutely no interest in
what happens in Ukraine. The Ukraine region -- homeland of Khrushchev -- is none of the US's business, and the only region the
one-worlders seem to think it should be, is that they want to extort low-cost energy from Russia. Let the Germans pay market rates
for gas, just like the rest of us have to do.
colonelbonkers
In WW2 Red Army casualties numbered upwards of 30 million, yet surrender was never on the cards.
And we're threatening Russia with a mild recession........
sonoran > colonelbonkers
You've only got one side of the equation, the cost. The other side is what's at stake. In 1942 - 45 the occupation of the entire
Russian nation by Nazi Germany was at stake.
Now it's whether Russia allows one of the nations they consider to be in their sphere of influence (Russia owns 'em by their
calculus) to wander off and associate themselves with the devil-spawn West. I don't think they'd be willing to expend 30 million
of their citizens for that.
But really in Russia it's almost always about the current "fearless leader" staying in power.
Sarastro92 > sonoran
No. We're talking about a neo-Nazi coup sponsored by the US State Department and NATO on the Russian border. That's Putin's
red line. Serious people recognize that's a legitimate national security concern for Russia.
Don't like it? Get ready for war. Putin's already crashing the EU agriculture sector. So good. Go for broke.
Sarastro92 > Miguel526
ISIS is a creature of the West and bankrolled by the Gulf "allies"... This could be shut down pretty quickly if the desire
were there. But having a "new al Qaeda" only crazier, serves so, so many purposes. Look how Cameron is playing this hysteria.
Don't expect any fast ending.
Putin and Russia have the high moral ground in this confrontation. The West started it, and Putin's not a joker. He can strangle
to decrepit EU economy if he's challenged; and he's ready to go to war to keep NATO and nukes out of Ukraine. For Russia, this
is an existential crisis.
But glad to know you're ready to fight WW III over this crap... most of us don't agree. I wish you and the other hot spurs
would enlist and join the front lines yourselves. Keep us out of this.
Old Crow
The net result of the West's sanctions on Putin have been to drive up Europe's unemployment and exacerbate deflation. A few
more sanctions and full blown depression will likely result.
Sarastro92 > Old Crow •
Uh-oh... You've been reading Ambrose Evans-Pritchard these days. And, of course, what you say is true. The EU economy, including
Germany is on a downward trajectory. Sanctions against Russia have spawned counter sanctions by Russia that will break the camels
back of the EU.
Brabantian
Utterly shocking, both this unworthy tripe in the Telegraph & that so many readers concur ... supporting the US-EU-Nato, neo-Nazi-including
illegal putsch regime in Kiev, who have now bombed, shelled & butchered to death over 5000 civilians in East Ukraine, starting
with burning dozens alive & even strangling a pregnant woman to death in Odessa on 2 May. Now there are likely 12-15 thousand
Ukraine dead overall including both sides' soldiers / militia.
Half of Ukraine speaks Russian; US-Nato's Kiev tried to outlaw that, menaced to destroy Ukraine's Russians; they have rights
to separate. Putin's 'crime' if one, was that of failing to move in & partition Ukraine after the Odessa massacre; partition &
Russian troops would have prevented Kiev killing thousands of civilians. Big puzzle is actually why Putin didn't fully invade;
some fear that Henry Kissinger 'friend' Putin is US-Nato's secret 'fake opposition' partner in war & chaos, & most of us are deceived.
May God help the people of Ukraine, and indeed all of us, as blood tragically flows.
erik_ny
I admire Vlad Putin, always have, he's a genuine Leader. We aren't supposed to have those anymore but... too bad, there he
is. We have to deal with it. Putin restored Russian sovereignty. That little window of opportunity which opened in the 1990s to
make friends with Russia slammed shut because we kicked them in the teeth. Then there was Kosovo.... Putin makes perfect sense.
And he's moving the country in a direction similar to Evola's idea of Imperium, this idea of Holy Russia, giving sovereignty a
sacred, almost supernatural quality. The Nashi movement (or is it Nasha?). Major major stuff is happening there.
Putin must make the brainless exam-passing Ivy Leaguers at US Dept of State quite nervous... he looks like someone capable
of settling a few scores and therefore must be demonized 24/7. The newsmedia slanders Russia endlessly, I've never seen anything
quite like it.
USA is so schizo now, it's simultaneously supporting and fighting ISIS -- have you ever heard of any country doing that?
The news keeps telling us how "well funded" ISIS is but they never say by whom, LOL
The world is a madhouse!
odietamo
This is quite frankly one of the most ridiculous articles I have ever read. Putin is not 'insane': on the contrary he is an
astute politician who is fighting for the rights of Ukrainians who feel that their future lies with close ties to Moscow, who
do not want to be associated with the western backed fascists that, with the aid of the USA and the EU, overthrew a democratically
elected president. As frequent visitor to the Ukraine I believe that 'journalists'without a single clue about the country they
are offering their ludicrous opinions about should not be published in print -- save your opinion for whatever deranged blogging
site you choose to create.
Mark Tolman > odietamo
My thoughts entirely odietamo, The level of understanding shown by the author this article makes a laughing stock of The Telegraph.
I, personally, only see Western aggression toward Russian borders. We are dealing with people who would shoot down an aircraft
with 298 civilians aboard in order to blame it on Russia.
Vladimir Putin has quite clearly put a roadblock on US attempts to take down Syria, He has asked who gave the West authority
to Assassinate Gadaffi. He has set up the BRICS trading Bloc to compete with the Petrodollar.
Amongst other events, it is easy to see why the West and it's so obviously controlled media is on an anti-Putin orgy.
John Wells
Russia has been calling for talks between the West Ukrainian mobs and the Eastern Ukrainians during this whole stand-off.
John Wells
We (the US) controls NATO, the same as the old Soviet Union controlled the Warsaw Pact. They did it with force, we do it with
$$$$.
John Sinclair
I only wish British politicians would stand up to US aggression as well as Putin has.
With this new cold war the EU has pushed Russia to the brink of a hot war and it won't be Russia that will be the loser.
The US safe miles away on another continent is hoping to provoke another war in Europe, as it did last time, so that it can
pick up the pieces again. Surely the Germans aren't going to be so stupid as to fall for this ploy a third time?
volvoxglobator
If you are pushing for more sanctions you may just find that Russia has no longer anything to lose in taking over eastern Ukraine
permanently. But then maybe some people in the West actually want a nice big war with Russia to distract the population for the
inevitable economic crash that they have only managed to postpone.
In addition when faced with our own gay marriage loving leaders who tolerate paedophile MPs you may just find that Vladimir
Putin is actually far more respected by the Western population than the propaganda merchants such as yourself would like to think.
One Last Try
If Brussels wants war, let them organise it. UK is ignored every time that it contests a EUbola enforced law, such as the power
rating of vacuum cleaners, therefore, we must reply in kind: ignore them.
We do not apply sanctions on Russia, wiping out the City of London as a financial centre, whilst France is selling them helicopters
and ships and Germany selling them Mercedes.
We tell them to stuff it.
Raymond Chow > One Last Try
Russia is fully capable of making their own ships and aircrafts. It's just cheaper to have the French do it in exchange for
their oil and gas. All of the military equipment currently used by Russians are Russian made. Look at their ICBM's and ships and
submarines and bombers and fighter planes and tanks and artillery pieces all the way down to hand held weapons and you'll see
they're all Russian made. So these bs that Russia is dependent on the west for their weapons and all manufactured products is
just BS. The west is more dependent on Russia because without Russian energy the west can not manufacture hence their "way of
making a living" will suffer.
hdgdggd
The EU knew ten years ago that absorbing Ukraine into its Federal State ambitions would cause geopolitical problems with Russia.
Yet they still did it. One can only assume that the EU wants war. And our treacherous political leaders in Westminster look like
they will bow down to whatever the EU want. It is difficult to believe that the people of this country cannot see what is happening.
The MSM don't help who are anti what is best for Britain at every turn.
"The EU knew ten years ago that absorbing Ukraine into its Federal State ambitions would cause geopolitical problems with Russia".
Oh they knew the problems it would cause far longer than ten years ago mate.
Read Fritz Fischer's 1960s historical masterpiece
Germany's Aims in the First World
War and see how prominently Ukraine featured in Germany's plans for its continental empire.
volvoxglobator > sonoran • 9 hours ago
Utter baloney. The West had no intention of doing anything but taking Russias resources and bringing the country to its knees.
The West is now ruled by amoral gay marriage loving fascist war mongers who have paedophiles in high places protected. Frankly
Russia has taken the moral high ground and you've lost your moral compass.
sophocles
Politicians of the EU, by following the US line of bringing Ukraine into NATO, have brought this on themselves, they knew right
from the start that Russia was not going to stand by and let it happen, now we have a problem that need not have happened, the
best way to solve it, is to advise Ukraine to hold a referendum on splitting the country into two halves, if the majority of the
east want to go with Russia, then let them, if the vote goes the other way, then the ones who want Russian rule are free to go
there.
Longshanks
When the 'old women of the EU' club, Merkel, Ashton & Lagarde get involved in anything, it's a disaster.
Thinking they can get away with their EU expansionist dreams through the back door & stack a NATO border right up against Russia
by simply ousting the rightful Ukrainian PM, was endemic of exactly where they are today. 3 old women against a 'lifetime committed
patriot!' .. I know who my money is on & it's not on the 'dried out old women'.
The rest of the EU all 27 countries follow in their wake, hanging on their apron strings & suckling like a load of sissy boys.
Putin has absolutely no need whatsoever to play suckling pig. Who was it that said, 'when the ovaries dry up, all that is left
is a very bitter ex-woman?' ... oh yes, me!.
Warmongers Ukraine aside, it's no coincidence that 'these three & Baloney Blair have been messing in the Middle East' is it!.
Dan Stockman
I'm not sure why people think we should take a more aggressive stance against Russia for this action. Bear in mind, I am by
no means a supporter of Putin or his regime, but then again, I'm not very trusting of our own governments. The United States invaded
and occupied two countries with extreme military force, just south of Russia. Imagine if Russia invaded and occupied countries
in central/south America. The Monroe doctrine would kick in, right? My point is, some how, we've created this idea that we are
allowed to go swinging our proverbial dick around, but no one else is allowed.
Furthermore, all you hawks out there, what is it you wish to do? Send troops? Start bombing rebel positions? Putin knows that
the West doesn't want an all out war with Russia, he's counting on it, and quite frankly, he's right. Putin has the West in check.
Obama and Europe's leaders are doing their best to keep the conflict isolated to the Ukraine, at this point that is the best we
can hope for. Who gives a damn if it makes us look "weak", honestly? Why do you care so much?
Needless to say, you hawks won't have to worry too much longer. Congress will come under the sway of Hawks more increasingly
here this year, and then a hawk will take office in 2016.
Then we shall have the beginning of the End. Damn, some of our leaders in the West love to create our enemies. They love to
spread the fear and hate over them, to what end, I'm not sure. Welp, we've got two good'uns lined up for the next few years in
ISIS and Putin. Get ready for some perpetual war friends, as if it hasn't already been that case for the last decade or more.
Rally the troops, sound the battle cry, all hail the dogs o' war. It's coming even bigger. Count on it. Seems we love a good
ol fashioned global romp this time of the century anyway.
Dr Strangelove
The real victims in this if war starts will be Europe, the USA have invested in oil and gas at home, Russia has enough oil
and gas across their own country to more than supply their own need, where as Europe is the poor man that relies on every one
else for its oil and gas. FACTORYS THAT CREATE ARMS NEED OIL AND GAS, if Europe engages in a war then it will very quickly run
out of oil and gas, it would make good strategic sense for Russia to knock out all the pipelines and put the ME fields out of
action, My guess is this they have already planned for, NATO might have bases around Russia but they are in the wrong place to
protect Europe's energy supplies, my guess is they wont use nukes but use starvation tactics to begin with, well I would if Russian,
modern cruise missiles that Russia have can knock out any supply ships without the need to use subs plus Russia will see that
as revenge, it always annoyed them how the German U-boats managed to always knock out their supply ships while missing the ones
meant for England. The USA may claim they can supply Europe with oil and gas but I don't think one ship will make it, I feel the
war will be fought in Europe while both the USA and Russia will suffer little damage.
Fak_Zakaix
"Nor (unlike Mr Putin) are we prepared to suffer the recession and energy crisis that would be precipitated by inflicting extreme,
crippling sanctions on Russia."
This is your weak assumption. If Russia doesn't make peace with Ukraine the sanctions will be for good because the occupation
by force of Ukrainian territory infringes one fundamental principle of post-war Europe. And doesn't Britain pride itself as being
the country with the most principled foreign policy...?
ChanceEncounter
Who are you kidding with this article? For starters you think your readership is stupid and didn't notice the overthrow of
a democratically elected Ukraine government, the overthrow backed by people of dubious character/beliefs (some would say Nazi)
and cookies given out on the Maidan by politicians from another nation.
Then there is the conscript Kiev army which doesn't appear to be able to do anything but shell civilians.
If roles were reversed and it was pro-US citizens who were being shelled, the US would be bombing the hell out of Kiev by now.
Who started this whole mess?
ChanceEncounter > Fak_Zakaix
Sure it is their right, but it is not their right to try and achieve it by disregarding their countries own constitution. They
were less than a year away from an election. So if you didn't like the President vote him out!
Suffice it to say the EU is broke and has internal problems of its own, so it will be years before Ukraine actually is allowed
to join.
Look how long it is taking countries such as Turkey to join and integrate. And these nations are ahead in line.
sonoran > ChanceEncounter
Russia has controlled politics in Ukraine for decades, the populace engaged in demonstrations when the Ukrainian government
balked at an economic agreement with the EU. Why? because it was obvious that this was due to Russia exerting influence. Demonstrations
are not "forbidden" in an democracy, they are a legitimate way to express displeasure with the government.
When agents of the government decided they were going to bring in snipers and kill the demonstrators, the government's legitimacy
was lost in the people's eyes.
The government didn't represent the will of the people and was using force in order to quell dissent. When can a democratically
elected government that has *obviously* been corrupted by the influence of a powerful neighboring State, be overthrown? You say
only in an election, but the Ukrainian people say otherwise. The idea that the US and EU could have "orchestrated" this in a nation
so completely under the influence of Russia incredibly naive.
More than anything the Ukrainians were rejecting the foreign influence of Russia.
ChanceEncounter > sonoran
Nobody is saying you can't demonstrate - that is a strawman.
Also you speak in generalities, the people want this, or the people want that or the Ukrainian people say otherwise. How do
we determine this legitimately?
In a civilized nation it is via the ballot box, not
through confrontation backed by ultra-nationalists. It amazes me that this is so difficult to understand. It is also circular
logic, if the will of the people was really as strong as you say it is, then there is no reason this couldn't be achieved via
the ballot box.
As for who shot who on the Maidan, that is an open question. Interestingly the new authorities in Kiev are very reluctant to
investigate. There was an investigative piece on German State TV about this if you care to research it.
I'm not denying that Russia has historical influence, after all Ukraine is and has been a non-aligned country as far as a buffer
to NATO goes and it goes without saying Russia wanted this to continue. However lets not be ignorant about EU/US influence. Other
than pastries on maidan we have the CIA director visit shortly after the overthrow. Not to mention US state dept involvement prior
to the overthrow - intercepted calls relating to who would form the govt and various forms of paid political protest from NGOs
etc.
ChanceEncounter > sonoran
Do you really think the uprising in the East is just a few hundred militamen?
If that were true it doesn't say much about the Ukrainian army mobilised against them.
Pretty obvious that in the east there is support among the population for the anti-Kiev resistance.
All of this presupposes the new govt. is actually in charge, when you
consider the position of some of Ukraines oligarchs who have their own
militias the current situation is frightfully more complicated. In a worst case scenario there could be more to this revolution.
See:
http://pravyysektor.info/news/...
With regard to public counter demonstration, I'll leave it to you to demonstrate against people with certain insignia on their
sleeves - see how far you get.
digger > ChanceEncounter
Chance
you have answered your corner very well and though I hope the Ukrainians can prevail over Putin,you are correct in asserting that
the former Ukranian president had only one more year to hold office.This man was elected and you have to feel that Baroness Ashton
failed to heed the lessons of Georgia before she embarked on this dangerous journey that has led to this very dangerous confrontation.The
noble baroness who has never held elected office is now able to sneak away from her disastrous potfolio and hand the baton on
to another lame duck Eurocrat.
Putin has the true Russian mindset that still prevails in Russia since Stalin and suddenly it seems that our 2 latest Nobel Peace
prize winners,Obama and the EU have brought us closer to war than ever before and you need to understand the reasons for their
award that akes it so ludicrous.
Dangerous days ahead for us freedom loving Europeans and I suspect some very cold nights ahead in December when the 36 inch valves
close on the various gas pipelines coming from the East to heat all the homes and power all the gas power plants in the West.
ChanceEncounter > digger
Yes, she is dangerously incompetent. Her reaction on this call with the Estonian foreign minister 'Gosh' says it all. Estonia
itself is not really known for being super friendly with the Russians.
Well, why don't we insist that Ukraine hold internationally supervised referenda on secession by Crimea and East Ukraine? Is
it because both would say "Yes"?
Compare the level of thinking demonstrated in selected comments with the level of thinking of typical, let's say, guardian, presstitute...
I am not trying to suggest who is right or wrong but just compare the level of thinking and intellectual freedom demonstrated by commenters
and, say, article Shaun Walker who essentially acts as NATO
press attache, not so much as foreign correspondent for Guardian.
The Washington Post editorial page reads like a collection of funnies. Sorry ones though.
There you have the wife of the Polish foreign minister
preparing for total war with Russia. Yeah, lets roll out the nukes already! The winner of course, with Europe then devastated,
would be the U.S. economy. Those radiating bits left of it.
But the idea might be better than asking the Russian oligarchs to
assassinate Putin like a former CIA honcho
does. Or better than the idea of an
air
bombing campaign against
Novorossiya right
next to the Russia's border and its excellent air-defenses.
There really are a lot of crazy people around. Surely the editors of the Washington Post are part of them. Yesterday they wrote
this
crazy nonsense:
IF ANY international norm can still be called uncontroversial, it is the stricture against cross-border aggression by one sovereign
state against another. Certainly any failure to enforce it in one place invites violations elsewhere.
Fairpoints out that
the "uncontroversial norm" the editor want to apply seemed not to be so uncontroversial when those same editors called for the invasion
of Iraq and for the bombing of Syria, Libya, Sudan or whatever other state wins their weekly lottery for threatened destruction.
But the best of the recent funnies was surely
this one by David Ignatius which certainly will earn him a decent pile of petro-dollars:
For a generation, Americans and Saudis have worried that the kingdom was a potential tinderbox, with Muslim and secular
extremists vying to undermine the conservative monarchy.
"Secular extremists" - now there is a real terrorist threat! The biggest threat EVER! What Americans then have ever "worried"
about "secular extremists" overthrowing the Wahhabi nutters in Riyadh? Others then the ones paid by them?
A consequence and contributor to the militarization of US foreign policy is a vast pro-war establishment outside the government.
Often funded by government contractors, a horde of advocacy groups, think tanks, and academics exists to explain why the answer
to most foreign policy challenges is a large military - or actual military action. These are warmongers, in the most literal sense
of war + trader. One who seeks to start wars.
Warmongers are not, by tradition, warriors.
Our warmongers are paid to involve America in foreign wars. b brought forth some fine examples. These articles show the modern
art of warmongering at its highest level.
I'm not laughing because those 'crazy' writers and editors actually represent our ruling class in the Western Democratic Empire.
If this gets hotter I would start planning emigration to anywhere far, likely in the Southern Hemisphere, to escape the consequences
of the western rulers 'craziness'. For some reason the US block, having not been really attacked in almost two centuries and full
of hubris feel no threat or fear, and the European block foolishly think that, like their suicidal anti-European policies have
no effect on their chances of getting re-elected, any action they take will have no negative effect on them.
http://slavyangrad.org/ published "Journalist from Urals….few weeks spent
in the DNR….". This is the best report on the Ukraine Civil War that I've read. The tale of his encounters with the Cossacks is
very convincing.
Basically this is a Civil War being fought for political, ethnic and religious reasons spurred on by war mongers and supported
by outside nuclear powers for the benefit of western war profiteers and to preserve Russia's national security.
It provides a great impetus to write blog posts like this. Lurking in the background is the fear that suddenly I will be vaporized
along with the other inhabitants living around Join Base Andrew when someone due to the mindless dangers of war pushes the nuclear
missile launch button that targets Maryland.
The military situation reminds me of the battle of Gazala waged south of Tobruk for several weeks in May and June 1942. Rommel
feinted to the north then led his Afrika Korps south to swing around the British defenses. As is common in military operations,
things did not go exactly as planned and the battle was an often confused and close run thing. What finally assured Rommel's
victory was his belief that his forces were better trained, better organized and better led at all levels. This stood him
well in the confused and fluid battle. The army of Novorossiya displays the same qualities.
Today Obama said, "There is no doubt that this is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine. The separatists
are backed, trained, armed, financed by Russia." Russia is actively supporting Novorossiya, but that does not mean it is not
a homegrown, indigenous uprising. Does the support given to Washington by the French mean that our War of Independence was
not a homegrown, indigenous uprising? Kiev has repeatedly vowed to wipe out the Moskals. What choice did the Moskals
have but to take up arms and resist.
This is how Americans who are not whores of the 0.01% think.
Bob In Portland | Aug 29, 2014 7:35:48 PM | 52
The US strategy, and the US's international interests, have nothing to do with the common American citizen. It is generally
about making the world a safe place for corporations to thrive.
The US did not invade and then stay in Afghanistan because at one time Osama bin Laden lived in a cave in Tora Bora. They invaded
Afghanistan because the US wants access to Central Asian oil. It has had, since at least the 80s but probably back to at least
the Carter years when the US was funding the Muhajadeen against the Soviets.
Why would western news outlets, after almost fifteen years of US occupation of Afghanistan, not ruminate about TAPI? While
things were ripening in Afghanistan in the 90s the US, through the CIA, began funding Muslim radicals in Chechnya. Why? That huge
pool of oil and natural gas in Central Asia.
Ukraine is merely the latest is a series of US actions to enrich Big Oil. In the eyes of our permanent government Ukraine
itself is at best a cork in Russian gas lines. I say without exaggeration that there was a reason why JFK was murdered in
Dallas, America's oil capitol. My country's last fifty years has been a history of what happens to a very powerful country that
has been taken over by fascism.
Malooga | Aug 29, 2014 8:38:09 PM | 57
First the good news: For the Ukie junta, the victories will keep getting closer to home. The reporters won't have to travel
so far, and the supply lines will be shorter, saving much needed petrol.
Second, it all comes down to the upcoming NATO Summit. We are seeing a lot of nervous preening and posturing before the big
event. An event, by the way, which is clearly off-balance, overtaken by the rapidity of transpiring battles in the now, terminally
ill, Borderlands. Mark Galeotti's recent piece in the Moscow Times, "Donetsk Is Neither Grozny Nor Stalingrad" will go down in
the annals of whoring punditry as almost uniquely out of touch with the real world. No worry, I believe he is tenured. Still,
I wish I could get paid for that trash.
The big question, of course, is what Merkel will decide to do. If she sits on the fence any longer, it will take major surgery
to pry her off. Disfiguring surgery. And this is already happening.
The headline of this thread correctly says "Ukraine Lost A Battle". Some commentators are interpreting this one battle as evidence
that the rebels are going to win the war; e.g. Mike Maloney #30 above thinks it's "safe prediction that Kiev is doomed". I continue
to think the rebels are going to lose the war, and my fundamental reason is based on a body of information I acquired in April
2014, before the war started: the rebels have only a small base of support among the population of east Ukraine.
Obama said yesterday: "This is not a homegrown, indigenous uprising in eastern Ukraine." I don't agree with that choice of
words. I say the uprising is largely homegrown and indigenous, but it doesn't have widespread support among the indigenous population.
It definitely didn't have much indigenous support a few months ago. And I don't see factors at play changing a lot of people's
minds today.
The evidence about popular support from a few months ago was discussed by many people at the time, including by me on this
board at the time, and consisted primarily of (1) the numerous opinion polls in March and April in the East by different polling
agencies using respectable methods, and (2) the very small turnout size at anti-Kiev street demonstrations at weekends in March
and April in the East. And as one secondary consideration in two pieces, (a) Ukraine's government and political establishment
committed itself belately in April to genuine decentralization, which polls show the East strongly wants, and (b) the Russian
government consistently and repeatedly advocated in favor of peaceful decentralization (Putin said on 7 May 2014 that the rebels
are "illegal armed units of radicalized elements") and the effect of those two pieces was to further de-legitimize the armed rebellion
in the minds of the majority of people in the East at the time when the rebellion was sprouting.
Most people in east Ukraine don't accept the separatist spirit of the rebels, nor the violent methods of the rebels, nor significant
parts of the rebel propaganda themes. This means rebels don't have a large indigenous recruitment base and can't win in the long
term agaist Kiev unless Kiev were to have a failure of willpower. I am confident that Kiev is NOT going to have a failure of willpower
because, once again, Kiev knows that the majority of the population in the East has been saying they want the East to remain within
the Ukraine nation-state, and thereby Kiev has a solid basis for believing its fight is a virtuous fight. Kiev not going to have
a failure of willpower when it thinks its fight is virtuous and it has the knowledge that it has the resources to win the fight
militarily in the longterm.
Ukraine's president Poroshenko said on 25 Apr 2014: "Power should be decentralized.... To the regions we would give autonomy
on finances, and what language to speak, what monuments to build. That is what people need.... An elected local council would
elect an executive committee [to appoint the regional governor]. Not appointed in Kiev by the president as today. Only defense,
military, security, and police would be controlled from the center." --
Source.
The chicken has flown the coop, the cat is out of the bag, the leaves have fallen from the tree, the ice cream
has melted and ran.
Putin will absolutely not allow an enemy state the size of the Ukraine on his border -- it is an existential issue for Russia.
Numerous Russian elites have gone on record confirming this fact. Russia has planned for this moment since the Soviet Union broke
up. This was always a possibility, now it is a reality. Russia will act, under the cloak of plausible deniability, and Ukraine
will become part of the Customs Union. Whatever part refuses to go along will be destroyed. That is the reality, regardless of
what we wish or want.
So therefore, what we have is a proxy war and public opinion will be manufactured as needed. Why do you ignore how much opinion
has changed in the Donbass since Porky began shelling and killing locals en masse? Who cares what people believed in April and
May, before their mother was killed right in front of them? Public opinion has radicalized. Elsewhere, almost no one in the country
supports the economic performance of the junta. Their support is as thin and undependable as river ice in the spring sun.
Surely you are bright enough to understand political speech. The few crumbs Poroshenko is proposing to throw to the regions
have nothing to do with foreign, economic, trade, or military policies. And that is where the rub is. Russia will not allow the
West to steal this jewel and direct it towards Russia's destruction. To think otherwise, is to play the fool.
There seems to big some big changes happening over the past few days in eastern Ukraine. It is almost impossible to discern
what is happening reading the western press. Two facts are without doubt.
First the UA and it's volunteer militias (i.e. right sector and oligarch supported units) have suffered a major defeat at the
hands of the Donbas militias.
Second these defeats were the result of the Donbas militias on the battlefield who have been resisting the "western" invasion
since last June at least.
The response to this latest change on the battlefield is to blame the Russians for sending in its troops. This is obviously
not true, though no one will deny that many Russians are backing the Donbas rebellion. However it looks like it is not just the
Kiev regime making this claim but it is also coming out more strongly from the Nato command, Britain, some EU nations but more
importantly from the US government (OMG listen to ravings off Samantha Power in the UN) but also including from Obama himself.
Obama allowing himself to jump in here is really dangerous. It is obvious that his policy towards Ukraine is now in complete
disarray. By coming out in public and blaming the Russians for his failed policies definitely raises the stakes in this game.
He is drawing another red line even if he is denying it. It means Obama will have to respond with some kind of escalation in order
to "teach those Russians a lesson". Since the Russians are not responsible for the successes of the Donbas militias (except in
very indirect ways) Obama's responses will not change one iota the facts on the ground that are now being created. The danger
is that Obama will start to think his personal honor is on the line and will do something really stupid like trying to change
the military reality in eastern Ukraine. That could become dangerous big time, not just for Ukraine and Russia but for the whole
planet.
Would that be ironic? The first black man elected president of the US leads us into a nuclear war because he wants to demonstrate
to all of the white men that he "has what it takes" to lead the "free" world.
Whatever part refuses to go along will be destroyed.
I wouldn't put it that way. I would say that the social collapse of such parts will not be impeded. I don't see a Grozny scenario
emerging in the rump Ukraine; Ukrainian nationalism is not as robust an ideology as Wahhabism.
Also, I think you're seeing this in too top-down a manner, in terms of "Russia acting". This is a civil war, and what determines
the outcome of wars is largely the fighting spirit/morale of each side and the degree of competence of the different levels of
their militaries. Clearly, Novorossia has a clear advantage in both these factors.
The fundamental reason why Novorossia will win is not that Russia will make it so, but because Ukrainian nationalism is based
on a lie, namely, that there is such a thing as the Ukrainian people, who are a glorious, exalted race.
Whereas the Novorossian side is fighting based on a proven principle, that Russians don't like fascism and smash it when it
attacks them.
Thanks for that sober (and sobering) assessment. However, it overlooks several critical factors...
1. Kiev is on the verge of bankruptcy and its Western backers are being (typically) parsimonious with funding.
2. It's not even debatable that Kiev's assault on the RESIDENTS, CIVILIAN and INDUSTRIAL infrastructure of the East are self-defeating
TERRORISM and the best possible recruitment tool for the 'rebels'.
3. Winter is coming and the first cold snap will be a game-changer in the EU. People like Marine Le Penn (Fr) have already pointed
out the idiocy of the EU following Yankee dictates with ALL the blowback falling on EU citizens and NONE on the Yankees. The first
EU citizens with cold tootsies, in the first Winter Preview, will be hunting down their (traitorous, bribed) politicians in the
streets. And that will set a precedent for the next cold spell.
The Yankees have lost this one. Real wars can't be won by an utterly corrupt, incurious, Mainstream Media repeating the infantile
lies of politicians living in splendid isolation, with well-stuffed pockets, in ivory towers.
james | Aug 29, 2014 11:56:47 PM | 67
@66 Parviziyi.. thanks for your alternate viewpoint, but i have to agree with malooga and demian here in the general direction
this is going in, short of the usa doing something extremely stupid like going into a nuclear war with russia. russia is in a
commanding position locally..this also favours eastern ukraine's independence from kiev.
Parviziyi quote
"Most people in east Ukraine don't accept the separatist spirit of the rebels, nor the violent methods of the rebels, nor
significant parts of the rebel propaganda themes. This means rebels don't have a large indigenous recruitment base and can't
win in the long term agaist Kiev unless Kiev were to have a failure of willpower."
let me re-write it for you circa the end of august 2014.
"Most people in east Ukraine don't accept the inclusive spirit of the kiev gov't/junta, nor the violent methods, nor
significant parts of it's propaganda themes.
This means the kiev gov't/junta doesn't have a large indigenous recruitment base and can't win in the long term against
eastern Ukraine unless eastern Ukraine were to have a failure of willpower."
the very end part definitely isn't in the cards given what hostilities the kiev gov't/junta has dumped on these people since
the spring...
at what point does kiev stop listening to the warmongers from the usa/cia? that is the 64,000 question to me.. they may not
as they seem to be in a death spiral of sorts here financially speaking.. i suppose that would be a reason to cling to the imf/usa/cia
all the more out of what? fear - not strength.. this will only bring more hardship and suffering for all of ukraine, not just
eastern ukraine where they are dropping the bombs indiscriminately..
PuppetMaster | Aug 30, 2014 12:29:44 AM | 70
Though I celebrate the Novorossian victory, I fear that the US neocon will achieve their geopolitical goal whether the Novorossians
win or lose. Even if Russian gains the eastern Ukraine or even the whole Ukraine and still lose Europe, than, it is a Russian
defeat and a Neocon victory.
The solution out of this mess is not in the battlefield. It's not even in Ukraine. I agree with Malooga that the key is in Germany.
Demian | Aug 30, 2014 12:29:49 AM | 71
@james #75:
I just watched a 55 minute (!) interview (no subs) with the Defense Minister of the DPR, Vladimir Kononov. He said that when
he asked Ukes who had been taken prisoner why they had come to his land to kill his people, what they ended up saying is that
they were fighting for "a unitary Ukraine" (единую Украину).
This idea of a unitary Ukraine is a Uke nationalistic mantra. Since this crisis began, over and over I have heard
Ukes reciting it. And a federal state to them is not "unitary". So they are fighting against something that Americans, Canadians,
and Germans take for granted, namely, that they live under a federal system of government. Obviously, the reason that Ukes
are against federalization is that they want Kiev to have centralized control over the whole country, so Kiev can Ukrainize everyone,
even if they are culturally Russian, Hungarian, or Romanian.
Of course, USG is 100% on board with this project, because it would turn all Ukrainian citizens into virulent Russophobes.
One of the many obvious questions that the Western media never asks about this war is why is there a civil war to keep eastern
Ukrainians inside Ukraine if they want to leave it, when England is letting the Scots have a referendum about whether they want
to stay in the UK?
Malooga | Aug 30, 2014 1:08:32 AM | 72
@Demian 69:
You think I was a little over the top there? Yes, you are right for sure.
I might have said rendered economically and politically non-threatening.
As for the federalization thing -- its been hammered in for years. If they see another way working that belief could fade
over time.
Ukrainization is fascism. It doesn't respect the right of minorities -- and there are too many of them to go along with that.
Live and let live.
Even in the US where people are rabid about English being the national language, no one has problems with eight languages on
goverment forms, or Spanish TV stations. Well, at least not enough to go to war and risk your own life over it.
The Muslim Brotherhood would have eventually tried the same game in Egypt, except over religion -- in a country with almost
15 million Copts. Madness. But divide and conquer is the Western way.
Interesting piece over at AntiWar.com about how the European press has become a regurgitator of US propaganda, whereas it
wasn't before:
The European press has always had it pro-American stooges, or as they are called in polite language, fervent Atlanticists,
ready to spread the core postulates of the US (and by extension, Israeli) worldview to their readers. I am thinking here of
the people like Joseph Joffe and the ever-ridiculous ball of vanity and intellectual superficiality known as Bernard-Henri
Lévy.
But for much of the last three decades, they constituted but one current among many other competing strains in the
European press.
Since approximately 2004, however, their specific gravity within European opinion-making apparatus – as evidenced by the
changes at El País and other similar "liberal" media outlets – has increased dramatically. Now simplistic American assumptions
about who is bad and who is good once chuckled at on the continent, are the new normal in the editorial boards Europe's "prestige
press".
And because of this, the US can now impose its invented "imperial realities" upon Europe's citizenry with relative ease.
The author notes that he can't explain why or how this happened. It is too late at night for me to try to come up with possible
explanations. But certainly it must have something to do with how neoliberalism became the established orthodoxy among European
elites at about the same time.
Malooga | Aug 30, 2014 4:53:43 AM | 84
Parviziyi,
I'm having a harder and harder time taking you seriously as I read your arguments.
"One billion is enough to carry 75,000 soliders for a year at a cost of 14,000 per soldier. Three billion is enough to do it
for three years."
They've had three mobilizations already. Men up to 60 can now be drafted. Where are they going to get these 75k men from? At
a burn rate of 500/week, how long will they last?
Meanwhile, in Zaporizhia, Sich Motor employs 27k people who are out of work. With the standard job multipliers, that is half
the city. You think they won't join Novorussia?
In Mariupol, the Ukies claim to have 3,000 fighters to defend the city --the actual number after desertions is probably half
that. Yet, according to the BBC's correspondent, the pro-Ukraine unity rally only drew a few hundred people in a city of 300,000-400,000.
These are facts, not suppositions.
I can't say I know what public opinion is like in the Donbass, because not being there, I don't. But, having watched as much
video as I have, I believe I have a strong sense that opinion is running strongly against the junta.
If you are really interested in learning more, and not just trolling, here is some stuff to watch. I'd be interested to know
if any of it changes your opinion. None of it is the slick stuff like Vice, its all pretty much straight out there, WYSIWYG stuff.
See also youtube channels: anti-maidan, electropostman,
websites: colonel cassad, slavyngrad.org
reporters: Graham W. Phillips
I have watched probaby 100 hours of locals cursing out the junta.
Of course, YMMV.
Demian | Aug 30, 2014 5:19:09 AM | 85
@Malooga #84:
I can't say I know what public opinion is like in the Donbass, because not being there, I don't.
Isn't it just normal human behavior that if somebody bombs you with artillery and air strikes, you start thinking of them as
the enemy and hating them, and don't want to have anything to do with them? Western Ukies are fed non-stop propaganda that the
Novorossian army are shelling their own people and infrastructure.
That's a main reason why Ukies feel righteous about the war, for which they use the doubly dehumanizing term ATO. (People who
don't like your form of government (fascism) are "terrorists"; shelling peaceful civilians and infrastructure is an "operation",
not genocide.)
The people of Novorossiya know who is wantonly, deliberately killing them.
I think that tells you all you need to know about what Novorossian public opinion is concerning the fascist junta.
Starting last fall to ruin their country, Ukrainian radicals and all "passionate ukranians"ary people, it seems, cannot stop.
Brainwashed by instilled from outside the illusion that to create a new European, wealthy state is very easy, you just have to sign
some kind of paper in Brussels, they decided that they best the way to the civilized world is to kill policemen of "Berkut" and burn
tires. Now in Ukraine burn whole cities, and people die by the hundreds, whatever they mean by "heavenly hundred" it was only the
first.
Surprisingly, many in Ukraine for the most part do not notice what is happening to them of the tragedy, and still believe that
burning tires on the central square if the most effective way of "Europeanization" - ten days ago they burned them again on the Maidan.
They are completely devoid of understanding that behind each cubic meter of black toxic smoke there are some financial interests
and some struggle for power. And they do not notice the absence of government in the "United and indivisible Ukraine" as such.
No matter how hard Petro Poroshenko to pose as a sovereign head of state, it is clear the "EuroMaidan" is trying to prevent him
to become one. And it has many sponsors, like hidden until the time of Yulia Timoshenko, the former head of the presidential administration
Serhiy Lyovochkin who recently vacationed in the USA, and bunch of oligarchs, among which itself Poroshenko is not the largest. These
people, unlike Poroshenko and Klitschko have not received their dividends from the coup, and now operate through the Maidan militants
who monopolize the right to set tire on fire in the central square, as well as to speak in the name of the Maidan.
That are many examples proving that. the first and most obvious is already established legally as the s of the "Right sector",
party with its leader Dmitry Yarosh. It is difficult to call.Other then a slap in the face to the President his recent promise to
come to Kiev with weapons and conduct a "real reform of the interior Ministry" And Poroshenko the face stoically endured the slap,
and while the Minister of internal Affairs Arsen Avakov called Yarosh a buffoon, he did not fire his first Deputy and released militants
who were arrested before for racketeering, robbery and illegal possession of weapons.
It is difficult to imagine that in a European country armed Nazi grouping dictated their terms to the government. And this episode
while it never became No.1 item in Ukrainian news. As well as the fact that that nobody told all those who are waiting for coming
European living standards that Yarosh is just a vassal of Dnepropetrovsk Governor Igor Kolomoisky. Don't they know that Oleg Lyashko,
the bitter enemy of Kolomoisky today and the most attractive politician for Ukrainian rednecks has always been a marionette of the
competing oligarchic groups Firtash-Levochkin.
Because of this, the internal political situation in Ukraine is such that it is not clear who in Ukraine today hold the real political
power, who can answer for their words and commitments, and with whom high interested parties such as the EU, the OSCE, the USA, Russia
or the United Nations can negotiate. Because any outcome of peace negotiations or settlement, which Poroshenko hypothetically can
sign , immediately can be erased by a couple of dozens of militants-provocateurs with Molotov cocktails and burning tires.
Releasing the destructive energy of the crowd on the square with the promises carefree life "In Europe", the current rulers of Ukraine
themselves hostage to the inertia of destruction, which permeated every today's decision by the official authorities, acting in the
logic of prohibitions and restrictions. Now the Communist party is banned, and surprisingly the heating in the apartments is severely
limited too. Russian media is prohibited and simultaneously social benefits are iether eliminated or not paid even if exist. And
we should also remind the readers that it was under "the dictator" Yanukovich that the right of Ukrainians were somewhat expanded
(probably for the last time), when the law on language policy was adopted. It gave Russian citizens the right not to feel like second
class people. The attempt to revoke this law was, as we all remember one of the first legislative initiatives by the junta after
it came to power in February. As well as elimination of prohibition of Nazi symbols in public places.
However, soon this way of thinking and acting of modern Ukrainian authorities (the "authorities" in the singular in Ukraine will
return to them like a boomerang. In the form called "lustration". Parliament is preparing to pass a law "About the cleansing power",
which does not promise anything good neither officials nor the public. For example, article # 4 of this bill, entitled "Grounds for
failure check" automatically refuse the right to public office, all senior officials of the presidency of Yanukovich, who held the
posts from February 25, 2010 February 22, 2014. But it was Peter Poroshenko until March 11, 2010 was the Minister of foreign Affairs
of Ukraine, later to 23 February 2012 supervised by the National Bank, and a month later became the Minister of economic development
in the government of Mykola Azarov. That is the new President of Ukraine in accordance with the provisions of the law to be no way.
No less complicated is the biography of Oleksandr Turchynov, at one time head of the district Committee of Komsomol in Dnepropetrovsk.
By the way, the same constraints can touch the parliamentary leader of the ultra-nationalist Oleh Tyahnybok, the former Komsomol
activist in the Institute and head of the primary cell of young Communists while serving in the army. And certainly nothing good
from lustration can expect the most staunch ally of Oleh Tyahnybok , the fury of Ukrainian Nazi Iryna Farion, who managed to join
the Communist party in 1990, one of the last who did this in Lviv Polytechnic University.
The text of the law, in fact, dictated by the Maidan and the dream of a total and complete change of government, an expression which
has become the cornerstone of a popular joke about the fact that the complete victory of lustration in Ukraine will take place only
if the a huge chandelier is the session hall of the Verkhovna Rada drops in the middle of the session
Under the law does literally everyone who somehow was connected to the previous goverment of Ukraine, any goverment that existed
before the February revolution: judges, policemen, officials of ministries, departments, state agencies, prosecutors, military personnel
and many other categories up to the heads of local authorities. Unfortunately, few in Kiev understands the depth of the abyss which
opens to the Ukraine with the adoption of this law and the subsequent complete victory of the crowd. But there are some tentative
signs of sobering such as the resignation of eve of notorious Tatiana Chornovil, head of government anti-Corruption Bureau, who is
a far right nationalist and furious adept of universal lustration. She announced in their blog the decision to leave and the futility
of her struggle .
"A few weeks ago private Ukrainian TV channel 1+1 gave the audience a remarkable commentary on the acts of one of the richest
people in the country," writes in an article for Foreign Policy journalist "Ukrainian Pravda" Sergey Leshchenko. The hero of the
story was tycoon Dmytro Firtash.
The channel tried to portray Firtash as a puppet of the Kremlin. "While some viewers may have noticed a strange coincidence: owner
1+1, magnate and politician Igor Kolomoisky, is at the same time the most fierce competitor Firtash," explains the author.
Kolomoisky and Firtash belong to the circle of Ukrainian oligarchs.
"In an ideal world oligarchs away would be a thing of the past. EuroMaidan which six months ago overthrew President Yanukovych,
was aiming directly into the cruel system of crony capitalism, which was established in post-Soviet Ukraine. But even now, months
later, most oligarchs continue to thrive, increasing their wealth and power. the country is is much worse shape, struggling to rein
in the chaos in the East," the article says.
After Maidan the most losses suffered billionaire Rinat Akhmetov, which the author calls "one of those who supported Yanukovych.
Problems Akhmetov, says the publication, create the chance for his opponents, especially Poroshenko. The President of Ukraine can
be considered as part of the oligarchic system. He would never have reached the present situation, if not for the lack of reliable
leaders among the revolutionaries.
"Behavior Poroshenko after the arrest of Firtash is pretty telling," writes the author. At that moment Poroshenko longed for assistance.
"And he went to Austria, where he visited Firtash (a few days after the release of the latter secured to enlist the support of the
channel Firtash "inter", - stated in the article. By the way, needless to mention that Firtash also used every opportunity on his
channel "Inter"to tarnish the reputation Kolomoisky". Firtash, for its part, hoped that Poroshenko will help him avoid extradition
to the US and will protect him from Kolomoisky.
Meanwhile after the revolution Kolomoisky has made "impressive rise" continues the author of the article. In March, the new government
was desperately looking for local leaders, able to curb separatism and to help the army money. It has appointed Kolomoisky Governor
of Dnipropetrovsk oblast. "A citizen of three countries - Ukraine, Israel and Cyprus - Kolomoisky jumped at the chance to create
a new identity ardent defender of Ukrainian sovereignty," writes Leshchenko. Due to its nationalist position he has now become one
of the most popular politicians, despite the fact that the Maidan swore to save Ukraine from the power of the oligarchs.
"New found popularity Kolomoisky may change the internal political situation in Ukraine", - says the author. The probability that
after the October elections Glad the next convocation will be backstage controlled by oligarchs.
The author of Foreign Policy expects acute rivalry from "several factions controlled by the oligarchs." "Unpredictable factor
remains Kolomoisky, who has not yet decided who he will Finance", - stated in the article. According to rumors, he plans to bet on
the nationalist movement. It is obvious that the Ukrainian business elite still shape the political agenda. "Poroshenko will have
to decide whether he really wants to fight corruption, the idea for which the Ukrainians en masse took to the streets, or he is willing
to settle scores using the rules of the old oligarchic politics" - so ends the article.
Slightly edited Google translation. A good description of Russian propaganda view on the situation from
andreyvadjra.livejournal.com blog. It is true that junta stated the civil
war. Which nationalists, which are a totalitarian sect by definition, often start to preserve their power and crush the opponents. Support
by the West only added petrol to the fire. making them more brazen and uncompromising. But after it started victims among civil population
and destruction of infrastructure are given. Actually civil wars are the most cruel type of wars in any case.
On 21 August in the British capital began its work, the photo exhibition "Humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine". The conference
is organized by the London charitable "Foundation Kultura". The aim of the exhibition - "overcoming information blockade" around
large-scale human tragedy in the Donbass.
As stated in the official told the organizers,
"we call the international community to immediately stop the killing of civilians carried out by Ukrainian troops and militants
of the national guard with special cruelty as well as the use of prohibited weapons. With the tacit consent of the United States
and several European countries is a violation of basic human rights happens right now in the South-East of Ukraine. Basic human
right enshrined in numerous international treaties and documents and, above all, the universal Declaration of human rights".
Presented at the exhibition pictures show destroyed homes, schools, hospitals and kindergartens. Photographs tell about the
absence in the region of medicines, food and necessities, flows of refugees, seeking refuge in Russia and neighboring regions
of Ukraine, about the pain and desperation of ordinary people.
This event in the British capital is very significant, if you consider that fact that from the point of view of the Western media
and the huge number of human rights organizations, use of heavy weapons and aircraft against the cities and civilians is complexly
absent. It does not exist. and a humanitarian catastrophe does not exist iether.
Well, from the official point of view of the West there no heavy artillery shelling of civilian infrastructure, aerial bombings
and mass murder. Just as there is no destroyed infrastructure, a looming famine and mass epidemics. All those facts simply does not
exist of humane and enlightened West, which touchingly worries about children with Dawn syndrome and the fate of homeless animals.
Surprisingly, the dispersal of the Maidan protest with several broken noses West noticed instantly, and then shuddered in terror
and fall in media hysterics, shaken by unprecedented violence and brutality. And the corpses of dead children Donbass, blown into
peaces bodies of its civilians, destroyed schools and hospitals, the blood and suffering of thousands of people under the bombs and
shells of ATO forces does not bother neither Europe nor the US one bit.
Apparently the West was struck by the amazing blindness, very similar to its blatant cynicism in selective use of morality for
political purposes. Broken by riot police nose of a militant on Maidan is a human tragedy of planetary scale, killed the child of
Donbass - means nothing...
ext_914883
2014-08-25 02:13 pm (UTC)
The cynicism of these "civilized" scum knows no bounds. For them Moral and good is anything that is beneficial at this moment.
It's always been this way. And all these cring about "democracy and human rights" are used as weapons to conquer and hold in check
weaker nations. By the way, we will probably soon see that they will discontinue thier charished "democracy" at home and will
return to its natural state: in the best case - to authoritarianism, and at worst -- fascism.
Phantom Invasion, phantom tanks, phantom evidence, Phantom destroyed Russian military vehicles. Somebody really gotta do
something about this phantom menace.
Kiev authorities just try covering up complete military disaster in the East by finding new Russia invasion forces every day.
Poor planning and logistics of Ukrainian army led to the massive rebel counteroffensive following by encirclement of huge forces
south of Donetsk.
Of course it's still not a defeat since Ukrainian army can try to cut through rebel defensive lines and escape, but it's still
a big blow to Ukrainian military prestige.
All right then explain me this. According to Ukrainian media Donetsk and Lugansk are completely encircled and army now is waging
heavy fighting in suburbs. How come come that during all these time not a single Russian army soldier was captured or killed?
I mean, surely if Ukrainian army had destroyed a platoon of Russian soldiers Internet now would have been filled with photos.
the way in which every word that falls from Poroshenko's lips is so blindly accepted and regurgitated by this rag. once
again there is absolutely no proof provided by anyone to substantiate these claims.
Surely the US could provide some proof as it did with the downing of the Malaysian flight ... oh, it didn't release its information
then either did it ... surely the best way to support your ally would be to prove him right!
anyone who believes without question the crass and unsubstantiated rubbish published by this and other rags doesn't deserve
a vote!
"A Ukrainian military spokesman told AFP border guards were battling "several dozen" armored vehicles that crossed the
border and headed in the direction of the government-held city of Mariupol."
Even the State Department and the Head of Nato are silent on that. It's too much even for them, I think.
Even the State Department and the Head of Nato are silent on that. It's too much even for them, I think.
there seems to be quite a lot of silence about aspects of the conflict, the kiev regime has clearly made advances on the ground
but the losses suffered seem to be considerable.
have we had any reporting about what happened in the "southern cauldron" as the rebels describe it?
i see these figures quoted a lot:
more than four months of fighting that has cost more than 2,200 lives
but there is a revealing video up on
YouTube (with English captions) of the survivors and family members of the missing conscripts of the
30th mechanized brigade
confronting the commander demanding answer for what happened to them. apparently only 83 men returned out of 4700. this would
point to massive losses for the Kiev regime.
Come on! Last week glorious Ukrainian Army destroyed armored group of 50 Russian tanks which crossed the border and then was
destroyed and then mysteriously disappeared. Tanks were presumably destroyed with annihilators and atomizers, some of the column
was turned into antimatter, some was reduced to atoms and electrons. That is why no evidence left. Now Russian tanks are "trying
to invade Mariupol" which is about 100 km south to the actual fighting.
Why? Ask delusional "Ukrainian patriots". Next week they will be destroying 1000 Russian plane West of Kiev.
Looks like Poroshenko is lying again about Russian troops.
The latest news is that the rebels have now encircled thousands of Kiev troopers and national guards and are currently moving
to liquidate the trapped forces (RT today and Youtube). Many weapons, including tanks have reportedly either been captured or
knocked out.
Q Who took down the Malaysian aircraft A Not the Russians as the Guardian would have reported it. Minor Dutch parties sending
notes of apologies to Putin...
Q How many Ukrainian Casualties in the ATO? A. 23K....
Q How much Russian Intervention in this war? A. None or the Guardian would have reported it.
Q How many times have the Ukrainians taken cities (e.g. Ilovaske?) 4 times with the latest being 25% taken...
Q What is happening now? An Offensive against the Ukrainian Army with an estimated 6K surrounded and the Right Sector expecting
an attack on Mariupol.
Q. In the picture above what are the civilians shouting at A. Fascists..
What a whitewash. I hope the guardian is proud of itself.
I watched this press conference. Lavrov was asked about updates on the tragic deaths caused by the downing of the Malaysian
Boeing. He said that the Western voices making accusations based on alleged evidence proving 'Russian backed separatists' had
downed the plane had now gone silent and produced NO evidence whatsoever.
He also said that vital information was being withheld from public like black box data and voice records of pilots by Ukrainian
Secret Services and their NATO backers.
He accused the western media of not pursuing the truth and the failure by the Guardian to EVEN MENTION this interchange at
the press conference only serves to make his point.
How dare Russia send another convoy to help the people of the Donbass! I mean how provocative can you get with this blatant
humanitarian aid for the civilian population.
I Don't understand the media blackout on the peoples suffering in this region, it really is strange, I guess if you speak Russian
it can't be news worthy.
No there isn't a complete black out. Guardian and other western media have reported about the terrible plague of the capture
Ukrainian soldiers that few hours ago they were carpet bombing Donetsk with artillery units.
But generally, yes:
Zero report about the 700 000 refugees.
Zero report about the carpet bombing of Ukrainian cities.
Zero reporting about the thousand dead civilians
Zero reporting about the humanitarian crises in the East Ukrainian cities.
Well the last isn't true. They reported it as an invasion of Russian trucks carrying food and water for the starving populace.
Kiev claims an extraordinary amount of Rubbish. It's why you feature a picture of the Donbass "parade" because there is no
column.
Or were these the same kind of "Military column" that Shaun Walker claims 2 weeks ago. The one where the BBC later said that
they didn't "exactly say it was military" before deleting the comment.
Suppose this phantom column will be defeated like the previous phantom column.
I really don't get why the press keep quoting Kiev. Surely it affects the media's credibility when their sources keep lying
and it then becomes apparent that the media have been printing BS propaganda all along and acting as a mouthpiece to ratchet up
Ukraine's obvious desire to escalate things, thinking NATO will come to their aid with more than just OUR tax money.
MullahsForLunch, 25 August 2014 12:39pm
Yawn......evidence?
The Guardian has become the de facto mouthpiece of the Ukrainian forces....voicing their every insecurity and propaganda
to the Western population.
lids -> MullahsForLunch, 25 August 2014 12:45pm
Don't think the guardian editors have cottoned on to the fact that we see these headlines and chuckle..
ID1744585, 25 August 2014 12:41pm
Given their history of brazen dishonesty, and the Western media 's history of craven and unquestioning accession to any claim
they make. I would suggest that you have got to be kidding.
After the last series of claims were proven false the Guardian just pretended the whole fiasco had nothing to do with them.
It's clear, War with Russia is a given, until it starts there will be an avalanche of shameless propaganda from the professional
liars of the Western media.
Philos83, 25 August 2014 1:02pm
If Ukraine keeps defeating all these Russian armoured columns they'll go into history as the best tank fighters since the Red
Army rolled the Wehrmacht all the way back to Berlin.... Of course, these battles would need to be more than fictions fabricated
by the amateur propagandists in Kiev
Other than the lack of evidence for any of this nonsense (with a number of NATO satellites over Ukraine you can bet the
MSM would be flooding us with pictures) the best indicator that Kiev hasn't encountered any Russian armour is that the Russian
Air Force isn't bombing them to smithereens.
I share Paul Craig Roberts'
disgust for the behavior
of Western media in their coverage of the war in Ukraine. Not only does Western reporting show these "newspeople" to be nothing more
than a pack of idiots and whores, as Roberts suggests, but the heavy handed propaganda effort makes it damned near impossible for
most of us to gain an informed idea of what is actually happening in Ukraine. What is happening? I will try to sort out the true
situation and establish a framework for discussing the many facets of the "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" that is
the war in eastern Ukraine.
At a macro level, this is a re-ignition of the Cold War. Some just can't pass up a chance to tweak the Bear's nose and are oblivious
to the possibly of deadly consequences. Others have long memories and precious little forgiveness. Russia can deal with all that
as long as Ukraine is not a hostile outpost of NATO on their border. But I believe it is the Neocons and
R2P-ers most responsible for this mess. They've spent five billion
and twenty years getting to this point and they appear willing to double down. I think they had dreams of Sevastopol becoming a NATO/US
naval base. That would be tweaking the Bear's nose just a little too hard. Beyond the whole spreading democracy vision thing, there
is now the specter of a world economy arising to compete with the petrodollar based Western economy. That scares the hell out of
some dangerous people… or perhaps it just presents an investment opportunity.
Much has been made of leadership changes and internal turmoil in Kiev and in Donetsk/Lugansk. I don't think we should read too
much into this. Both the junta and Novorossiya are new entities born out of violent upheavals only months ago. They are fighting
a civil war and Kiev, at least, is subject to the outside pressures I noted earlier. It is too much to expect stability in the leadership
circles of either side.
As in many countries, Ukraine has its share of internal tensions and differences. These differences did not guarantee the start
of this civil war. What upset the societal equilibrium was the West's investment in the worst element of Ukrainian society. Nuland
and her cabal used the ultra nationalists of Pravy Sektor and Svoboda to push their own neocon agenda. The
crazies got the money, the training, and
the weapons and took over the asylum. The Russian speaking East Ukrainians had no choice but to leave, revolt or die at the hands
of the rabidly anti-Russian Banderites. Even the Ukrainians in the western
oblasts are beginning to revolt against the
junta's call for reserve mobilizations.
And in my opinion Putin had no choice but to return Crimea to Russia before the crazies had a chance to ruin it.
The military situation appears to be in a state of dynamic equilibrium. The Ukrainian forces have, up to now, been able to mount
battalion or more sized armored thrusts into weakly held rebel territory, but these thrusts, more often than not, got badly chewed
up and surrounded. They've lost at least six brigades this way. The rebels recently captured documents where the Ukrainian military
command admitted to 14,378 KIA and WIA, 158 POWs, 8,972 deserters, 31 planes, 20 helicopters, 307 tanks, 145 BMPs, 121 BMDs, 283
BTRs, 14 Grad and 11 Uragan MLRS. Rebel losses are unknown. They have much better opsec. Neither side maintains solidly held continuous
front lines. This is what allowed the junta to make these armored thrusts, but it also allows the rebel saboteur-reconnaissance groups
to range behind the junta lines to destroy their artillery and logistics bases.
This video gives a good view of a rebel unit and the nature of most of
the fighting in Novorossiya. Of course this kind of fighting is interspersed with artillery and
multiple rocket launcher strikes such as this.
An accompanying video of the same unit at rest gives some great insights
into the mindsets of the rebels.
Artillery has been critically important for both sides. A central element of junta military strategy seems to be the destruction
of civilian infrastructure and the killing/terrorizing of the populace. Andrew Kramer of the New York Times gave a
good account of this a few days ago, which shows not all MSM reporters are idiots or whores. Artillery has taken the place of
airstrikes for the junta forces. However, the rebels are also amassing an impressive artillery force and even the Ukrainian military
admit the rebel's fire is accurate and effective.
I use the past tense to describe the armored thrusts of the junta forces because they appear to be losing the ability to concentrate
sufficient forces to execute major attacks. They are on their third mobilization. That's a clear sign of running on empty. In order
to address the growing unrest in Transcarpathia, the junta had to withdraw 1,200 troops from the front last week. They have no strategic
reserve. At the same time a rebel leader announced that 1,200 rebels just returned from four months of training in Russia as reinforcements
ready to fall in on a substantial amount of recently captured heavy equipment.
There are also increasing signs of mounting guerrilla operations throughout eastern Ukraine. Small things like the burning of
one of Komoloisky's banks in Dnepropetrovsk and the ambush of Polish PMC vehicles and the sabotage of defense maintenance facilities
in Kharkov are becoming more commonplace. Partisan groups are increasing sabotage activity around Slavyansk and Krasny Liman, areas
where Strelkov withdrew from last month. The partisan activity is strong enough to incite junta artillery to begin shelling Slavyansk
from Karachun Mountain once again.
So, where do the opposing forces stand today? If you look at the
first map accompanying the NYT
article, you would think the rebels are very close to defeat. However, that map shows the high water marks of the junta forces
over the course of the four month war. A better set of maps is available here. Look
at these maps over time and see the fluidity of the battlefield. Yes, the rebels are giving up ground, but they are preserving their
combat forces. The junta is squandering theirs. Every time you read an article like
this NYT piece, which proves Paul Craig Roberts' original
point, look for an article like this
to balance the view.
Last week I said I sensed the junta forces are reaching a culminating point. I still believe that. I don't see them in any position
to take Donetsk or Lugansk or to ever seal the border with Russia. The rebels are not collapsing, nor are they ready to march on
Kiev. There is a dynamic equilibrium, but time is on Novorossiya's side.
Exceptionally, Mr. Cilevics said, "I am one of those people who have two ears," absorbing Russian media, but also subscribing
to reports from European monitors in Ukraine, and finding "the truth is somewhere in between."
It reminds him of Soviet times, he said, reading the Communist daily Pravda, then listening to Radio Liberty, which is financed
by the United States. But most people, he noted, "only have one ear."
simply wrong translation of Russian term into English - in Russia it is not anew word...it is the same tactics to uise mistranslation
for political propaganda - like transalting Soviet as Russia (and thus equating exclusively ethnic Russians to soviet past, but
exonerating Ukrainians, Georgians etc despite those were the same Soviets as Russian were) - all that for political reasons...
"n - word" was nearly abolished in English language when political situation made it to depict wrong associations, but nobody
is going to stop calling exclusively Russians as Soviets or Soviet Union as Russia - the most funny things happen when foreigners
trying to accuse Russians in Soviet foreign policy start to say something like - well, Ukrainians remember what Russians did because
of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - and funny is that they forget that those were not Russia or Russians that benefited from Molotov-Ribbentrop
Pact, but Ukraine and Ukrainians because all those Polish lands were given to Ukraine, not to Russia in USSR - and even today
Lviv that Stalin took from Poland according to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is a part of Ukraine, not Russia...
yet, English language continue to identify exclusively Russians as Soviets - very convenient for non-Russians and for the
West too in order to alienate all non-Russian ex-soviets (Georgia, Ukraine, etc.) from Russia...
Linguistic propaganda - that how I call it.
IdreamaPeacefulWorld, 22 August 2014 10:41pm
I love the connection with the pussy riots.
Please check this link and tell me if you would be happy for this to happen in your local museum and call it art!
They probably calculated the cost of their legal case in the price they charged the front organisations for their 'protest
services'.
Bakerpembury, 22 August 2014 11:55pm
It's sometimes said Pussy Riot was invented by the CIA as a drunken joke but " bare breasts" excited them so much they signed
off the funding. I'm inclined to believe it.
AstheticTheory -> Bakerpembury, 22 August 2014 11:59pm
There are billionaire backed front organisations and front media outlets who sponsor these activities and promote them in the
media. This newspaper is part of a network that actually spreads this stuff.
koshenka, 23 August 2014 12:50am
Pussy Riot are not many. Though I can understand why Tolokonnikova called those who did it heroes: after all, base jumping
takes more bravery and skills than fucking in museum.
koshenka, 23 August 2014 1:12am
btw, have Pussy already released some new single? or, I don't know, some old one?
I would suggest that many of the criticisms in the article will ring true with a lot of people. This piece may have the opposite
intended effect and end up acting as a advertisement piece for RT.
For example, criticisms of:
the war on terror
the Western dedication to free market capitalism and privatisation
the political bias of other news networks (such as the BBC and Sky)
the corporate and financial influences on Western political system
the Israeli state
the role of the West in Ukraine (there does appear to be a level of bias in this issue but we can balance that with the
BBC).
the expansionist foreign policy of USA post 911.
And I don't think that exploring conspiracy theories should be considered a negative point. Does anyone remember those crazy
people who would tell you that the government is hacking our phones and recording our conversations?
There definitely is a need for people in the West to have an alternative media view to the servile propaganda which we are
being indoctrinated with by the BBC, much of our national media etc. RT presented us with that opportunity, probably initially,
but it really has degenerated into doing pretty much what much of the media in the West has been doing; namely a mouthpiece for
the government and the elite, except that RT is doing it for the Russian Government.
The time will come when, it is not only
our and their politicians who we should not trust, but also their and our media! The media in the West and the East does not,
or is fast becoming unworthy of the respect of the listener, watcher and reader. How depressing.
TGondii -> Taku2, 24 April 2014 6:52pm
At the height of the cold war I used to listen to Radio Moscow. Not because it was unbiased, it lied obviously about what
was happening in the USSR, but because it told me things about what were happening in the UK and the USA that our media failed
to mention.
huzar30 -> TGondii, 24 April 2014 6:57pm
it told me things about what were happening in the UK and the USA that our media failed to mention.
What, if anything, did you learn? Report
TGondii -> huzar30, 24 April 2014 7:12pm
Oh, let's see, all sorts about protests in the UK that never got reported here, British involvement in Cambodia supporting the
Khmer Rouge, the World Court verdict against the US for mining Nicaraguan ports. That sort of thing. Factually true, spun for
political effect of course, but simply not mentioned in our press at the time.
Taku2 -> TGondii 24 April 2014 8:19pm
I agree with you. RT and the media in the West, especially that which is owned by the elites, have a vested interest in
concealing information and 'truths' which their controllers find inconvenient, and will tend to publicise information and 'truths'
which their opponents are likely to find inconvenient.
For the reader, listener and watcher to get near to the 'truth', he or she needs to glean it from diverse sources - RT, western
media, Euro News, Al Jazeera, et al.
The 'new' really needs to be announced with a warning: Let the listener beware, as 'new' can be harmful to the listener/reader's
credibility.
foolisholdman -> TGondii, 24 April 2014 10:40pm
At the height of the cold war I used to listen to Radio Moscow. Not because it was unbiased, it lied obviously about what
was happening in the USSR, but because it told me things about what were happening in the UK and the USA that our media failed
to mention.
Just so -- & the same is true now of RT and CNTV.
PSmd -> Taku2, 25 April 2014 2:17pm
I like watching RT. Sure it's biased, but it's always interesting to see competing biases, rather than media that is biased
in chorus. It's a mouthpiece for pro-Russian bellicosity, but I remember a year ago, they were talking about break up of
the USSR, and they said how Russia could have been kept with Belarus and Eastern Ukraine, quite telling now. Also, that only western
Ukraine, Baltics and Georgia were the only bits that wanted to leave the USSR, again, an indicator of what Russia may make a play
for (i.e. everything but those areas).
They also seem to have many American guests, some from the Left but more from the libertarian Right, united against (US)
militarisation and corporatisation.
Al Jazeera is of a slightly higher standard, though, again, they cannot really bite the hand that feeds them either. Sky news,
in Danny Dorling's words, seems to view Britain as the London office of an American corporation. It never fails to amaze me how
local US news appears on there, and often public building shootings and eccentrics who drive pickup trucks chasing tornadoes.
Taku2 -> PSmd, 25 April 2014 6:50pm
I agree with you; particularly concerning 'comparing biases', as all the official media contains biases, inspite of their newly
found qualification: "we cannot varify it." Once something is 'reported', the damage is done, whether or not it can be varified.
Why report something which cannot be varified?
As we watch the Russians, Americans and EU building up the Ukrainian crisis into a casus belli, it makes us fully realize how
powerful and, if used irresponsibly and mischievously, dangerous the media can be. First comes the media war, which 'prepares'
the people, and then come the blood letting
Media manipulation and manipulation by the media has and is currently being used as a substitute for prudent and effective
diplomacy. The media is more powerful than the politicians. Seems that we the people are fucked!
TGondii, 24 April 2014 6:50pm
I find it distasteful for a journalist to be asking for the banning of any TV station. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
The Iranian Press TV was already removed by OfCom, and I don't think it should have. Anyone watching those channels can see their
bias and adjust for that, but they also provide an alternative view. For example Press TV provided good coverage of the Bahrain
protests that was entirely missing from Al Jazeera.
Personally I see lots of bias in the BBC. Various university studies showed actual bias in the lead up to the Iraq invasion broadcasting
far more pro-war items and interviews compared to pro-peace items, worse even than Sky TV. It's effectively a British government
mouthpiece whatever British government is in power, as witnessed by it's very partial coverage of the Scottish independence debate.
Saying that I don't think it should be banned.
Aren't there books you should be burning, Steve?
RoyRoger -> TGondii, 24 April 2014 7:10pm
I find it distasteful for a journalist to be asking for the banning of any TV station.
I agree. But, as you know, fascist regimes are keen to shot the messenger; literally.
The West from the very beginning skillfully dictated the way the world will look at the crisis in Ukraine. Moreover, old anti-Russian
propaganda which created the image of "eternal evil" out of Russia helped greatly in this brainwashing. Putin does not know how to
run a smart and clever "soft" propaganda campaign. And even prestigious news agencies are now amenable to "political activism", because
there is no time for good journalism, says Czech media analyst Irena Rysankova.
Many spoke and wrote about the information war, which accompanies the Ukrainian crisis from the very beginning - with demonstrations
on the square, during the annexation of the Crimea, the war in the Donbass, the fall of the Malaysian flight MH17 - and still being
played. What weapons and how successful the opponents are using in this war?
For simplicity I will call one side Pro-European and the other Pro-Russian. "Pro-European" definitely has or used to have an advantage.
Their method "injecting of news" and the wording of news articles was such that it was clear - there are consultants. Moreover, it
was this side which began informing the public new event, such as about MH17, at all levels.
"Pro-Russian" side was actually forces into defense from the very beginning and can only refute the new and new speculations about
the events that none of the readers has the ability to reliably check. they also defined the vocabulary for description of events,
while taking advantage of the fact that simple and less educated users of the media, and according to statistics those are the majority
still perceive Russia as evil. More specifically, this is due to the invasion of the occupation forces in 1968 in Czechoslovakia
and later in Afghanistan. Just Russia in the minds of many is still identified with the Soviet Union, and due to this is viewed from
the same position, as during the cold war.
In propaganda campaign of "Pro-European" forces that were active event before the key events, which served simply as a trigger,
were creatively used all the tools for the management of public opinion. Every time they defined the agenda (agenda setting) that
was imposed on the other side. Violent actions (fire on protesters on the Maidan, the plane crash, the shooting of the "convoy of
refugees") were used to inject emotions into initially rational thinking about the conflict. this was they frame the information
perception (framing) in terms of our pre-existing attitude to the parties. This way the polarization without regard to the facts
is achieved: who is good and who is evil ("They only wanted to join the EU", "They wanted to stand in their way to freedom", "They
shoot again on our children"). This way the coverage turned into the game of "good" and "bad" guys. Facts are never analyzed independently
and impartially, because they always created the circumstances which prevented this. I think that in no way we can talk in information
about Ukraine in terms of "people's struggle". On Maidan there were not "the people", but political activists and militants. As well
as mercenaries. A naive public intellectuals who joined them, very quickly disappeared after the first blood was shed. Professionalism
dictates that, rather, the event were orche4strated by a good consultants.
Russia is losing and will continue to lose. Neither the Kremlin nor the Lubyanka, most likely, have not read the basic labor American
Professor from Harvard Gina Sharpe, even though it was first published in 1973 under the title "the Politics of nonviolent action".
His main book "From dictatorship to democracy" was released 20 years later in response to the popular uprising in Bangkok and was
published in Russian in 1993, after the collapse of the USSR, when the candidate Yegor Gaidar as Prime Minister was rejected, Yeltsin
came to power, the putschists made a move against him and civil war could well start, which would finally erased from the face of
the earth "the evil Empire". Then it didn't work out, but still even in Russia color revolution scenario got pretty far. In Ukrainian
the book "From dictatorship to democracy" was translated in 2004 in connection with the Orange revolution.
After centuries of use "hard power" Russia does not understand how to use "soft power", does not speak of non-governmental diplomacy,
you need it to support financial and organizational. Russia is not able to involve themselves in support of stars in pop culture,
universities and charitable foundations, commercial companies and non-governmental organizations. Russia had and still has the major
drawback - its reputation inherited from days of the USSR, although this is the country in which the majority of European countries
exported goods or collaborated in large projects. Thanks to Russian gas we have light, warmth, we travel by car. But for many in
Europe they are still "those Russians" of August 1968, the invaders, drunk from vodka. And many of the "new Russians" reinforce the
Soviet stereotype. They defiantly proud of his wealth, and so manifestly disregard the law. So we should not be too surprised.
Already in the winter and after the collapse of Viktor Yanukovych Czech blogosphere, or the field of "alternative" media, began
to protest that information about the "Maidan" in the Czech Republic is manipulates and that the coverage is Pro-Ukrainian and selective.
For example, we can talk about the suppression of information about the aggressiveness of protesters on the Maidan and the focus
of the news on police brutality. Whether these claims to Czech media fair?
Partly were and still are. But this is just a problem with the progress of information war, which Russia loses. There are several
reasons for bias in the direction of Maidan then they new Kiev government. First, it is Maidan declarations about the liberation
from the clutches of the Russian bear and the adoption of European rules, and secondly, the preponderance of professionally prepared
Pro-Maidan information, which the media simply replayed. In such situation there is huge demand for news coverage and those who provide
the news stream can correct the event or their view on the event as they wish. None of the current journalists want to be engaged
in a truly independent "dirt-digging" investigative journalism. In fact, today it is impossible. Sooner or later you will need some
research material, sooner or later you will need professional information back office. And then you have the embedded journalists.
Moreover, today the media has no time to think: electronic online world is faster then anything else and the ability to sigh the
issue to print at midnight is now a sweet dream about which was only can have nostalgia. I always joke that Karel Capek today would
have had no chances at all. Publishing houses want cheap labor, that is, pipeline employees who toss news without too much thinking.
Bloggers, as a rule, are either analysts themselves or those who are interested in in the subject for some reason and who understands
it. That is, they are not objective. Even respected Agency now send to the frontline hired local people, about professional past
and views of which they have little information. Thus, under the guise of top military journalism often we see the work of local
journalists, which were hired by agencies.
But lately, we can see some changes. Even mainstream media begin to think about the ethics of their work. Perhaps because some
BBC reporters have already begun to publish information about Ukraine, which is not exactly fit "revolutionary enthusiasm" meme:
the neofascists of the Right sector, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulousness members of the government.
In addition, Ukraine government go over the top in this information war. The manner in which President Poroshenko and the Prime
Minister Yatsenyuk spread is now simply despicable. The Declaration about the elimination of the Russian convoy, not supported by
any evidence, photographs or other materials, and other excesses of the last days show that the information war starts to get out
of control, and the Ukrainian government propaganda machine is faltering. If the Ukrainian troops destroyed the Russian convoy, would
there no single photo? why they did not show us the corpses, their military ID and uniforms? The serial number of weapons they have
had? In is impossible not to notice complete incompetence here. I remember Saakashvili claimed that Russia used in Georgia ballistic
missiles "Point". But the evidence of the damage they caused was very badly staged. But in the Czech Republic, Russia priori is guilty
or, at least, suspicious. Our indignation about what "those Russians" (more precisely, the Brezhnev of the USSR) did, is passed from
one generation after another - to those who do not remember the Prague spring of 1968, not to mention the previous years.
Today it is difficult to determine who is right and who is lying. if the known liar lies again when he said that his opponent
is lying. Can he at this time speak the truth? How to find out when the during war, of course, the first victim is truth?
The problem arises when facts themselves incriminated the liars, as happened with the leaked photos downed Malaysian Boeing. Round,
smoothly bent in the tin holes with a diameter of 30 mm give to those who are familiar with missiles "BUK", understanding that the
plane was shot down but by the rocket but the cockpit was pulverized with guns of the fighters. There were two fighters. Today there
are only to answer the question, whose to whom they belong and who gave them the order to shoot.
Both Russia, calling for the unification of the "Russian world", and the EU and the US, referring to the European and Western
values, according to some opinions, have polar sympathies: on the one hand citizens fighting the Donbas and the Crimea, and on the
other, the rest of Ukraine, mainly Western. Which party do you think the more intensely promoted this propaganda? And with what implications?
How to respond to the claim that Russian TV using hostile nationalist programs (for example show Dmitry Kiselev) sparked a civil
war in the Donbass?
How can we measure the level of sympathy? with "Applause meter" ? The number of casualties on each side? I don't think the war
in the Donbass unleashed by some shows with anchors/talking heads known for their nationalism, such as Dugin or Kiselev on Russian
side, or Poroshenko fifth channel and youths from the Right sector on the other side. Propaganda is directed to strengthening of
the morale of the combatants. Soldiers who are poorly paid, need to know that they are fighting, and dying for just cause. If there
are two warring parties, it is clear that each side produce corresponding stream of propaganda. Both sides try to justify the right
to kill fighters from the other. On both sides historians, myth-makers and ideologues work on such a justification. But we must not
forget that "the war for Ukraine" is actually an economic war. For displacement from the Ukrainian market of Russia and for a new
economic world order. In other words this is struggle is for gas and oil, coal and steel. All those resources are the cornerstone
of both the European Union and the Russian power. Ukraine (rather, consultants that support Ukrainian side) have better propaganda.
As Europe and the United States have always been more receptive to the stories of the victims of Russian expansion. That means that
from the very beginning the emotional advantage was on the side of smaller Ukraine abused by a larger, more powerful neighbor.
Shooing down of MH17 is a new milestone in the crisis. What cant you say about this event? Who presented the more convincing
evidence? Which side of the conflict behaved more honestly? And how to evaluate the Russian, Czech and Western media?
- The basic rule of journalism is fair comment must be preceded by a message that will be facts, not guesswork. The statements
that the plane was shot down by Pro-Russian militia, appeared too quickly. The culprit was appointed earlier than it was revealed
what exactly was the plane that was shot down.. The name of the air traffic controller, who was the first to report that shot down
the plane, now is hidden by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU). In this case, neither party behave honestly form the very beginning.
The plane crashed in the area of military action, that is a given. Perhaps we ought to ask the question about what experts had learned
from black boxes, and why suddenly everyone is silent about their content. And why around this story suddenly there was silence.
Downed aircraft perfectly fit the image of the "bad Russians" and "criminal separatists". Czech, and most importantly, the Western
media gladly sat down to write the comments.
- With what media and PR reputation Russia coma out of the Ukrainian crisis? The scientist Veronica Suchava-Salminen wrote
that the Arsenal of the Russian "soft power" virtually destroyed. Does Russia have a chance in the coming years to cause at least
some sympathy in the Western public? Conversely, can we say that the Russian public opinion hostility to the US and the West increased
to the maximum?
The question is How important for Russia's is Western public opinion, or she stopped being interested in it long ago? Russia is
able to pursue the classical "hard" propaganda. It never has the arsenal of soft power. Putin is an example of courage and determination,
on horseback, fishing, tigers, nuclear submarine... "Soft" propaganda is not very well done by Russians. They don't have it, and
most importantly, they have no such tradition, although Putin is advised by U.S. PR Agency. Soft power should be carried out systematically,
carefully, with knowledge of psychology. Russian propaganda relies on force. The United States, despite all its problems, seem to
the outside world to be the promised land. Russia, despite many successes, still looks cold dark Empire. But on the other hand, Russia
Today is an excellent start. The broadcast goes 24 hours a day in English, Russian, Arabic and Spanish. Audience of those channels
is over 1 billion people.
Speaking about the Russian media, of course, impossible to suppose that in the country there is pluralism in the Western sense.
What Putin has done over the years of his reign with the Russian media? What rules do they work, what to speak and write without
problems, and what is hard, what can be harassment?
Do you really mean there is pluralism in Western media? And if it exist can you explain in what particular form? The West has
reached the stage when (as a Russia) you can write on the Internet to whatever you want, but that nobody reads. And if somebody read,
they often do not believe and do not follow blindly. Russians may also, like you, travel freely, if they have the means. They can
do business and become bankrupt, can go to Church, can watch satellite TV and use censored words on the Internet. So what? Is this
a sign of citizen participation in the actual governance in the country, as implies by the word democracy? Active readers and strong,
authoritarian media, which we knew 30 years ago, has been replaced by indifference on the one hand and cynicism of managed media
with another. And in general, trolling and viral marketing changed the game and made everything suspicious. Today can be anywhere
- and we, in Russia - successfully manipulate the opinion of anybody. Without the ability to defend themselves.
Russian media world is a special subject. Yes, undoubtedly, for the most part it is not "anti-Putin", but, by the way, why would
it be so? Putin after a drunken Yeltsin, the first defender of Russian pride, power, before his arrival decaying, country. Putin
knows how to be creative with the media. And with those who intrude into his private life, he is able to quickly deal, which confirmed
the tabloid edition of "Moskovsky Korrespondent", which was closed after publishing an article about the fact that Putin to marry
a gymnast. Newspaper is unprofitable, said its owner. On the other hand, in addition to state television, Putin has created public
television, albeit without concession fees, as nobody willing to pay them in Russia. But with a guarantee of independence. By the
way, today Russia Today is one of the best news channels in the world, on the level of CNN and BBC. Russia is a country, which at
a cursory glance it is difficult to understand. It is a mixture of almost anarchic democracy and the rule of hard, sometimes very
hard hand. Democracy should not always mean freedom. Putin himself said about managed democracy, and this to some extent overlaps
with the essay by Fareed Zakariya "Illiberal democracy", published in the journal Foreign Affairs in early 1998.
Indeed, the Kremlin primarily controls the heads of state media and agencies. The head of the new Agency "Russia today", for example,
was the former head of channel Russia Today. However, the Kremlin has no impact on diverse media stream that exist in Russia and
never will. This, probably, is unfortunate. In old days at least it was clear that information published by any newspaper can't be
one hundred percent false. Now there is no such assurance. Money, lies and manipulation become a global weapon of mass destruction
of this civilization.
It will destroy America, and Russia. No one will believe anyone. Yes, this is the situation we are already face.
Psakism is on the rise... And psakism is not a legitimate part of our civilization, it is a cancer." "We are heading towards a media
future that is not worth having."
As with Nye Bevan and Conservatives so with me and PR departments:
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for
press officers. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."
Or as the BBC's economics editor Robert Peston put it in his recent Charles Wheeler lecture, "I have never been in any doubt that
PRs are the enemy."
Let me explain how they are the nearest thing to prostitutes you can find in public life. You might say that biased reporters
look more like sex workers, as they try to satisfy their readers' every whim. But there is a small difference. The biased journalist
occasionally tells the truth. He might produce propaganda, but his bias or that of his editor will cause him to investigate stories
conventional wisdom does not notice. Right-wing journalists uncover truths about corruption in the European Union. Left-wing journalists
discover truths about the crimes of Nato armies. They look at scandals others ignore precisely because they do not think like level-headed
and respectable members of the mainstream.
Press officers have no concern with truth. It is not that all of them lie - although many do - rather that truth and falsity are
irrelevant to their work. Their sole concern is to defend their employers' interests. That they can manipulate on behalf of central
government, local authority and other public bodies is an under-acknowledged scandal. The party in power that wishes to stop public
scrutiny, or the NHS trust whose executives wish to maintain their positions, use taxpayer funds to advance their personal or political
interests. If anyone else did the same, we would call them thieves.
It makes no difference who is in office. Conservatives complained about the spin and manipulation of New Labour but they are no
different now. Indeed they are playing tricks those of us who lived through the Blair years haven't seen before.
They withhold information from journalists in the hope of killing a story. If reporters publish nevertheless - as they should
- the government tells their editors and anyone else who will listen that they are shoddy hacks who failed to put the other side
of the story. An alternative tactic is for press officers to phone up at night, just after an article has appeared online, and try
to bamboozle late-duty editors into making changes. I have had the Crown Prosecution Service and the BBC try to pull that one on
me. That neither institution is in the political thick of it only goes to show that every dandruff-ridden PR in every backwater office
now thinks he is Alastair Campbell.
Politicians and senior civil servants do not rate state-sponsored propagandists by their ability to tell the public what is done
in their name with their money. Like corporate chief executives and celebrities, they judge them by their ability to keep uncomfortable
stories out of the press.
Compare PRs with other despised trades. Journalists have blown the whistle on journalistic malpractice. Bankers have blown the
whistle on financial malpractice. But I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his
government department or corporation manipulated public opinion.
Once you could have said that my comparison between press officers and prostitutes was unfair - to prostitutes. Poverty and drug
addiction drives women on to the street. Press officers are not heroin addicts or the victims of child abuse. Nor do the equivalent
of sex traffickers kidnap media studies graduates and force them to work in "comms". PRs do not do what they do because a cruel world
has left them with no alternative to selling their souls, but because they want to.
But that is no longer quite right. As the web destroys the media's business model, PR is where the jobs are. Students leave university
and go straight into PR or hang around newsrooms for a few years on internships and petty payments before giving up and joining the
former reporters in PR departments.
A profound shift in the balance of power is under way, and the advantage lies with those who can buy coverage. You can see it
on the screen and in the press. Television royal coverage is run by Buckingham Palace - I always tell foreigners that if they want
to know what Britain would look like if it were a dictatorship, they should watch how the BBC reports the monarchy. Travel journalism
is advertising in all but name. Press offices give travel "journalists" free holidays and they repay the favour in kind copy. Political
coverage is still of a high quality, but the state-funded BBC is always open to attack from the state's spin doctors. Meanwhile most
serious news, business and arts journalism remains clean, but Private Eye has reported anger among Daily Telegraph
journalists about the advertising department's attempts to influence what they write.
Such conflicts will grow. The web has made most newspapers imitate most television stations. They give away their content and
rely on advertising for an income. At the same time, the web has lowered the price of advertising by making a vast number of new
outlets available to advertisers. In his speech, which is worth reading in full online, Peston said: "News that is a disguised advert,
or has been tainted by commercial interests, is not worth the name." But the need for money is pushing newspapers into creating more
cloaked commercials.
Without sales revenue or conventional advertising revenue, media marketing departments are offering what they call "native" advertisements:
commercials disguised as news features. Peston says BBC executives are thinking of doing the same - though how they could hope to
retain public funding if they do is beyond me. Readers may not be aware that the videos they are watching or the stories they are
reading are "sponsored content", and that is the point. Manipulation works best when no one realises it is happening. PR departments
aren't just influencing or stifling news, but creating it, and passing off advertisements as independent journalism.
We are heading towards a media future that is not worth having. To avoid it we will need strict controls, backed by criminal
sanctions, against the use of public money for propaganda, and a popular revolt against a pestilential trade. A start could be made
by journalists. We should refuse to speak to press officers unless we intend to give them the ridicule and contempt they deserve.
Quote from comments: "This is trademark Abbott stuff. Aggression, thuggery, hate speech, violence and idiocy", And another telling
quote: "I have been living in Australia now for 25 years, never ever experienced that much propaganda in my life. Not even in communist
Hungary where I grew up. "
Now, several weeks on, Australia's achievements look decidedly more modest. In some cases they look more like mistakes….Russian
cooperation has evaporated in the face of persistent criticism, replaced by an embargo on Australian agricultural exports.
The broader conflict has escalated, and Ukraine faces the very real threat of invasion.
This is trademark Abbott stuff. Aggression, thuggery, hate speech, violence and idiocy; the IPA and News Ltd propaganda
are responsible for his election and must bear part of the resulting terror their fool is unleashing on the world stage.
There is no lack of evidence for what has bee perpetrated upon Australians and now the world via their pet rock, the R'Abbott
factor.
slorter, 19 August 2014 2:14am
The Western media fell in step with Washington and blamed the downed Malaysian airliner on Russia. No evidence was
provided.
Now we have the media story of the armored Russian column that allegedly crossed into Ukraine and was destroyed by Ukraine's
rag-tag forces. British reporters fabricated this story.
Abbott just a little boy milking it what it is worth as diversion to his disaster at home; he would not know what the truth
was he only reads the daily telegraph.
jezzam2 -> slorter, 19 August 2014 2:35am
Why would British reporters fabricate this story? If their fabrication is revealed, their careers are over. If connivance of
the Guardian is also revealed the reputation of the Guardian is destroyed. Oh I forgot - all western media are controlled by the
CIA/USA - only the Russian media are free.
oalexander -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 3:12am
Shaun Walker is still on board, Luke Harding still works ...
Rozina -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 5:53am
Harding was busted by his plagiarism of material from a Moscow-based English-language newspaper called The eXile.
The Guardian had to pay quite a sum of money to that paper and apologise as well.
At least Johann Hari did the decent thing when his plagiarism was exposed by leaving The Independent and returning his Orwell
Prize.
madeiranlotuseater -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 6:02am
The journalists did not fabricate the story. They reported that an armoured column some five or six kilometers away from the
border were heading in the direction of Ukraine. Next we hear is that half of it was destroyed inside Ukraine. Sort of two and
two makes five.
impleguest -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 6:29am
they fabricated the story because they were told to do so... they are still in their jobs because they complied with the
orders they received... they are not independent honest journalists - they are not independent honest journalists - they
are payed to write what the media needs in order to manipulate the public.
nishville -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 1:32pm
Oh I forgot - all western media are controlled by the CIA/USA - only the Russian media are free.
No, all mainstream media in the world are now controlled by the governments. The silver lining is that our controlled
media lies to us but the other controlled media occasionally gives us the truth our controlled media keeps away from us and vice
versa. With a little effort the big picture emerges.
sodtheproles -> oalexander, 19 August 2014 2:33pm
Even Walker no longer refers to the incursion. Perhaps because his career-making scoop ended up closer to be a career-ending
non-scoop
harryphilby -> jezzam2, 19 August 2014 4:53pm
If their fabrication is revealed, their careers are over.
Most British journalists get promoted on the basis of their fabrications. Assuming they favour the Bankers.
R_Ambrose_Raven -> Commentator6, 19 August 2014 2:56am
A little thought would assist.
Few commentators choose to recognise that the NATO/U.S. ruling class have in their conversion of the Ukraine into a client
state crossed what the Russians clearly see both in contemporary and historical terms as a "red line". Western geopolitics
have in fact never differentiated between USSR and Russia; it was regarded as an enemy then, it is regarded as an enemy now.
Russia sensibly wishes to ensure that the Eastern Ukraine remains a pro-Russian political force, as a buffer state. It will
have to fight NATO aggression at some stage; the further West, the better.
Successively more severe sanctions in fact make Russian intervention more likely; it has less to lose. Indeed, Putin would
have been better-advised to occupy the whole separatist region then have a referendum allowing either succession or reunion for
individual districts. It would have demonstrated both Russian power and fairness in a region full of prejudice, especially given
that the Crimea will always be an excuse for sanctions, hostility and containment.
As should be said repeatedly, note a few things with regard to the Ukraine today:
…1. there is not even a pretence that the current Ukrainian government is acting independently; all important decisions are clearly
made by NATO/EU, with the IMF's Austerity package for the people.
…2. the very willing use of force to suppress dissent in what is theoretically a democratic country, both in the East and in Maidan
Square itself. Not a word now about any investigation into whose snipers caused the protesters' deaths, either. Obviously the
Chinese will feel entitled to refer to the Ukrainian example.
…3. Unlike Syria and Iraq under leaders the West chose not to like, we hear nothing about how the Ukrainian government is
killing its own people.
…4. in contrast to Israel versus Gaza no-one is talking of one of the rabbis of the city of Kiev having recommended that given
Svoboda and Poroshenko, the Jews of Kiev leave the city and, if possible, the country.
…5. no-one is talking of the "responsibility to protect", either.
NewClearFiction, 19 August 2014 2:18am
I sincerely believe that Abbott jumped on this tragedy to big note himself, to look like a big tough leader of a nation
prepared to take on Russia, and in the process win himself accolades from the electorate.
Why he had to fly to the Netherlands to thank people was nothing more than a photo opportunity to raise his esteem in Australian
voter's eyes.
Now his and Bishop's rhetoric is ultimately damaging relationships with other countries demanding they also condemn Russia,
on top of which, we have now lost a trading partner which once again our farmers and business will bear the brunt of.
I am glad the Guardian is starting to see the broader picture of Tony Abbott's personal popularity campaign.
A missive from a parallel universe. To describe the response as diplomatic, is an act of supreme delusion. It was an ignorant
response from a group of parochial manservant's, with our worthless media cheerleading every despicable step. This was cynical
war mongering trash from the pathetic bottom feeders of the Anglo American Empire the Australian government.
They humiliated themselves with their farcical claim to know what had happened on day one. The response was in fact an appalling
and utterly cynical attempt to exploit the grief of the nation for their political aggrandisement.
On the MH17 matter, Abbott's misgovernment is working to serve American interests, the interests of ordinary Ukrainians
being irrelevant. It was easy to exploit such an obviously useful issue. There is not even a pretence that the current Ukrainian
government is acting independently; all important decisions are clearly made by NATO/EU, with the IMF's Austerity package for
the people. Unlike Syria and Iraq under leaders the West choose not to like, we hear nothing about how the Ukrainian government
is killing its own people; democracy is not available for non-Chinese separatists.
More alarmingly, Abbot the reactionary appears to share with Howard the warmonger an urge to pressure the U.S. into being more
aggressive, despite the cost of such behaviour in and for Iraq - to the U.S., as well.
So, Abbott has an enthusiasm for pursuing the "criminals" that is strikingly lacking in the non-pursuit of the murderers of
the Balibo Five. Yet the shooting down of MH17 was probably a mixture of haste plus mistaken identity. Whether people have decided
that "murder" is the way to go, or whether the media has persuaded them of it, the fact remains that the crew and passengers are
all dead, there is a war on, and those involved show no interest at all in the dozens of civilians dying every day with far fewer
roses than the media-exploited loss of MH17.
Recall that USS Vincennes recklessly shot down an Iranian civilian passenger jetliner, Iran Air Flight 655, over the Persian
Gulf on 3 July 1988, killing all 290 civilians on board (including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children). Captain David Carlson of
the Sides later said that the destruction of the Iranian airliner "marked the horrifying climax to Rogers' aggressiveness". He
was nevertheless rewarded with the Legion of Merit. America was directly involved - using an American missile - but it didn't
suffer. Note in particular, given the obsessing about blame, that the US never admitted legal responsibility. But of course those
killed weren't Westerners; like asylum-seekers, they are nothing. However, it eventually paid compensation to Iran, after Iran
sued the US in the International Court of Justice.
Obviously the difference emphasises general governmental contempt for human rights - the West wants to get Putin, whereas the
Australian governments wanted to keep Soeharto on side (just as Abbott and Border Generalissimo-MP Morrison want to keep Sri Lanka
and PNG on side).
PeterSchmidt -> R_Ambrose_Raven, 19 August 2014 4:43am
Or look at how NATO worked in the past and now:
NATO's war in Libya was proclaimed as a humanitarian intervention - bombing in the name of "saving lives." Attempts at diplomacy
were stifled. Peace talks were subverted.
Libya was barred from representing itself at the UN, where shadowy NGOs and "human rights" groups held full sway in
propagating exaggerations, outright falsehoods, and racial fear mongering that served to sanction atrocities and ethnic cleansing
in the name of democracy. The rush to war was far speedier than Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Max Forte has scrutinized the documentary history from before, during, and after the war. He argues that the war on
Libya was not about human rights, nor entirely about oil, but about a larger process of militarizing U.S. relations with Africa.
The development of the Pentagon's Africa Command, or AFRICOM, was in fierce competition with Pan-Africanist initiatives such
as those spearheaded by Muammar Gaddafi.
Far from the success NATO boasts about or the "high watermark" proclaimed by proponents of the "Responsibility to Protect,"
this war has left the once prosperous, independent and defiant Libya in ruin, dependency and prolonged civil strife.
Australia played a role assigned to it by the US. The Australian government might have been very enthusiastic to play
it but being keen does not change its provenance.
It might have been useful internally. But, unless there is an election just
round the corner, the short - term increase in support is just that and will fizzle out.
The main objective of the US policy was to use MH17 for completing the takeover of Ukraine. Clearly, there was no intent to
find out what had happened. MH17 incident was a political opportunity to checkmate Russia and it was seized.
If Ukraine was behind the MH17 incident (which I consider highly likely), the propaganda frenzy tried to cover it up. The immediate
and heavy bombardment of the crash site by Ukraine killed off any possibility of an investigation and looked intentional. In and
by itself, absence of any reaction to Ukraine bombardment appeared peculiar, to say the least.
Of course, 'suspicious', 'odd', and 'peculiar' events have been a permanent characteristic of the movement that has led to
the current Ukraine government.
All this is water under the bridge. The question to consider is whether it was worth it. For the moment, the answer appears
to be in the negative.
The West acted like an inebriated football fan who wanted to beat up someone in the pub for the heck of it. Rage and fury it
displayed looked synthetic. It is not time yet to assess the damage, but it does not look pretty.
JJRichardson -> Raminak101 19 August 2014 3:38am
You consider it "highly likely" that Ukraine was behind MH17. Why? And you claim of "immediate and heavy bombardment" is not true.
coober -> JJRichardson 19 August 2014 3:53am
It is as clear as crystal that Kiev Ukraine Government sent MH17 into an active war zone to be shot down.
itchyvet 19 August 2014 7:33am
Quote :
The Abbott government has received considerable praise for its diplomatic response to the tragic downing of MH17. While
other countries vacillated, Canberra galvanised an international response by making clear its anger at the perpetrators and
their supporters. It secured hasty passage of a UN Security Council resolution."
Unquote.
Um, excuse me, Guardian Editor and Mr. Heinrichs, are you serious ? Of course the name of the writer tells us a lot too.
Diplomatic response ? How diplomatic is it, for a country thousands of miles away from the event, to jump and make UNSUBSTANITATED
claims against another country that is not even on our radar. Not only that, but applies to the U.N. to make application for sanctions
AGAIN, WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDANCE to support such claims ???? Such behavior today is called in the Guardian "Diplomatic" ? WOW,
we can certainly see the biases here, even if the editor and the writer were unable to.
O.K. Guardian, seeings as you are so fond of laying blame, please explain to the rest of the World, why we have not seen
or heard a scerick of information regarding the black boxes from this aircraft, that is supposed to be in British hands for downloading.
Funny how that subject seems to have disappeared off the radar these days, no doubt the same writer or editor could give us an
explanation for this missing information.
On August 9, the Malaysian New Straits Times published an article charging the Kiev regime with shooting down MH17. It stated
that evidence from the crash site indicated that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter with a missile followed by
heavy machine gun fire.
While it is too early to say conclusively how MH17 was shot down, the preponderance of the evidence points directly
at the Ukrainian regime and, behind them, the American government and the European powers. They created the conditions
for the destruction of MH17, backing the fascist-led coup in Kiev this February that brought the current pro-Western regime
to power. The Western media then supported the Kiev regime's war to suppress opposition to the putsch in east Ukraine, turning
the region into a war zone in which MH17 was then shot down.
jezzam2 -> PeterSchmidt 19 August 2014 8:10am
Is this a change of tack from Moscow? Separatists did shoot down the Malaysian airliner but it's the West's fault because they
created the conditions for this to happen.
PeterSchmidt -> jezzam2 19 August 2014 8:18am
The plane was shot down by the Ukrainian forces. Rebels have been reporting Ukrainians war planes using commercial airliners as
covers for their bombing campaign. Go to Eastern Europe, talk to people. Despite the western media's propaganda, no one believes
the Ukrainians.
I have been living in Australia now for 25 years, never ever experienced that much propaganda in my life. Not even in communist
Hungary where I grew up.
Quote: "The Western media have proved for all to see that the Western media comprises either a collection of ignorant and incompetent
fools or a whorehouse that sells war for money. "
Ukraine is becoming Libya on steroids. At least Libya has a future once their wars are over due to its oil deposits, while the
Ukraine appears to be a broken and unsustainable corrupted state. Sad.
The colluding Western media, which includes Mr and Mrs Guardian, have finally got what they seem to have been wanting all along
-- the ethnic cleansing of E. Ukraine.
For supporters of ethnic and religious minorities around the world, the year 2014 has
irrevocably exposed the phoney liberalism of the established MSM, including the Guardian.
They are all fakes.
They simulate liberalism while supporting the death brigades of fascistoid groups like Right Sector.
We do not need this kind of media. Better to close it down.
Hermius, 18 August 2014 7:39pm
Russia to ask UN to make MH17 crash investigation report
Russia will ask the UN Secretariat to brief the Security Council on the progress in the investigation of the MH17 crash in
Ukraine, Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said on Monday.
"We will request that the Secretariat hold a briefing on progress in the implementation of [UN Security Council] Resolution
2166 [which requires an independent investigation into the cause of the accident]. A month has passed since the Malaysian
liner was destroyed. Paragraph 13 of the resolution requires the secretary-general to provide the Security Council with investigation
progress reports. We hope that this will happen already today," the diplomat said, responding to a question from ITAR-TASS.
The Western media have proved for all to see that the Western media comprises either a collection of ignorant and incompetent
fools or a whorehouse that sells war for money.
The Western media fell in step with Washington and blamed the downed Malaysian airliner on Russia. No evidence was provided.
In its place the media used constant repetition. Washington withheld the evidence that proved that Kiev was responsible. The media's
purpose was not to tell the truth, but to demonize Russia.
Now we have the media story of the armored Russian column that allegedly crossed into Ukraine and was destroyed by Ukraine's
rag-tag forces that ISIS would eliminate in a few minutes. British reporters fabricated this story or were handed it by a
CIA operative working to build a war narrative. The disreputable BBC hyped the story without investigating. The German media,
including Die Welt, blared the story throughout Germany without concern at the absence of any evidence. Reuters news agency, also
with no investigation, spread the story. Readers tell me that CNN has been broadcasting the fake story 24/7.
Although I cannot stand to watch it, I suspect Fox "news" has also been riding this lame horse hard. Readers tell me that my
former newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, which has fallen so low as to be unreadable, also spread the false story. I hope they
are wrong. One hates to see the complete despoliation of one's former habitat.
PavelDragunov, 18 August 2014 7:58pm
Ukraine has become a failed state.
- Total losses of Ukies for now are more than 24 000 people (dead, wounded and deserters);
- Almost no airplanes left;
- Hundreds of tanks, APCs, and etc. transferred from nazis to antifascists;
- The Ukie economy is a broke, no money, no industry, no trade, and etc.;
- Mafiosi-oligarchs don't follow any orders from so called "President", and etc.
And The Guardian is talking about antifascists losing the battle? – It's hilarious
Dozens of people, including women and children, were reported to have been killed on Monday when the convoy carrying refugees
was hit by rocket fire near the eastern city of Luhansk, a Ukrainian military spokesman said. Government forces and pro-Russia
rebels were quick to accuse each other of the attack on the vehicles.
This kind of "unbiased" reporting is in vogue when the probability is 99:1 that the Ukranian forces was behind the attack.
It is clear the the US neocons (which actually dominate State Department) want to use both
MH17 tragedy and
Ukrainian crisis as a whole to bully Russia. This
article is no exception. Jeffrey Stacey expresses his primitive liner neocons views in other his articles too -- see
whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva . John Herbst was
United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003
to May 2006, period which includes Color revolution which preceded EuroMaidan --
Orange revolution. So he can be called the Godfather of Orange Revolution.
Comments to article are really interesting, which can't be said about the article itself. It is standard neocon view on Russia.
The international community is at long last beginning to take a strong stand against Moscow's aggression in eastern Ukraine. There
is solid evidence indicating not only that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian-aided rebels in eastern Ukraine,
but that the Kremlin has bolstered the rebels with heavy artillery despite toughened Western sanctions. Moreover, Russia has massed
over 45,000 soldiers near the eastern Ukrainian border, who are poised to undertake a "humanitarian operation." The large convoy
of trucks Russia is sending to aid rebel-held Lugansk could prove to be a thinly disguised Trojan horse, setting off a major showdown
once it arrives at the border.
President Vladimir Putin's double game has only ramped up since the downing of MH17, in response to the recent gains Ukraine's
military forces have been making against the rebels. After a turning-point victory in liberating the strategic town of Slavyansk
last month, the Ukrainian military has gone on to retake three-fourths of its lost territory and is now pounding the last two major
rebel strongholds, Donetsk and Lugansk. Many of these rebels are not just pro-Russian sympathizers, they are full-fledged Russian
citizens -- including some notorious bad apples like Igor Strelkov and Vladimir Antyufeyev, whom Russia previously used in not-so-subtle
attempts to destabilize former members of the Warsaw Pact. Now Moscow is also aiding them by firing artillery across the border at
Ukrainian forces attempting a final rout of the rebels.
The time has come for the West to make a decisive move to counter Putin's irregular war against Ukraine. The Russian president
has introduced a perilous new norm into the international system, namely that it is legitimate to violate the borders of other countries
in order to "protect" not just ethnic Russians, but "Russian speakers" -- with military means if necessary. Putin has notoriously
threatened to annex Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory of Moldova, inter alia. The Putin Doctrine represents a serious
transgression of the status quo that has guaranteed the continent's security since the end of World War II; moreover, it violates
the most essential tenet of the post-1945 international order.
The aim of Western actions must involve compelling Russia to end all support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine and ensure complete
respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity. In order to bring about this result -- and ensure Moscow does not continue its dangerous
double game -- a comprehensive approach is needed. It should consist of three elements: even tougher economic sanctions; military
armaments to Ukraine; and an updated NATO strategy. The combined effect of this approach is to persuade the Kremlin that the cost
of its Ukraine adventure and aggressive pursuit of the Putin Doctrine is too high.
The West has imposed economic sanctions on Russia for the past several months, but the results thus far have been feeble. The
problem is partly that the sanctions started small and were only slowly ratcheted up. Moreover, European sanctions have been noticeably
weaker than U.S. measures, feeding Putin's calculation that he can continue to act as he chooses, while a reluctant Europe hesitates
to impose sufficiently punishing measures.
The sanctions that the United States and the European Union put in place on July 29, however, are strong enough to get Moscow's
attention. Indeed, despite Russia's counter-sanctions on European and American food products, Putin is witnessing the failure of
his efforts to split Europe from the United States -- not to mention the larger failure of preventing Kiev's new government from
tilting to the West. But these measures have not been enough to actually deter Russia from continuing to intervene in eastern Ukraine.
The West needs to make clear that the latest sanctions will not be the last if Moscow's aggression is not rapidly terminated.
The second part of a comprehensive strategy is to make it easier for Ukraine to re-establish control in its restive east. Since
his late-May election, President Petro Poroshenko has conducted a successful counteroffensive against the rebels in eastern Ukraine.
His forces have resealed a significant part of its eastern border and taken back much of the territory seized by the rebel forces.
But as Poroshenko's troops have advanced, Moscow has increased the amount and sophistication of military supplies to Ukraine, including
the SA-11 surface-to-air missile system that shot down MH17 and the SA-13 system. Thus far, his multiple requests for direct lethal
aid have only met with reluctance in Brussels and Washington.
The West has dithered under the assumption that providing lethal aid to Ukraine would escalate the conflict. But a sanctions-dominant
approach clearly has not prevented escalation. Indeed, with France's determination to sell the Mistral ships to Russia, the West
is in the peculiar position of arming the aggressor and forbidding arms to the victim. If Russia does not cease firing missiles at
Ukrainian forces and supplying the rebels with arms and equipment, and does not pull troops back from the border within two weeks,
the West should begin supplying Ukraine proper with anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missile batteries, and a variety of additional
infantry weaponry. And it should immediately threaten to do even more if Russia invades eastern Ukraine -- including inviting Kiev
to join NATO.
The third element of a comprehensive strategy against Moscow requires a clear-eyed understanding of the Putin Doctrine. His stated
right to "protect" Russian speakers is an invitation to intervene along Russia's border in all directions, including in the territory
of America's NATO allies in the Baltics and elsewhere. For this reason, Washington's response must involve a new approach at NATO
for managing the Russian relationship. The NATO-Russia Joint Doctrine that concluded in the late 1990s, which saw Russia as a partner,
and which spoke of not building military infrastructure in the new NATO members or permanently deploying major military equipment
and forces, needs to be reviewed. Publicly.
The small steps taken earlier this year to reassure NATO's eastern members -- Baltic air policing, NATO maritime movements, several
small-scale NATO exercises, placement of U.S. and Western European aircraft around the Baltics and in Poland, and the deployment
of a company of U.S. paratroopers to Poland -- need substantial reinforcing. If Russia fails to respond to tougher sanctions, pointed
diplomacy, and lethal aid supplied to the Ukraine military, the allies must take further measures at September's NATO summit in Wales.
It would be prudent to follow up NATO's suspension of cooperation with Russia with an official review, with one of the options
being maintaining the suspension and another being to end it and all other forms of cooperation. Because Washington still needs Moscow's
help with a handful of key things (missile defense, Iran negotiations, Syria peace talks, and agreeing to rules governing cyberwarfare),
the aim would be to list ending the NATO-Russia Council as an option -- but with the unstated intention of not actually following
through. As NATO's Deputy Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow has been arguing, Russia has begun treating the United States and
the alliance as an adversary. This is why we need to go beyond suspension and dangle complete cessation, even if for the time being
we don't plan to make good on this threat.
Regarding NATO's troop placement, however, the United States needs to use this as the major means of reassuring our allies. It
would be a good idea to bring the level of U.S. troops in Eastern Europe up to 1,000 from the temporary placement of 600 paratroopers
(this could include 100 to 150 "soft forces," such as trainers). Washington also needs to do its best to get the Western Europeans
to add to this total. To entice the Europeans to match the U.S. commitment, Washington should propose not permanent placement but
a perpetual rotational arrangement. This way, the reddish line of permanent placement would not be crossed, but NATO would nonetheless
achieve upgraded deterrence capability, while mollifying Poland and the Baltics.
Eastern European nations such as Poland are likely to welcome and add to increased capabilities commitments; Western Europeans
nations, however, are far more hesitant. Direct lethal aid and a regularized rotational U.S.-Europe troop placement will go most
of the way toward re-establishing conventional deterrence against Moscow. But to go all the way, Western allies also need to conduct
a yearly exercise in Poland (and make announcements that in future years this new major exercise will be taking place in the Baltic
states). This should be a major ground-air exercise of the NATO Response Force (NRF), with a military plan for defending an invasion
from the east.
Regarding military capabilities, the United States should endorse both the German proposal to organize clusters of allies that
would increase their military capabilities and Britain's proposal that would align Western allies to spearhead NATO military operations
beyond what the current NRF plans call for. It is worth remembering that crude measures like the level of overall defense spending
are far less important than the current state of military capabilities, which lately have been enhanced even by Western allies that
have reduced their defense spending (e.g. France, Britain, and Germany). Furthermore, the alliance ought to augment its operational
air force capabilities to be able to conduct 30-day air operations like the one carried out in Libya in 2011 (with the necessary
fighter aircraft, flight crews, refueling aircraft, drones, and satellite surveillance). NATO needs to be thinking of capabilities
in the full spectrum of land, naval, air, and cyber-power, and air capability is the biggest gap.
Indeed, the time has come for the West to take an even stronger stand against Russian aggression and force Putin to back down
and end this crisis. The West should proceed with a fuller slate of toughened sanctions, targeting all major sectors of the Russian
economy -- virtually all of their products and services -- and a full-fledged embargo against transferring any arms or defense technology
to Russia. Tightening the economic screws is still a major element of a successful strategy to get Russia to cease and desist. But
this is not enough.
The Russian president needs to be deterred from annexing other contested territories, like Transnistria, and reinforcing his ugly
new international relations norm by deeply interfering in the internal affairs of other national states, such as the Baltics. This
will require a series of additional and stronger military moves on the European chessboard. Let Crimea be the apogee of revanchist
Russian aggrandizement. It is time for global security and international law to push back strongly against bellicose Russian dictates.
Selected Comments
poncejorge
Dear authors,
After reading the first paragraph of your paper one can realize the astounding lack of academic analysis behind it. Without
going into deep analysis it can be easily pointed out that what you call as "international community" is mostly EU and affiliates
- Norway as an example, the US, Australia and someway somehow Japan. The rest of the world is not on board. By your surprise the
"rest" of the world comprises China (1.3 billion people), India (1.2 billion), LATAM (600 + million), and so on. As you can see,
what you call as the international community does not even account for 1 billion people. Instead of instigating and advocating
for war you should realize that Eurocentric (and US centric views) (see Edward Said) are rapidly fading into the past and like
most US policies of the past century they may create a blowback effect (see Charles Johnson). Secondly, if you want to accuse
someone of doing something first of all you have to present proofs of it. That is a basic principle that can be easily traced
back to Roman times (2,000 years ago). What you call as "strong evidences" (shooting down of the Malaysian plane) are nothing
else than bluff without proofs. "I believe" does not count as proof, nobody cares about what you believe, we care about what evidence
you have. Furthermore, if you have the audacity to trash a country as big and powerful as Russia - and its leadership- (6th world
biggest economy, and...full of atomic bombs!) without solid proofs you should realize that instead of creating an atmosphere for
dialog you are fomenting bickering and misunderstanding to say the least.
My advice is to stop acting as if you have any moral ground (Vietnam, Irak, Afghanista, invasion of Mexico, and so on proofs that
you are not better than anyone, just like the rest, and accepting that will maybe make you come to terms with yourself and clear
up your analysis) and understand that the world does not work under presumptions, nor is black or white. Stop advocating for war
and start understanding that each country acts on its on interest, and that the US or the EU do not have the right to impose its
mores on everyone else (no one has the right, nor china, russia, brazil etc, but unfortunately the EU - Spain, France, Uk mostly,
and the US has a long history of meddling in everyone affairs, first under open colonial format (Spain, France, UK) and later
under disguised moralistic pretenses (US).
Best regards,
A Citizen of the world who is tired of watching fellow humans died without a reason and watching how the media sells itself
to that purpose.
Klopezdron
Jeffrey,
Russians/Putin are responsible for downing of the Malaysian airplane? Come again please.
Why don't you charge Putin with Kennedy assassination and the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa while you're at it.
Oligan
You've chosen wrong Bully, dear authors.
I'm Russian married to a French, I live in France and don't watch russian TV. I never supported Putin and in February was really
glad for Ukranians. Since then me (as well as many of those who can read in Russian and talk to people from the region) have changed
my opinion dramatically - the deeds of so called Ukranian army on the east are terrible!!!
They bomb civilians all the time, they use nazys, they punish those civilians who have relatives in protestants army, and
on top those bastards in Kiev lie all the time - it is obvious for any person who has a brain, you don't have to listen to Putin's
propaganda to see it. Ukranian revolution has turned from the step to western civilization into the most barbarian war since
1941, and it is not only Putin who is in charge of it.
But you are so stubborn, it is amazing. You believe any bullshit that proves your fears (somebody said something on facebook
- wow!), and ignore facts that does not fit the concept. Frankly speaking, when I read articles like this I see no difference
between Putin's propaganda and yours. And I see no difference between Putin's support of separatists and yours support of Ukranian
army. If you think that people in Donets and Lugansk will happily live with Kiev after what they've done to them - well, it says
a lot about your competence as an experts.
So - go both to hell with your military calls.
Sergey Aleksandrychev
@Oligan, you see no difference between Putin's "propaganda" and Ukrainian/American lies? The best propaganda is telling
truth, that's why Putin's propaganda is gaining the upper hand.
I have not seen in the Western media or at Psaki's meetins any evidence of Putin's military support to the rebels. They are
not separatists. They have always lived on this land, and they defend it against the gang of murderers who came to power in Kiev
and consider the people of Eastern Ukrain "subhumans".
rosavo
I doubt western leaders schooled at the tradition of pol cor guilt will do help eastern allies against Russian revisionism,
it's up to us in the east to do this.
as about Transnistria things are more complex since Stalin after the war took big parts from Romania, Poland and Russia and
included them into Ukraine. to compensate Moldova for losing southern regions and Bukovina to Ukraine it added Transnistria to
Moldova, integrating a huge Russian-speaking population of non-Russians (that nevertheless identify themselves with Russian identity
and culture) into Moldova. I honestly prefer Transnistria to be integrated in Russia, otherwise they will act in Moldova as a
fifth column, as we see now the pro-Russians doing in eastern Ukraine.
oguv
When you say bully, do you mean the Russians or US/EU/Nato?
natrium
The reference to "solid evidence" means a shortage of proof. By the way, the US introduced a perilous new norm into
the international system - to make regimes inside the borders of other countries crashed. The ukrainian civil war is the reaction
to such US invading.
Ildus
Overly simplistic analysis.
musicmaster
Ukraine is refusing to release the conversation of the plane with the control tower and the radar images of the control
tower and the US is refusing to release its satellite and radar images. Kiev clearly has something to hide and that makes them
the primary suspect.
Yet the article starts with the claim that the rebels did it. This lie made me skip the rest of the article.
Shingo
This article is another very thinly disguised piece of neocon propaganda. There are so many assumptions and claims
made in this article that have never been proven, but form the basis for the piece.
There is solid evidence indicating not only that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian-aided rebels in eastern
Ukraine
Actually there isn't. The only thing that has been presented is a prima facie case, but the US government, who was surely monitoring
the area closely at the time the plane was attacked, have refused to produce one iota of evidence. When challenged to produce
evidence, the State Department has pointed to social media, insisting that their evidence is too sensitive to share with the public.
Robert Parry has reported that his sources at the CIA and NSA refute the claim that the rebels were responsible.
Moreover, Russia has massed over 45,000 soldiersnear the eastern Ukrainian border, who are poised to undertake a "humanitarian
operation."
And what is the basis of this claim other than pure speculation? What is the evidence that the aid intended for the rebel-held
areas is a Trojan horse?
in response to the recent gains Ukraine's military forces have been making against the rebels.
The alleged gains made by the Ukraine's military forces have proven to be entirely fictional. In fact, from all the reports
I have seen, it is Kiev which at tremendous costs has achieved exactly nothing. They suffered enormous losses in the Southern
Cauldron. The re-taking of Saur Mogila has been marketed as a turning point victory, along with all the other so called turning
point victories that amounted to nothing. Add to this the very persistent rumors and hints by various commanders on the ground
that a big counter-offensive is in the works and the Ukies might well have reached a breaking point.
Putin has notoriously threatened to annex Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory of Moldova, inter alia.
This is a lie. Putin has not threatened anything of the kind. And how is it that the authors insist this should be NATO's problem
when the Ukraine is not part of NATO? This whole crisis is the consequence of the US violating the promise not to extend NATO
further eastward beyond Germany. The US would not accept a foreign military power installing bases along it's borders and nor
should Russia.
Stacey and Herbst also trivially dismiss the EU's own concerns and argue the EU should put it's own interests aside for the
sake of giving Putting a bloody nose. But the fact is that sanctions have backfired. The EU is now returning to recession while
he Russian economy continues to grow.
Putin's efforts to split Europe from the United States have not been a failure, they are only 2 weeks old, so Stacey and Herbst's
argument that his efforts have failed are premature. The new economic agreements between Russia and the BRICS countries has exposed
the limits of Western power to isolate Russia without shooting itself in the foot.
As for the Poroshenko's forces, they are at breaking point and time is running out for them. The longer this conflict continues,
the less likely their chance of success.
If Russia does not cease firing missiles at Ukrainian forces
What evidence is there that Russia has fired missiles at Ukrainian forces? What's more, it's odd that Stacey and Herbst suggest
the West should begin supplying Ukraine proper with anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missile batteries when they already have
them. They have close to a dozen SA-11 surface-to-air missile systems that allegedly shot down MH17. Indeed, the Ukrainian military
moved one launcher into the area the day before MH17 was shot down.
It's also grossly hypocritical that Stacey and Herbst object to Russia's stated right to "protect" Russian speakers when the
US has done the same in Iraq.
In the end, Stacey and Herbst are complaining about the lack of action taken by the West against Putin while admitting that
the West don't have many options short of going to war.
mkham11
KIEV: The one thing Ukraine needs that could quickly end this torture is HARM missiles. The dozens of Russian Buks, Stelas,
now Tunguska missile trucks in the Donbas that are crippling Ukr air power could be destroyed in short order by the radar-targeting
air to ground missiles. Able to run full air ops again, Ukraine could stamp out these cockroaches and take back the East in 2-3
weeks, IF they would close the border. There is still a significant threat from all the shoulder mounted infrared AA missiles,
but the long range ones are more significant. There's some evidence that Russia has even shipped the S-300 AA rockets, which can
reach planes 200km away!
@mkham11 The one thing Ukraine needs that could quickly end this torture is HARM missiles
Do you seriously the Russians don't have something to deal with radar-targeting air to ground missiles? The Russians have managed
to paralyze Western military radar systems effortlessly.
Able to run full air ops again, Ukraine could stamp out these cockroaches and take back the East in 2-3 weeks, IF they would
close the border.
If who would close the border? You have no idea what you are talking about. For decades, ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine
travelled to Russia to work. Those borders are purely artificial.
Boomerang83
I have never read such garbage. US/EU/NATO are the bullies constantly demonizing Russia through a web of lies and deceit. Every
recent event since the violent and brutal overthrow of the democratically elected government in Kiev (by a group of far right
neo nazi thugs funded by US) has been orchestrated and choreographed to make Putin look like the aggressor. Western media outlets
slavishly follow a prepared narrative, irrespective of the truth, to further some political agenda....the expansion of NATO in
Europe.
The hypocrisy of the US is nauseating...sticking their nose in where they are not wanted, masquerading as the world's guardian
of morals while they turn to poison everything they touch..Iraq, Libya, Egypt, US badly needs a war because they are bankrupt
to the tune of trillions of dollars; Putin meanwhile is looking eastwards with the BRICS initiative which will eventually bypass
the dollar as the world reserve currency....and Obama sees the writing on the wall!
Every ploy is being used to goad Russia into a military conflict...all the bare faced lies emanating from Ukraine from the
Malaysian air disaster (interesting how everybody in the West has gone all quiet on this one...even though they were accusing
Russia within hours of the event. Moscow produced satellite images clearly showing presence of Ukrainian fighter jets close to
aircraft at time of 'accident'.
US with all their satellite technology weren't prepared to reveal what they saw....we all know why! And latest attempt is the
'Russian invasion' of Ukraine. remind me again, how many tanks where there! Please don't insult people's intelligence.
Even the dogs in the street know what Ukraine and their puppet masters in US/EU are up to!. Meanwhile the Russian speaking
thousands of people of eastern Ukraine are being obliterated in a ferocious onslaught from it's own government...and the West
remains silent. Enough said!
Shingo
@ellsid @Boomerang83
If anything the U.S. EU and NATO response to Russia's INVASION of a sovereign country have been pathetically weak.
There was no invasion. Name the date the invasion took place.
The U.S. you love to hate gives more aid to the world than any other country
Most of which is military aid, which amounts to a boondoggle for US arms manufacturers. And no, the US did not bail out Russia.
Yes, the same criminal who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers, whose 'family' and friends ran one of the most corrupt
regimes (next to Putin's) in Europe.
All that happened is that the control of the UKraine has passed from one group of oligarchs who stole billions from Ukraine's
coffers to another group who stole billions from Ukraine's coffers. The Ukraine is as corrupt now as it was then.
Your really have no clear understanding of what Maidan was about. It had everything to do with the citizens of Ukraine wanting
to be rid of their corrupt thieving government.
If that were true, the demonstrations would have ended when Yanukovych was ousted, but they continued. The only thing that
changed is that the US media stopped reporting these demonstrations and the neo Nazis who sabotaged the demonstrations and took
power then outlawed subsequent demonstrations.
The demonstrators in Maidan were being paid $50 a day from Nuland's $5 billion dollar fund to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
I guess that kind of backfired for when Putin next sets his sites on reconquering the Baltic countries or Poland.
How can it have backfired when Putin has not tried to reconquering the Baltic countries or Poland. The fact is that neo cone
lovers and Russophobes like you have been predicting that Russia was about to invade for months now, and you've been wrong.
That's why Poroshenko and the Kiev junta keep coming up with BS stories about cross borders skirmishes, because he is desperately
trying to convince the world that the Russians are about to invade.
Those were indigenous revolts against tyrant leaders, which hopefully may one day come to Russian soil
Indigenous revolts that were not only undemocratic, but illegal. What's more, they were sabotaged by extremists with the original
demonstrators being sidelined. Egypt has become a dictatorship with even the supporters of the Morsi overthrow afraid of being
imprisoned for criticizing the junta. Libya had has been destroyed and taken over by Jihadists.
.the Kremlin has dropped this line when it was pointed out to them these were GROUND ATTACK aircraft that could not fly
at this attitude and could not carry air to air missiles.
False. Those aircraft could indeed fly at 30,000 feet and are designed to carry missiles. They tend to operate at lower altitudes
when bombing ground targets, but that doesn't mean they are not capable of cruising at higher altitudes.
You're the moron for trying to argue from the position of such ignorance.
"Strelkov"/ Girkin, Borodai, and all the Russian citizens sent in to lead the insurgency all lamented the lack of support
the Russia sponsored mercenaries received from the local population.
Rubbish, You have it completely backwards. It is the local population that is behind the insurgency. In fact, they have lamented
the lack of support from Russia, not the other way around. Putin has no desire to recreate "Novorossiya", otherwise Moscow would
never had given recognition to the new regime in Kiev. Putin knows that the Ukraine is an economic basket case and whoever wins
it loses because it's a poisoned chalice.
Shingo
@ellsid @Boomerang83
Anyone who thinks Maidan ended crony capitalism and the reign of the oligarchs are delusional.
And just to prove that you haven't done any research but are simply parroting talking points you read on some right wing web
site, here is evidence the top cruising altitude of a Su-25 is 10km, the same as a passenger plane.
If anyone has been hibernating under a slimy rock it's you. You should also get over your crush' on Neuland and the necons
because they have a track record of lying, being wrong about everything and creating chaos and destruction.
marty martel
Previous US ambassador Anne Patterson to Pakistan wrote in a secret review in 2009 that 'Pakistan's Army and ISI are covertly
SPONSORING four militant groups - Haqqani's HQN, Mullah Omar's QST (Quetta Shura Taliban), Al Qaeda and LeT - and will not abandon
them for any amount of US money', diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show. Amb. Patterson had NO reason to mislead her own
State Department or US government.
Admiral Mike Mullen told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 22-Sept-2011 that: 'The fact remains that the Quetta Shura
and the Haqqani Network operate from Pakistan with impunity. (These) Extremist organizations serving as PROXIES of the government
of Pakistan are attacking Afghan troops and civilians as well as U.S. soldiers.' Adm. Mullen had NO reason to mislead US Senate.
In 'Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War' published in January, 2014, former defense secretary Gates writes: "Although I would
defend them (Pakistanis) in front of Congress and to the press to keep the relationship from getting worse – and endangering our
supply line from Karachi – I knew they were really no ally at all." So Gates in effect, kept lying to US Congress and press and
thereby to the whole World that Pakistan was an ally when it was anything but.
However not just administration but most of the American foreign policy wonks and news media have been deafeningly silent about
Pakistani State waging Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan that has been killing thousands of innocent Afghans since 2001.
marty martel
It has been interesting that while raising such a public hue and cry over Russia's support of Ukrainian insurgents, US government,
foreign policy wonks and news media have sought to varnish, suppress and even reward similar behavior of Pakistani State that
has been playing duplicitous game of 'running with the Haqqani/Mullah Omar's Taliban insurgents while hunting with the American
hounds'.
There has been NO doubt in US establishment about from where the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is being waged that has
been killing not just thousands of innocent Afghan civilians but US/NATO/Afghan troops as well since 2001.
"For twenty years Pakistan's army - the real power broker in the country - has backed the Afghan Taliban. It helped create
the Taliban's Islamic Emirate in the 1990s and build the al-Qaeda state within a state. The army has provided safe haven, arms,
expertise and other help to Taliban. It briefly pretended to abandon Taliban to avoid American anger in 2001 misleading George
W Bush", so said an ex-CIA official Bruce Riedel at an US Islamic World Forum organized in Qatar on June 9-11, 2013.
Quote: "As for Shaun Walker...Shouldn't he forced to resign just as Judy Miller was forced out after the WMD fiasco...after all,
his claims are an attempt to lead the country to war. Isn't that a crime? "
Think about this for a minute: Poroshenko issues a statement saying Ukrainian troops destroyed a Russian convoy of armored vehicles
on Thursday. If that's true, then it is an act of war by Russia.
At the same time, he hasn't used the convoy incident to deny Russian humanitarian convoy from entering the country. Why?
Yes, I know the Red Cross convoy is still at the border, but the fact is Poroshenko hasn't pointed to the destruction of invading
Russian armored vehicles to defend his decision. In fact, he hasn't even brought it up. Why? If you were in his shoes, you'd cut
off all relations with Moscow and close the borders AND DECLARE A STATE OF WAR. Wouldn't you?
This just shows that the whole Russian convoy deal is a complete fabrication.
These fu**ers rattle off so many lies, they can't even keep track of what they said a day earlier. It is truly pathetic.
As for Shaun Walker...Shouldn't he forced to resign just as Judy Miller was forced out after the WMD fiasco...after all, his
claims are an attempt to lead the country to war. Isn't that a crime?
August 5, 2014 |The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
How does the Obama administration frame the issue on the shootdown of the Malaysian Airliner to pin the blame on Putin? Get
out early, go hard, go heavy, get your mainstream ducks in a row and dominate, dominate, dominate!
But what about the narrative falling apart? Will anyone hear the lone tree falling in the forest? If the US provided some evidence
we would certainly consider it.
The CIA has plenty of decent and excellent analysts who refuse to sign off on the administration's attempt to politicize intelligence
to fit the White House's regime change agenda. Will any of them risk their career and speak out?
RPI Director Daniel McAdams and Jay Taylor discuss the big stories of the week here:
All right, one swallow does not a summer make, but I noticed this weekend in my forays through the German online papers that
one is now moderating out most comments which are pro-Putin (SPIEGELOnline), whereas the other (faz.net) has disallowed any
comments on the reports about the 'Russian incursion'. Here, in the most conservative German paper, the dissonance between
report and opinion pieces on the one hand and the opinion as expressed by the readers in their comments was remarkable. It
looks as if the editors have had enough of being called to task by their readers – and freedom of speech be damned!
Reuters is not even trying to be impartial anymore. They are resorting to "the end is nigh" mantra, which preaches that Russia
is falling apart:
Putin's Ukraine gamble hastens exodus of Russian money and talent
* Russia forecasts $100 bln outflows, others say much more
* Big rise in Russian emigration, more expected
* Losing most educated, active, entrepreneurial -pollster
By Guy Faulconbridge, Shadi Bushra and Jack Stubbs
LONDON, Aug 14 (Reuters) – The Kremlin's worst clash with the West since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union has accelerated
the outflow of two of Russia's most prized assets: money and brains.
Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and support for rebels accused of shooting down a passenger plane over Ukraine then hindering
the recovery of the 298 bodies have shredded Western hopes of a lasting alliance with Moscow.
Sanctioned by the United States and European Union, Putin's courtiers are under fire, Russia's $2 trillion economy is threatened
with isolation and millions of Russians across the world are wondering what next.
Russia is still earning much-needed revenues from pipelines carrying oil and gas to the West, but, less happily for the Kremlin,
capital and talent are flowing in the same direction.
This is all total BS. Shaun Walker posted a picture of an APC 10 km INSIDE Russia from the Ukr border and started yapping about
"how it is not humanitarian aid". Yeah, whatever, tardass.
All the western stooges are falling all over themselves with this and other "proof". Follow the thread at militaryphotos. This
shite gets debunked quick.
cartman,
August 14, 2014 at 6:48 pm, No nighttime pics either, from when they said the columns tried to sneak in.
What an idiot. Kick him out of Russia, please. Nobody would dare squeal about freedom of the press, because their candy squeeze,
Ukraine, is expelling journalists right, left and centre. Apparently now just going in the direction of Ukraine is an invasion.
Shake off these fleas, Russia!
...A perfect example of this dangerous MSM "conspiracy of silence" may be found in the growing confrontation with Russia over
Ukraine, greatly accelerated by the death of almost 300 passengers aboard Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, shot down last month over
Eastern Ukraine. The American media and its Western counterparts have almost unanimously placed the blame on anti-government rebels
backed by Russia, and darkly insinuate that Russian President Vladimir Putin has the blood of those hundreds of innocent lives on
his hands. London's once-respectedEconomist
magazine has repeatedly run shrill covers promoting the great threat of Putin and Russia to world peace, even featuring a photo
of the former under the stark title "A Web of
Lies." There is the serious likelihood of a renewed Cold War against Russia and with the neoconized Republicans in Congress proposing
legislation to incorporate Ukraine as an American military ally and deploy American forces there, the actual possibility of a military
clash near the Russian border.
... ... ...
For example, according to the official American story, MH17 was downed by rebels armed with a BUK anti-aircraft missile battery.
As it happens, the pro-American Ukraine government possesses a large inventory of exactly those weapons, while it is far from clear
that the rebels have a single unit, let alone the expertise to operate such sophisticated devices. Furthermore, there apparently
exists radar evidence demonstrating that Ukraine fighter planes were in the immediate vicinity of MH17 just before it was shot down
and there are firsthand reports from investigators on the ground that portions of the crashed fuselage showed strong evidence of
having been hit the sort of heavy machine-gun fire employed in air combat. I find it extremely suspicious that the American government
has repeatedly refused to release the evidence supporting its narrative, while the Russian government has released copious evidence
supporting its contrary perspective.
We must bear in mind that the downing of MH17 and the deaths of the hundreds of mostly European passengers came as a fortuitous
stroke of fortune for the embattled Kiev government and its neoconservative American backers, given that Germany and most of the
other major European governments had just balked at approving the harsh anti-Russian economic sanctions being proposed by the White
House. Cui bono?
Furthermore, this terrible suspicion that 300 innocent lives may have been sacrificed in a ghastly false-flag operation by
an American-supported government is somewhat buttressed by earlier events. Consider that the overthrow of the democratically-elected
and neutralist Ukrainian government was sparked by the massive bloodshed that erupted between riot police and pro-American demonstrators
in the Kievan capital, as many hundreds on both sides were suddenly killed or wounded by an outbreak of heavy gunfire over a couple
of nights. I found it very intriguing that soon afterward
an intercepted telephone call
between the pro-Western foreign minister of Estonia and European High Commissioner Catherine Ashton, later confirmed to be genuine,
revealed that the bullets found in the bodies of both government police and anti-government demonstrators had apparently come from
the same guns. The most plausible explanation of this strange detail is that the snipers responsible were professionals brought in
to cause the massive bloodshed necessary to overthrow the government, which is exactly what soon followed. Again cui bono?
Am I certain about these facts, let alone the analysis built upon them? Absolutely not! As emphasized, I've been entirely preoccupied
with other matters over the last few months. But if such obvious suspicions are apparent to someone who occasionally glances at the
news reports out of the corner of his mind's eye, the total silence of the American media and its huge corps of full-time professional
journalists constitutes a very telling indictment. Personally, I think there's a high likelihood that forces aligned with current
pro-Western regime were responsible for the massacre in Kiev's Maidan Square and a better than fifty-fifty chance they more recently
shot down MH17, but I really can't be sure about either of these things. However, I am absolutely 100% certain that the American
MSM has been revealed as a totally worthless source of information on these crucial world events, although it can be relied upon
to provide every last detail of Robin Williams' troubled life or the endless foibles of the Kardashians.
In the interests of providing our readers at least some access to alternate accounts of why we may now be heading into a new Cold
War against Russia-or even a hot one- I've recently republished a couple of Mike Whitney's fine Counterpunch columns on the
mysteries of
Flight MH17, which cautiously raised questions rather
than claimed to answer them, as well as those of the redoubtable Paul Craig Roberts.
Aside from attracting considerable debate from our website's often "excitable" commenters, whose views range from the sensible
to the deranged, our Whitney columns regarding MH17 had a far more important consequence. One of our left-liberal readers was shocked
to read facts totally absent from the pages of The Nation, the Huffington Post, or any of the other left-liberal
sites she visits. Out of curiosity, she contacted a very prominent left-liberal American academic, someone with special expertise
in exactly that area of Europe. To her considerable surprise, he largely confirmed the outlandish "conspiracy theory," saying that
the evidence increasingly indicated that the American-backed Kiev government had shot down Flight MH17, either accidentally or otherwise.
The truth behind the fate of the Malaysian airliner, I thought from the moment that I heard about it, would be politically determined.
Its black boxes are in London. In NATO hands?
The European Union is not (anymore) guided by politicians with a grasp of history, a sober assessment of global reality, or simple
common sense connected with the long term interests of what they are guiding. If any more evidence was needed, it has certainly been
supplied by the sanctions they have agreed on last week aimed at punishing Russia.
One way to fathom their foolishness is to start
with the media, since whatever understanding or concern these politicians may have personally they must be seen to be doing the right
thing, which is taken care of by TV and newspapers.
In much of the European Union the general understanding of global reality since the horrible fate of the people on board the Malaysian
Airliner comes from mainstream newspapers and TV which have copied the approach of Anglo-American mainstream media, and have presented
'news' in which insinuation and vilification substitute for proper reporting. Respected publications, like the Financial Times
or the once respected NRC Handelsblad of the Netherlands for which I worked sixteen years as East Asia Correspondent, not
only joined in with this corrupted journalism but helped guide it to mad conclusions. The punditry and editorials that have grown
out of this have gone further than anything among earlier examples of sustained media hysteria stoked for political purposes that
I can remember. The most flagrant example I have come across, an anti-Putin leader in the (July 26) Economist Magazine,
had the tone of Shakespeare's Henry V exhorting his troops before the battle of Agincourt as he invaded France.
One should keep in mind that there are no European-wide newspapers or publications to sustain a European public sphere, in the
sense of a means for politically interested Europeans to ponder and debate with each other big international developments. Because
those interested in world affairs usually read the international edition of the New York Times or the Financial Times,
questions and answers on geopolitical matters are routinely shaped or strongly influenced by what editors in New York and London
have determined as being important. Thinking that may deviate significantly as can now be found in Der Spiegel, the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit and Handelsblatt, does not travel across German borders. Hence we
do not see anything like a European opinion evolving on global affairs, even when these have a direct impact on the interests of
the European Union itself.
The Dutch population was rudely shaken out of a general complacency with respect to world events that could affect it, through
the death of 193 fellow nationals (along with a 105 people of other nationalities) in the downed plane, and its media were hasty
in following the American-initiated finger-pointing at Moscow. Explanations that did not in some way involve culpability of the Russian
president seemed to be out of bounds. This was at odds right away with statements of a sober Dutch prime minister, who was under
considerable pressure to join the fingerpointing but who insisted on waiting for a thorough examination of what precisely had happened.
The TV news programs I saw in the days immediately afterwards had invited, among other anti–Russian expositors, American neocon-linked
talking heads to do the disclosing to a puzzled and truly shaken up audience. A Dutch foreign policy specialist explained that the
foreign minister or his deputy could not go to the site of the crash (as Malaysian officials did) to recover the remains of Dutch
citizens, because that would amount to an implicit recognition of diplomatic status for the "separatists". When the European Union
en bloc recognizes a regime that has come into existence through an American initiated coup d'état, you are diplomatically stuck
with it.
The inhabitants and anti-Kiev fighters at the crash site were portrayed, with images from youtube, as uncooperative criminals,
which for many viewers amounted to a confirmation of their guilt. This changed when later reports from actual journalists showed
shocked and deeply concerned villagers, but the discrepancy was not explained, and earlier assumptions of villainy did not make way
for any objective analysis of why these people might be fighting at all. Tendentious twitter and youtube 'news' had become the basis
for official Dutch indignation with the East Ukrainians, and a general opinion arose that something had to be set straight, which
was, again in general opinion, accomplished by a grand nationally televised reception of the human remains (released through Malaysian
mediation) in a dignified sober martial ceremony.
Nothing that I have seen or read even intimated that the Ukraine crisis – which led to coup and civil war – was created by neoconservatives
and a few R2P ("Responsibility to Protect") fanatics in the State Department and the White House, apparently given a free hand by
President Obama. The Dutch media also appeared unaware that the catastrophe was immediately turned into a political football for
White House and State Department purposes. The likelihood that Putin was right when he said that the catastrophe would not have happened
if his insistence on a cease-fire had been accepted, was not entertained.
As it was, Kiev broke the cease-fire – on the 10th of June – in its civil war against Russian speaking East Ukrainians who do
not wish to be governed by a collection of thugs, progeny of Ukrainian nazis, and oligarchs enamored of the IMF and the European
Union. The supposed 'rebels' have been responding to the beginnings of ethnic cleansing operations (systematic terror bombing and
atrocities – 30 or more Ukrainians burned alive) committed by Kiev forces, of which little or nothing has penetrated into European
news reports.
It is unlikely that the American NGOs, which by official admission spent 5 billion dollars in political destabilization efforts
prior to the February putsch in Kiev, have suddenly disappeared from the Ukraine, or that America's military advisors and specialized
troops have sat idly by as Kiev's military and militias mapped their civil war strategy; after all, the new thugs are as a regime
on financial life-support provided by Washington, the European Union and IMF. What we know is that Washington is encouraging the
ongoing killing in the civil war it helped trigger.
But Washington has constantly had the winning hand in a propaganda war against, entirely contrary to what mainstream media would
have us believe, an essentially unwilling opponent. Waves of propaganda come from Washington and are made to fit assumptions of a
Putin, driven and assisted by a nationalism heightened by the loss of the Soviet empire, who is trying to expand the Russian Federation
up to the borders of that defunct empire. The more adventurous punditry, infected by neocon fever, has Russia threatening to envelop
the West. Hence Europeans are made to believe that Putin refuses diplomacy, while he has been urging this all along. Hence prevailing
propaganda has had the effect that not Washington's but Putin's actions are seen as dangerous and extreme. Anyone with a personal
story that places Putin or Russia in a bad light must move right now; Dutch editors seem insatiable at the moment.
There is no doubt that the frequently referred to Moscow propaganda exists. But there are ways for serious journalists to weigh
competing propaganda and discern how much veracity or lies and bullshit they contain. Within my field of vision this has only taken
place a bit in Germany. For the rest we must piece political reality together relying on the now more than ever indispensable American
websites hospitable to whistleblowers and old-fashioned investigative journalism, which especially since the onset of the 'war on
terrorism' and the Iraq invasion have formed a steady form of samizdat publishing.
In the Netherlands almost anything that comes from the State Department is taken at face value. America's history, since the demise
of the Soviet Union, of truly breathtaking lies: on Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Libya and North Korea; its record
of overthrown governments; its black-op and false flag operations; and its stealthily garrisoning of the planet with some thousand
military bases, is conveniently left out of consideration. The near hysteria throughout a week following the downed airliner prevented
people with some knowledge of relevant history from opening their mouths. Job security in the current world of journalism is quite
shaky, and going against the tide would be almost akin to siding with the devil, as it would damage one's journalistic 'credibility'.
What strikes an older generation of serious journalists as questionable about the mainstream media's credibility is editorial
indifference to potential clues that would undermine or destroy the official story line; a story line that has already permeated
popular culture as is evident in throwaway remarks embellishing book and film reviews along with much else. In the Netherlands the
official story is already carved in stone, which is to be expected when it is repeated ten-thousand times. It cannot be discounted,
of course, but it is based on not a shred of evidence.
The presence of two Ukrainian fighter planes near the Malaysian airliner on Russian radar would be a potential clue I would be
very interested in if I were investigating either as journalist or member of the investigation team that the Netherlands officially
leads. This appeared to be corroborated by a BBC Report with eyewitness accounts from the ground by villagers who clearly saw another
plane, a fighter, close to the airliner, near the time of its crash, and heard explosions coming from the sky. This report has recently
drawn attention because it was removed from the BBC's archive. I would want to talk with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first inspectors
from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reach the crash site who spent more than a week examining
the wreckage and has described on CBC World News two or three "really pock-marked" pieces of fuselage. "It almost looks like machine
gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven't seen anywhere else."
I would certainly also want to have a look at the allegedly confiscated radar and voice records of the Kiev Air Control Tower
to understand why the Malaysian pilot veered off course and rapidly descended shortly before his plane crashed, and find out whether
foreign air controllers in Kiev were indeed sent packing immediately after the crash. Like the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity", I would certainly urge the American authorities with access to satellite images to show the evidence they claim to have
of BUK missile batteries in 'rebel' hands as well as of Russian involvement, and ask them why they have not done so already. Until
now Washington has acted like a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test. Since intelligence officials have leaked to some American
newspapers their lesser certainty about the American certainties as brought to the world by the Secretary of State, my curiosity
would be unrelenting.
To place European media loyalty to Washington in the Ukraine case as well as the slavish conduct of European politicians in perspective,
we must know about and understand Atlanticism. It is a European faith. It has not given rise to an official doctrine, of course,
but it functions like one. It is well summed up by the Dutch slogan at the time of the Iraq invasion: "zonder Amerika gaat het
niet" (without the United States [things] [it] won't work). Needless to say, the Cold War gave birth to Atlanticism. Ironically,
it gained strength as the threat from the Soviet Union became less persuasive for increasing numbers among European political elites.
That probably was a matter of generational change: the farther away from World War II, the less European governments remembered what
it means to have an independent foreign policy on global-sized issues. Current heads of government of the European Union are unfamiliar
with practical strategic deliberations. Routine thought on international relations and global politics is deeply entrenched in Cold
War epistemology.
This inevitably also informs 'responsible' editorial policies. Atlanticism is now a terrible affliction for Europe: it fosters
historical amnesia, willful blindness and dangerously misconceived political anger. But it thrives on a mixture of lingering unquestioned
Cold War era certainties about protection, Cold War loyalties embedded in popular culture, sheer European ignorance, and an understandable
reluctance to concede that one has even for a little bit been brainwashed. Washington can do outrageous things while leaving Atlanticism
intact because of everyone's forgetfulness, which the media do little or nothing to cure. I know Dutch people who have become disgusted
with the villification of Putin, but the idea that in the context of Ukraine the fingerpointing should be toward Washington is well-nigh
unacceptable. Hence, Dutch publications, along with many others in Europe, cannot bring themselves to place the Ukraine crisis in
proper perspective by acknowledging that Washington started it all, and that Washington rather than Putin has the key to its solution.
It would impel a renunciation of Atlanticism.
Atlanticism derives much of its strength through NATO, its institutional embodiment. The reason for NATO's existence, which disappeard
with the demise of the Soviet Union, has been largely forgotten. Formed in 1949, it was based on the idea that transatlantic cooperation
for security and defense had become necessary after World War II in the face of a communism, orchestrated by Moscow, intent on taking
over the entire planet. Much less talked about was European internal distrust, as the Europeans set off on their first moves towards
economic integration. NATO constituted a kind of American guarantee that no power in Europe would ever try to dominate the others.
NATO has for some time now been a liability for the European Union, as it prevents development of concerted European foreign and
defense policies, and has forced the member states to become instruments serving American militarism. It is also a moral liability
because the governments participating in the 'coalition of the willing' have had to sell the lie to their citizens that European
soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a necessary sacrifice to keep Europe safe from terrorists. Governments that have
supplied troops to areas occupied by the United States have generally done this with considerable reluctance, earning the reproach
from a succession of American officials that Europeans do too little for the collective purpose of defending democracy and freedom.
As is the mark of an ideology, Atlanticism is ahistorical. As horse medicine against the torment of fundamental political ambiguity
it supplies its own history: one that may be rewritten by American mainstream media as they assist in spreading the word from Washington.
There could hardly be a better demonstration of this than the Dutch experience at the moment. In conversations these past three
weeks I have encountered genuine surprise when reminding friends that the Cold War ended through diplomacy with a deal made on Malta
between Gorbachev and the elder Bush in December 1989, in which James Baker got Gorbachev to accept the reunification of Germany
and withdrawal of Warsaw Pact troops with a promise that NATO would not be extended even one inch to the East. Gorbachev pledged
not to use force in Eastern Europe where the Russians had some 350,000 troops in East Germany alone, in return for Bush's promise
that Washington would not take advantage of a Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe. Bill Clinton reneged on those American promises
when, for purely electoral reasons, he boasted about an enlargement of NATO and in 1999 made the Czech Republic and Hungary full
members. Ten years later another nine countries became members, at which point the number of NATO countries was double the number
during the Cold War. The famous American specialist on Russia, Ambassador George Kennan, originator of Cold War containment policy,
called Clinton's move "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era."
Historical ignorance abetted by Atlanticism is poignantly on display in the contention that the ultimate proof in the case against
Vladimir Putin is his invasion of Crimea. Again, political reality here was created by America's mainstream media. There was no invasion,
as the Russian sailors and soldiers were already there since it is home to the 'warm water' Black Sea base for the Russian navy.
Crimea has been a part of Russia for as long as the United States has existed. In 1954 Khrushchev, who himself came from the Ukraine,
gave it to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, which came down to moving a region to a different province, since Russia and Ukraine
still belonged to the same country. The Russian speaking Crimean population was happy enough, as it voted in a referendum first for
independence from the Kiev regime that resulted from the coup d'état, and subsequently for reunification with Russia.
Those who maintain that Putin had no right to do such a thing are unaware of another strand of history in which the United States
has been moving (Star Wars) missile defense systems ever closer to Russian borders, supposedly to intercept hostile missiles from
Iran, which do not exist. Sanctimonious talk about territorial integrity and sovereignty makes no sense under these circumstances,
and coming from a Washington that has done away with the concept of sovereignty in its own foreign policy it is downright ludicrous.
A detestable Atlanticist move was the exclusion of Putin from the meetings and other events connected with the commemoration of
the Normandy landings, for the first time in 17 years. The G8 became the G7 as a result. Amnesia and ignorance have made the Dutch
blind to a history that directly concerned them, since the Soviet Union took the heart out of the Nazi war machine (that occupied
the Netherlands) at a cost of incomparable and unimaginable numbers of military dead; without that there would not have been a Normandy
invasion.
Not so long ago, the complete military disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to be moving NATO to a point where its inevitable
demise could not to be too far off. But the Ukraine crisis and Putin's decisiveness in preventing the Crimea with its Russian Navy
base from possibly falling into the hands of the American-owned alliance, has been a godsend to this earlier faltering institution.
NATO leadership has already been moving troops to strengthen their presence in the Baltic states, sending missiles and attack
aircraft to Poland and Lithuania, and since the downing of the Malaysian airliner it has been preparing further military moves that
may turn into dangerous provocations of Russia. It has become clear that the Polish foreign minister together with the Baltic countries,
none of which partook in NATO when its reason for being could still be defended, have become a strong driving force behind it. A
mood of mobilization has spread in the past week. The ventriloquist dummies Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer can be
relied upon to take to TV screens inveighing against NATO member-state backsliding. Rasmussen, the current Secretary General, declared
on August 7 in Kiev that NATO's "support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is unwavering" and that he is looking
to strengthen partnership with the country at the Alliance's summit in Wales in September. That partnership is already strong, so
he said, "and in response to Russia's aggression, NATO is working even more closely with Ukraine to reform its armed forces and defense
institutions."
In the meantime, in the American Congress 23 Senate Republicans have sponsored legislation, the "Russian Aggression Prevention
Act", which is meant to allow Washington to make the Ukraine a non-NATO ally and could set the stage for a direct military conflict
with Russia. We will probably have to wait until after America's midterm elections to see what will become of it, but it already
helps provide a political excuse for those in Washington who want to take next steps in the Ukraine.
In September last year Putin helped Obama by making it possible for him to stop a bombing campaign against Syria pushed by the
neocons, and had also helped in defusing the nuclear dispute with Iran, another neocon project. This led to a neocon commitment to
break the Putin-Obama link. It is hardly a secret that the neoconservatives desire the overthrow of Putin and eventual dismemberment
of the Russian Federation. Less known in Europe is the existence of numerous NGOs at work in Russia, which will help them with this.
Vladimir Putin could strike now or soon, to preempt NATO and the American Congress, by taking Eastern Ukraine, something he probably
should have done right after the Crimean referendum. That would, of course, be proof of his evil intentions in European editorial
eyes.
In the light of all this, one of the most fateful questions to ask in current global affairs is: what has to happen for Europeans
to wake up to the fact that Washington is playing with fire and has ceased being the protector they counted on, and is instead now
endangering their security? Will the moment come when it becomes clear that the Ukraine crisis is, most of all, about placing Star
Wars missile batteries along an extensive stretch of Russian border, which gives Washington – in the insane lingo of nuclear strategists
– 'first strike' capacity?
It is beginning to sink in among older Europeans that the United States has enemies who are not Europe's enemies because it needs
them for domestic political reasons; to keep an economically hugely important war industry going and to test by shorthand the political
bona fides of contenders for public office. But while using rogue states and terrorists as targets for 'just wars' has never been
convincing, Putin's Russia as demonized by a militaristic NATO could help prolong the transatlantic status quo. The truth behind
the fate of the Malaysian airliner, I thought from the moment that I heard about it, would be politically determined. Its black boxes
are in London. In NATO hands?
Other hindrances to an awakening remain huge; financialization and neoliberal policies have produced an intimate transatlantic
entwining of plutocratic interests. Together with the Atlanticist faith these have helped stymie the political development of the
European Union, and with that Europe's ability to proceed with independent political decisions. Since Tony Blair, Great Britain has
been in Washington's pocket, and since Nicolas Sarkozy one can say more or less the same of France.
That leaves Germany. Angela Merkel was clearly unhappy with the sanctions, but in the end went along because she wants to remain
on the good side of the American president, and the United States as the conqueror in World War II does still have leverage through
a variety of agreements. Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, quoted in newspapers and appearing on TV, repudiated
the sanctions and points at Iraq and Libya as examples of the results brought by escalation and ultimatums, yet he too swings round
and in the end goes along with them.
Der Spiegel is one of the German publications that offer hope. One of its columnists, Jakob Augstein, attacks the "sleepwalkers"
who have agreed to sanctions, and censures his colleagues' finger-pointing at Moscow. Gabor Steingart, who publishes Handelsblatt,
inveighs against the "American tendency to verbal and then to military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking
of enemies" and concludes that also German journalism
"has switched from level-headed to agitated in a matter of weeks. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the field
of vision of a sniper scope."
There must be more journalists in other parts of Europe who say things like this, but their voices do not carry through the din
of vilification.
History is being made, once again. What may well determine Europe's fate is that also outside the defenders of the Atlanticist
faith, decent Europeans cannot bring themselves to believe in the dysfunction and utter irresponsibility of the American state.
Karel van Wolferen is a Dutch journalist and retired professor
at the University of Amsterdam. Since 1969, he has published over twenty books on public policy issues, which have been translated
into eleven languages and sold over a million copies worldwide. As a foreign correspondent for NRC Handelsblad , one of
Holland's leading newspapers, he received the highest Dutch award for journalism, and over the years his articles have appeared in
The New York Times , The Washington Post , The New Republic , The National Interest , Le
Monde , and numerous other newspapers and magazines.
rod1963, August 14, 2014 at 7:16 pm GMT
Hepp
Whether or not such a agreement it exists, it's not wise to push a nuclear armed nation and one that holds the economic fate
of the EU in it's hands, into a corner. Then to make matters worse, toppling a regime right next to Putin's with a bunch of shadowy
NGO's that are front groups for the USG.
That wasn't going to be well received by Putin and he rebuked us by taking back the Crimea, not that it was Ukraine's to begin
with despite what a bunch of sleazy Americans from the Hamptons say.
Bill Blizzard and his Men, August 14, 2014 at 7:36 pm GMT
@rod1963
It comes down to whether or not one thinks that the Russian People have a right to defend themselves againt the mass murderers
Susan Rice and Samantha Powers. I'd say it is mighty obvious that the Russian People do.
Samantha Powers is very close personally to the Havard Economists whose economic warfare against the Russian People during
the 1990s caused a massive demographic collapse of the Russian Population during the Clinton Era. How many Russians are missing
from the Russian Population in 2014?..
The ones that died directly from the billionaire Oligarchs gang rape of Russia and the Russian infants who were never born
as a consequence of Clinton Democratic Party Economic Warfare. Is Genocide too strong a word?
[Aug 12, 2014] Whipping up War hysteria one headline at a time: Guardian propaganda war in headlines
A very valuable case study in demoniszation. Look how sophoiisticated propaganda injects emotions and pollute coverage with specific
agenda. They do not need any facts. Look at the subject lines and how creatiivly they were constructed to demonize confederates and
by extention smeare Russia, who is supporting them. See the topics covered (or more correctly not covered) and compare them with Why the keep us for imbeciles: 21 question that MSM would never raise
or try to answer. Nivce example of cretion of artifical reality. After it's thier main task... Coverage basically stopped after
August 9. It would be intereting to know why? Are new irrefutable facts are found that make continuation of propaganda
Blitzkrieg dangerious
Tony Abbott calls for justice for MH17 victims during trip to Netherlands
Tony Abbott at Rotterdam 11 Aug 2014: Australian leader offers condolences to Dutch and will hold talks on finishing the investigation
and ensuring 'guilty are punished'
413 comments
MH17: Tony Abbott to visit Netherlands to meet with Dutch prime minister
Tony Abbott talks during a national memorial service at St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne on Thursday. 9 Aug 2014: Australian
prime minister to arrive in the Hague on Monday and will sign condolence book for the Dutch victims of flight MH17
Australia considers uranium ban as part of sanctions on Russia
9 Aug 2014: Tony Abbott tells Vladimir Putin to keep out of Ukraine, while ministers indicate exports of uranium to Russia
may be stopped
1767 comments
Malaysia Airlines shares suspended as state buyout is announced
8 Aug 2014: Beleaguered company to be taken fully into state hands for restructuring in wake of MH370 and MH17 disasters
Newcastle to hold minute's silence for fans who died on flight MH17
Newcastle fans in New Zealand stand in a minute's silence to remember John Alder and Liam Sweeney 7 Aug 2014: John Alder and
Liam Sweeney were on shot down Malaysia Airlines flight on way to watch their team play in New Zealand
MH17 memorial focuses on supporting families and friends left behind
7 Aug 2014: 'We stand in solidarity with those who are suffering unimaginable loss,' Archbishop Denis Hart tells mourners in
Melbourne
28 comments
MH17: Australia's national day of mourning – in pictures
The parents of Australian MH17 victim Fatima Dyczynski 7 Aug 2014: The public, grieving families and dignitaries attend the
official memorial for victims of the flight in Melbourne
MH17: Australia pauses for a national day of mourning
Australians arrive to mourn the loss of all victims of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 at St. Patrick's Cathedral on August 7,
2014 in Melbourne, Australia. 7 Aug 2014: Flags are flying at half mast around the country as an official memorial is held in
Melbourne for the victims of flight MH17, attended by grieving families, members of the public, and dignitaries including the
prime minister, the governor general, and the opposition leader
73 comments
MH17 crash: search for remains halted as Australia begins day of mourning
7 Aug 2014: Increased fighting between pro-Russian rebels and Ukraine forces Dutch PM to suspend work on the site
MH17: Dutch prime minister calls halt to search for victims
6 Aug 2014: Mark Rutte praised the effort of the recovery mission but said that it was too dangerous to continue at this time
MH17 investigators frustrated at limited access due to fighting
A pro-Russian separatist looks on as Australian and Dutch forensic experts continue recovery work at the site of the downed
Malaysian airliner MH17 near the village of Rozsypne in the Donetsk region. 5 Aug 2014: Renewed violence between separatists and
government forces in Ukraine has limited the ability of officials to carry out mission
Why the rituals of grief matter
4 Aug 2014: From flowers for cyclists to returning bodies to the families of the MH17 dead, these procedures help people cope
with grief, says Katharine Whitehorn
MH17: memorial service held in Perth for three Australian children killed – video
MH17 Perth Memorial Video (57 sec), 4 Aug 2014: A memorial service for three children and their grandfather who were killed
over Ukraine on flight MH17 has been held in Western Australia
MH17: father remembers 'perfect souls' at memorial for his three children
Mo, Evie and Otis Maslin 4 Aug 2014: Parents Anthony Maslin and Rin Norris give emotional speeches in Perth for three children
and their grandfather killed in disaster
MH17: memorial service held in Perth for three Australian children killed – video
MH17 Perth Memorial Video (57 sec), 4 Aug 2014: A memorial service for three children and their grandfather who were killed
over Ukraine on flight MH17 has been held in Western Australia
MH17: father remembers 'perfect souls' at memorial for his three children
4 Aug 2014: Parents Anthony Maslin and Rin Norris give emotional speeches in Perth for three children and their grandfather
killed in disaster
Ukrainian army closes in on Donetsk as rebel fighters call on Russia for help
ukrainian troops donetsk 3 Aug 2014: Advances by Ukrainian army lead to intense fighting as separatists renew calls for Moscow
to send troops
If it is hard for the west to confront Russia, it can still support Ukraine
3 Aug 2014: Business leader: Moscow would come off worse in any round of sanctions. But offering aid and trade to Kiev might
send a stronger message
534 comments
MH17: second day of search reveals more human remains
2 Aug 2014: Mortar fire forces some OSCE investigators to leave a village where debris lies
MH17: Australian and Dutch police recover human remains at crash site
mh17 australian police 2 Aug 2014: Despite continued fighting between rebels and Ukrainian army, officers spend five hours
combing the airliner's wreckage
MH17 investigators reach crash site two weeks after plane brought down
1 Aug 2014: Convoy arrives in east Ukraine, with officials cordoning off zone as they search for bodies still believed to be
missing
MH17: investigators start recovery despite fighting nearby - video
A Dutch policeman Video (1min 14sec), 1 Aug 2014: International experts start recovery work at the wreckage site of the downed
Malaysian airliner in east Ukraine on Friday, despite clashes nearby between government forces and pro-Russian separatists
A Russian soldier's 'Ukraine selfies' are not evidence, they're war art
Ukrainian tanks near eastern Ukrainian village of Novoselivka Persha 1 Aug 2014: Jonathan Jones: We should not mistake Alexander
Sotkin's Instagram images for military intelligence. They simply portray the hapless life of today's Russian soldier
496 comments
Australia says all MH17 bodies should be retrieved from crash site within days
1 Aug 2014: Russia, Ukraine and separatist leaders agree as 14-vehicle convoy heads for MH17 site after successful advance
mission.
97 comments
BA calls for global treaty to track surface-to-air missiles after MH17 crash
1 Aug 2014: Willie Walsh says treaty would create complete inventory of weapons while rejecting calls to deploy anti-missile
technology on aircraft.
291 comments
Fighting near site of downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 leaves 14 dead
Fighting near site of downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 leaves 14 dead 1 Aug 2014: Deaths shatter brief lull across war-torn
region as international experts head to wreckage of downed plane
A century on, the first world war is still being played out
1 Aug 2014: Timothy Garton Ash: From Ukraine to Syria these wars are a legacy of the 1914 clash of empires and the patchwork
territories left behind
514 comments
Foreign investigators reach MH17 crash site in Ukraine
31 Jul 2014: Dutch and Australia experts expected to focus initially on retrieving bodies still on site and collecting victims'
belongings
Tony Abbott says airlines should tell passengers about routes over war zones
Qantas plane 31 Jul 2014: However, the prime minister says he would not force Qantas to bypass Iraq
146 comments
MH17: memorial service and national day of mourning set for 7 August
Australian flag at half-mast 31 Jul 2014: Tony Abbott tells of his frustration about lack of success at recovering bodies at
wreckage site in Ukraine
MH17: Bishop reacts to claim rebels are laying landmines near crash site
30 Jul 2014: 'If true, it is utterly despicable,' says foreign minister Julie Bishop, while reports suggest remains of up to
80 bodies are still on site
333 comments
Flowers for victims MH17 at Schiphol airport 30 Jul 2014: Independent survey discovers 82% of Russians blame Kiev for downing
Malaysia Airlines aircraft with loss of 298 lives
West is ready to ratchet up sanctions against Russia, says Hammond
30 Jul 2014: Foreign secretary makes threat as EU sanctions are imposed on trade with Russia's defence, banking and energy
industries
815 comments
Russia takes defiant stance in face of tough EU and US sanctions
30 Jul 2014: Russian officials say focus will shift to domestic market production, but analysts say defence and oil industries
will suffer
Belarus to host Ukraine crisis talks
Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko 30 Jul 2014: President Petro Poroshenko wants discussions with Russia and OSCE to focus
on securing access to MH17 crash site
Qantas should be forced to stop flying over war zones, says union leader
30 Jul 2014: Transport Workers Union national secretary says Abbott government should insist on planes being rerouted
10 comments
MH17: Abbott says Australia is unlikely to follow tougher US and EU sanctions
30 Jul 2014: Prime minister says his priority is recovering bodies from the crash site as the European Union and the US increase
sanctions against Russia
Ukraine rebel chief Igor Bezler threatens to execute interviewer
Igor Bezler, in green fatigues and without his walrus moustache, is at a briefing of policemen in Gorlovka. 29 Jul 2014: Nicknamed
the Demon, leader said to be behind downing of MH17 ends rare interview after exploding into a rage and shouting: 'Don't think
I won't shoot you'
Is there a future for Malaysia Airlines after flights MH370 and MH17?
29 Jul 2014: Karl West: Airlines often rebrand after a crash – repainting livery, tweaking logos or even changing their names.
But after the loss of two of its planes, it will not be easy for Malaysia Airlines to survive
191 comments
MH17 victim's father calls on Ukrainian rebels to allow bodies to be repatriated - video
MH17 victim's father calls on Ukrainian rebels to allow bodies to be repatriated - video Video (53 sec), 29 Jul 2014: The father
of Liam Sweeney who died when flight MH17 crashed in eastern Ukraine says he wants his son's body returned home
Ukraine: stronger Russian sanctions sought
Malcolm Rifkind 29 Jul 2014: Malcolm Rifkind condemns 'useless' asset freezes as western leaders push for new EU trade restrictions
with key sectors
771 comments
MH17: Abbott and police frustrated over lack of access to plane crash site
29 Jul 2014: For the second day unarmed Australian and Dutch police contingent forced to turn around due to shelling and gunfire
Telegraph to continue publishing Russian propaganda supplement
29 Jul 2014: Chinese wall exists between commercial and editorial divisions
32 comments
Morning Mail: children killed in Gaza; MH17 delays; work for the dole
Palestinians inspect the destroyed wall of Shifa hospital after an Israeli air strike, in Gaza, in the northern Gaza Strip.
28 Jul 2014: Guardian Australia's morning news briefing from around the web
Stronger western sanctions on Russia likely within 48 hours
Schiphol airport 28 Jul 2014: European and US resolve hardens as a result of Putin's suspected role in the shooting down of
MH17 over Ukraine
1336 comments
US will follow EU in likely escalation of Russia sanctions, says White House
28 Jul 2014: Announcement of impending measures follows conference call between Obama and leaders of UK, France, Italy and
Germany
804 comments
Flight MH17: international monitors 'sick and tired' of not being able to reach crash site - video
Rebels guard a convoy of OSCE monitors in Shakhtarsk in eastern Ukraine Video (1min 47sec), 28 Jul 2014: International monitors
working in eastern Ukraine express their frustration after being denied access to the crash site of flight MH17 for a second day
New EU sanctions against Russia could be applied within days, No 10 signals
28 Jul 2014: Expectation of further sanctions comes as MoD announces 1,350 British troops are in Poland to take part in Nato
exercise
1536 comments
MH17: Dutch and Australian police stranded due to fighting near crash site
28 Jul 2014: Police and forensic teams forced to stop in Shakhtarsk, around 20 miles from the fields where the aircraft was
downed
Flight MH17: victims' remains might not all be found, AFP warns
andrew colvin 28 Jul 2014: Intense fighting between pro-Russia rebels and Ukrainian forces has reduced the chance of a successful
recovery
252 comments
Satellite images released by US 'show Russian rocket fire into Ukraine'
27 Jul 2014: State Department document appears to show blast marks and craters and US says artillery for separatists has crossed
border into Ukraine
2454 comments
The energy-efficient way to punish Putin – and protect the planet
27 Jul 2014: Chris Huhne: For once Europe's greens and securocrats can join forces – by reducing the EU's dependence on imports
of Russian gas
359 comments
MH370 families offer to counsel bereaved relatives of MH17 victims
Malaysia Airlines flight attendant MH17 MH370 27 Jul 2014: Remains of those killed not expected to be returned to Malaysia
for some time as forensic testing in Netherlands continues
MH17: how Storyful's 'social sleuthing' helped verify evidence
27 Jul 2014: Ben Cardew: Stories such as the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines plane show the importance of checking Twitter
and YouTube content
MH17: Dutch and Australian investigators postpone mission due to fighting - video
Dutch and Australian policemen in Donetsk Video (1min 41sec), 27 Jul 2014: A Dutch-led international group of 49 investigators
have abandoned their plans on Sunday to visit the crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17
MH17: Dutch and Australian experts forced to delay mission due to fighting
A woman takes a photograph of wreckage at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 27 Jul 2014: Netherlands-led group
of 49 investigators that will attempt to recover bodies and examine site in eastern Ukraine delayed
MH17: Australia to send police but no military to crash site
27 Jul 2014: Angus Houston says contingent of armed and unarmed police 'well-placed' to gain access early next week
Nick Clegg says Russia should not host World Cup 2018
27 Jul 2014: Fifa has ruled out calls for boycott after the shooting down of MH17, insisting the tournament could be 'a force
for good'
1168 comments
Yes, Britain can afford to defy Tsar Vladimir Putin
27 Jul 2014: Nick Cohen: At last there may be justice for Alexander Litvinenko, but it has taken a downed passenger jet to
make us see that Russia does not own Britain
742 comments
Britain is open for business, but is it still the right policy?
David Cameron and Boris Johnson 27 Jul 2014: The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 has thrown a spotlight on the
influence of Russian oligarchs. Now other areas of laissez-faire policies are being examined, from football clubs to party funding
95 comments
EU sends advisers to help Ukraine bring law and order to rebel areas
26 Jul 2014: Kremlin accuses Brussels of believing in 'fairytales' as more Russians face travel ban and asset freeze
1706 comments
MH17: Australia and Netherlands wait on Kiev to ratify police missions
Members of the Ukrainian State Emergency Service search for bodies near the crash site. 26 Jul 2014: Push to allow international
police teams into wreckage site waits for Ukrainian parliament to give the green light, despite government having no control over
the area
The 20 photographs of the week
Ranger and elephant Gallery (20 pictures), 26 Jul 2014: The aftermath of the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, the
conflict in Gaza and Israel, the Commonwealth Games and a flying carpet – the best photography in news, culture, nature and sport
from around the world this week
MH17: Ukraine plans special sitting to approve deal for Australian forces
26 Jul 2014: Ukraine says political turmoil will not keep it from agreeing to Australian police and defence personnel securing
the crash site
MH17: Australia and Netherlands join renewed push to secure crash site
A piece of debris at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. 25 Jul 2014: Australian police sent to London anticipating
access to crash site, while locals are allegedly looting items from wreckage
EU expands Russian oligarch sanctions blacklist in wake of MH17 crash
25 Jul 2014: Measures against Moscow looking likely after shooting down of plane, though deep divisions remain among 28 member
states
3439 comments
Russians in London: 'It's official policy now to hate us'
25 Jul 2014: Those living in capital have noticed backlash since the downing of flight MH17, and feel UK media is blaming all
Russians
Australia sends 100 more police for MH17 mission, as rhetoric softens
Tony Abbott and AFP commissioner Tony Negus in Canberra on Friday. 25 Jul 2014: Police may be armed and backed up by defence
personnel, but PM stresses their only brief is to bring bodies home
MH17: Australia ready to send police to secure crash site
25 Jul 2014: Tony Abbott says 90 police officers are ready to be deployed to eastern Ukraine site where Malaysia Airlines plane
was downed
More journalists detained in Ukraine while reporting on MH17 tragedy
25 Jul 2014: Reporters held by each side in the conflict
42 comments
To mock President Putin's pride and test his paranoia is folly
US President Barack Obama 25 Jul 2014: Simon Jenkins: The downing of flight MH17 was clearly an accident. This tragedy should
not be used as an excuse to punish Russia
1604 comments
MH17: the Netherlands to take responsibility for crash investigation - video
Julie Bishop and Frans Timmermans at a joint press conference Video (42 sec), 25 Jul 2014: In a joint press conference the
foreign ministers of the Netherlands and Australia announced that the Netherlands would take responsibility for the investigation
into the crash of MH17. Australia's foreign minister, Julie Bishop, said the move would allow the investigation to begin 'in earnest'
MH17 site: Obama and Abbott agree on push for access as more wreckage found
25 Jul 2014: US president promises to work closely with Australia set up 'full, unimpeded and transparent' international investigation
MH17: Abbott's admirable response should change his prime ministership
bruge haigh tony abbott piece 25 Jul 2014: Bruce Haigh: There is nothing manufactured for electoral advantage in how Tony Abbott
is handling the MH17 crisis. He should apply his instinctive compassion to domestic politics, too
517 comments
Morning Mail: Israel strikes Gaza school; Air Algérie flight crashes
A Palestinian man cries after bringing a child, wounded in an Israeli strike on a compound housing a UN school in Beit Hanoun,
to a hospital in Beit Lahiya. 24 Jul 2014: Guardian Australia's morning news briefing from around the web
MH17 crash: sanctions against Russia are illegal, ambassador claims
24 Jul 2014: Moscow insists documents that show Russians armed the separatists who shot down Malaysia Airlines plane are forged
2123 comments
MH17: victims' relatives can help one another in their bereavement
Bodies Of MH17 Victims Arrive In Eindhoven, Netherlands 24 Jul 2014: Jim Swire: As I learned from losing my daughter in Lockerbie,
a support group formed of victims' relatives can be a help in a crisis
41 comments
Remembering the HIV/Aids researchers and activists lost on MH17
Guardian Professional, 24 Jul 2014: As victims remains arrive in the Netherlands, Matthew Jenkin examines why their loss is
not just a personal tragedy but a professional one
4 comments
Fred returns to Shakhtar Donetsk having stayed away after MH17 disaster
24 Jul 2014: Midfielder Fred, who refused to return to Ukraine after the MH17 disaster, has now arrived back with Shakhtar
Donetsk
If you're avoiding air travel after MH17 and more, let statistics be your guide
jumbo jet airplane 24 Jul 2014: James Ball: You've undoubtedly heard that you're more likely to get hit by lightning or die
in a car wreck. But is that really true?
555 comments
Australia has federal police ready to enter Ukraine and secure MH17 site
24 Jul 2014: Prime minister has sent 50 officers to London and is prepared to send them to Ukraine
750 comments
MH17 crash site: Australian foreign minister pushes for access
24 Jul 2014: Julie Bishop says negotiations are under way amid reports Australian police and troops may be deployed to area
MH17: Ukraine separatist commander 'admits' rebels had Buk missile system
Alexander Khodakovsky 23 Jul 2014: Alexander Khodakovsky reportedly told news agency rebels may have received Buk from Russia,
but claims he was misquoted
Morning Mail: MH17 and Gaza latest; Taiwan plane crash
23 Jul 2014: Guardian Australia's morning news briefing from around the web
MH17: Bodies arrive in Holland as Ukrainian rebel 'admits' missile system – as it happened
23 Jul 2014: Forty coffins aboard two transport planes arrive at Eindhoven air base in the Netherlands as rebels shoot down
two Ukrainian fighter jets near to crash site
3781 comments
Calls for Tory MP to stand down as trade envoy over Russian business links
Charles Hendry 23 Jul 2014: Cameron's advisor Charles Hendry heads body promoting Russo-British trade as MPs urger stronger
sanctions
Netherlands mourns as bodies of MH17 plane crash victims are flown home
23 Jul 2014: Dutch royals and premier Mark Rutte join relatives at Eindhoven airport to receive 40 coffins arriving from Ukraine
disaster site
Europe must learn to deal with Moscow without US backing
23 Jul 2014: Mary Dejevsky: In the new multipolar world, with the US sometimes on the sidelines, EU unity is essential for
its approach to Russia
592 comments
The Guardian view on sanctions against Russia
Vladimir Putin attend in Russian Security Council meeting 23 Jul 2014: Editorial: After the shooting down of the Malaysian
airliner, sanctions should be shaped to give President Putin a chance to change his policies
673 comments
Northern Ireland's lessons for Ukraine
Dutch military men carry coffins contain 23 Jul 2014: Letters: If a link can be proved between Putin's government and the MH17
crime, let him be called as an accessory
Setting the agenda in coverage of Gaza and MH17
23 Jul 2014: Letters: Far more space was devoted to the plane disaster than to Gaza. The BBC does not give a full and fair
account of the conflict with Israel
Graphic content: when photographs of carnage are too upsetting to publish
MH17 passengers' belongings 23 Jul 2014: The onslaught in Gaza and the MH17 crash scene in Ukraine have generated thousands
of images, many of which show the gruesome reality of the violence. How does Roger Tooth, the Guardian's head of photography,
decide whether or not to use such images?
• Warning: this article includes graphic images some readers may find disturbing
183 comments
Bodies of MH17 victims arrive in the Netherlands on a day of mourning - video
Bodies carried by Australian military as they arrive in Eindhoven Video (1min 05sec), 23 Jul 2014: Dignitaries watch as military
transport planes bring bodies of the victims of the MH17 disaster to Eindhoven as the country holds a national day of mourning
MH17: don't judge Dutch people's grief after this unspeakable crime
23 Jul 2014: Laura Klompenhouwer: Dutch people have been through the mill after 193 of our compatriots were shot down. Silence
seems the right response
678 comments
Rebels shoot down two Ukrainian fighter jets days after downing of MH17
MH17 wreckage 23 Jul 2014: Ukrainian military spokesman says planes were brought down about 16 miles from site of Malaysia
Airlines crash
MH17: Dutch mayor wants Vladimir Putin's daughter Maria deported
23 Jul 2014: Pieter Broertjes called for 29-year-old to be expelled from the Netherlands in wake of plane disaster but later
apologised
Photo highlights of the day
A circus dog performs in costume during a free public show to protest Mexico City's ban on circus animals 23 Jul 2014: The
Guardian's photo editors bring you a daily round up from the world of photography - today including the Costa Concordia being
towed away, MH17 repatriations, the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, and a Mexican protesting dog
Parents of three children killed on MH17 living in 'a hell beyond hell'
Evie, Mo and Otis Maslin 23 Jul 2014: Anthony Maslin and Marite Norris, parents of Mo, Evie and Otis, who were killed along
with grandfather Nick Norris, release statement saying their 'pain is intense and relentless'
Journalists covering the Ukraine crisis suffer intimidation
23 Jul 2014: Detentions and raids make life dangerous for reporters
53 comments
MH17: relatives in the Netherlands await victims' bodies – video
Floral tributes at Schiphol airport for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 Video (1min 35sec), 23 Jul 2014: Military aircraft prepare
to fly the first bodies retrieved from Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 to Eindhoven
MH17: Rebels likely shot down plane 'by mistake'
A pro-Russian rebel touches the MH17 wreckage at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, near the village of Hrabove,
eastern Ukraine, Tuesday, July 22, 2014. 23 Jul 2014: Senior US officials said intelligence supports the theory that rebels shot
down MH17 "by mistake," but that there is "no evidence of direct Russian government involvement"
1147 comments
Australia's Tony Abbott criticises search for MH17 bodies as 'unprofessional' – video
Tony Abbott MH17 press conference Video (56 sec), 23 Jul 2014: The Australian prime minister says trying to determine the number
of bodies retrieved from the site of the MH17 crash has been difficult
MH17: BBC veteran supports Sky News reporter over his 'error of judgment'
23 Jul 2014: Don't shoot the messenger, he pleads
22 comments
MH17: grim task ahead for DNA experts as they sift remains to identify bodies
Flowers mh17 23 Jul 2014: DNA analysis should allow investigators to put a name to victims so they can be repatriated
MH17: Bill Clinton urges resolve at Aids conference in face of plane disaster – video
Bill Clinton Video (1min 40sec), 23 Jul 2014: Former US president Bill Clinton has told delegates at a Melbourne Aids conference
not to weaken their resolve following the downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine
MH17: Bill Clinton praises Julie Bishop for securing UN resolution
23 Jul 2014: Former US president says he was proud to be in Australia at time of foreign minister's UN speech on disaster
MH17: governor general Peter Cosgrove to receive bodies in Netherlands
Peter Cosgrove and Tony Abbott 23 Jul 2014: Joins air chief in charge of 'Operation Bring Them Home', as PM says it is unclear
how many bodies are still at the site
MH17: US intelligence says Russia 'created conditions' for plane disaster
22 Jul 2014: US officials stop short of blaming crash directly on Moscow and say separatists likely shot down plane by accident
1899 comments
US intelligence: rebels likely shot down MH17 'by mistake' – as it happened
22 Jul 2014: EU foreign ministers to weigh new sanctions against Russia
3997 comments
Flight MH17: identification begins after bodies from crash site arrive in Kharkiv
A Malaysian air crash investigator inspecting the crash debris near Grabovo 22 Jul 2014: Interpol says it has begun preliminary
work on remains, which are to be flown to the Netherlands this week
Morning Mail: MH17 bodies arrive in Ukraine; international flights to Israel suspended
22 Jul 2014: Guardian Australia's morning news briefing from around the web
EU announces further sanctions on Russia after downing of MH17
22 Jul 2014: Proposals will not be applied immediately as Putin urges rebels to cooperate with investigators for the first
time
Why did so many people share graphic images of MH17 crash site on social media?
A man inspects debris at the main crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 22 Jul 2014: Horrific and unfiltered images of
plane debris, dead bodies and the personal belongings of those who died in the crash were shared widely on social media within
minutes of the disaster
117 comments
Tories face calls to hand back Ł160k given by Russian for tennis match
22 Jul 2014: Wife of deputy finance minister under Putin in 2000, won auction at fundraising event to play with Cameron and
Johnson
322 comments
Flight MH17: Russia must be sent clear message, says Hammond - video
HAMMOND Video (45 sec), 22 Jul 2014: The foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, says the EU must send a "very clear signal to Russia"
that it cannot continue its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine
Ukrainians report sightings of missile launcher on day of MH17 crash
Buk 22 Jul 2014: In Torez, some say missile's journey through town has been a hot topic but people are scared of talking to
outsiders
MH17 black boxes arrive in Farnborough for analysis
22 Jul 2014: AAIB experts will examine chain of events using data from voice and flight recorders belonging to Malaysia Airlines
plane
MH17: five of the most bizarre conspiracy theories
22 Jul 2014: Padraig Reidy: From Zionist plots to the Illuminati, some wildly imaginative alternatives are being promoted by
the likes of Russian TV
522 comments
MH17: Sky News reporter apologises for handling luggage at crash site
Colin Brazier 22 Jul 2014: Colin Brazier says 'I got it wrong' after complaints to Ofcom over footage showing him picking up
items top 200. By Jason Deans
Flight MH17: what the Russian papers are saying
A Malaysian air crash investigator inspects the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, near the village of Hrabove (Grabovo),
Donetsk region on 22 July, 2014. 22 Jul 2014: Despite mounting evidence that Moscow-backed rebels are responsible for shooting
down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine, Russia's media is still painting a very different picture. RFE/RL reports
392 comments
Train carrying bodies from flight MH17 arrives in Kharkiv - video
Train arrives in Kharkiv Video (54 sec), 22 Jul 2014: The train, believed to be carrying 282 bodies from the MH17 plane crash,
arrives in government-held Kharkiv in Ukraine
MH17: train carrying bodies of victims arrives in government-held Kharkiv
The train with refrigerated wagons carrying the victims' bodies arrives in city of Kharkiv 22 Jul 2014: Train believed to be
carrying 282 bodies arrives in Kharkiv – from where they will be flown to the Netherlands
Newcastle beat Sydney and pay tribute to fans who died on flight MH17
22 Jul 2014: Newcastle beat Sydney 4-0 in Dunedin at the start of their New Zealand tour but the football was overshadowed
Alan Pardew pays tribute to Newcastle United fans killed in MH17 flight - video
Alan Pardew Video (1min 12sec), 22 Jul 2014: Newcastle United manager Alan Pardew pays tribute to two fans killed on Malaysia
Airlines flight MH17, saying the club will look to honour their memory this season
MH17 tragedy reflected in the faces of schoolchildren at condolence ceremony
Ambassadors from affected countries stand in the Australian parliament foyer during the signing of a condolence book on Tuesday.
22 Jul 2014: The most heart wrenching part of parliament's condolence book ceremony was that the faces of the lost could so easily
have been among the schoolchildren solemnly watching on
MH17: UN backs resolution demanding access to crash site – as it happened
22 Jul 2014: The Security council has unanimously backed an Australian-drafted resolution condemning the "downing" of flight
MH17 as separatists handover the black boxes to a Malaysian delegation
1212 comments
Tony Abbott labels MH17 crash site evidence-tampering on 'industrial scale'
22 Jul 2014: 'After the crime comes the cover-up,' says Australian PM as he steps up rhetoric against pro-Russian rebels
MH17: my error of judgment, by Sky News reporter
MH17: Sky News reporter Colin Brazier reports from the crash scene 22 Jul 2014: Colin Brazier on how he came to pick up crash
victims' luggage live on air – and immediately realised he had crossed a line
Joe Hockey hopes Russia will still attend G20 summit in Brisbane
22 Jul 2014: 'Rarely are great things achieved by excluding people from the conversation,' says Australian treasurer
Ukraine rebels hand over MH17 black boxes and let train carrying bodies leave
22 Jul 2014: Malaysian officials receive flight recorders, while remains of 282 victims begin journey to Netherlands
The world is burning, but remember our sympathy goes only so far
palestine 22 Jul 2014: Matthew Beard: If we don't feel sorrow and anger at the suffering of others, something's wrong. However,
a well-cultivated moral sense recognises that you can't own someone else's pain
113 comments
MH17 black box handed to Malaysia by pro-Russian separatists – video
Blackboxes returned Video (1min 06sec), 22 Jul 2014: The pro-Russian separatists governing the part of eastern Ukraine above
which flight MH17 is thought to have been downed by a missile have handed the black box flight recorders to Malaysian authorities.
At a ceremony in the city of Donetsk, Malaysia expressed its 'sincere appreciation'
MH17: Australia and Netherlands join in pledge 'to bring our people home'
22 Jul 2014: Australian and Dutch foreign ministers Julie Bishop and Frans Timmermans say the overriding objective is to bring
home bodies of MH17 victims after the passing of UN resolution
MH17: UN resolution passes as Russia points fingers at Ukraine – video
Julie Bishop Video (1min 32sec), 22 Jul 2014: Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop welcomed the acceptance of a UN resolution
condemning the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and demanding access to the crash site. Russia backed the resolution,
but soon after accused Ukraine of exploiting the situation for political means
Pro-Russian rebels hand over MH17 black boxes to Malaysian officials - as it happened
Aleksandr Borodai, Prime Minister of the self proclaimed 'Donetsk People's Republic', speaks at a news conference. 21 Jul 2014:
Separatists hand over MH17 black boxes to Malaysian delegation following lengthy negotiations
2836 comments
EU blacklists Vladimir Putin's 'cronies' as David Cameron calls for arms ban
21 Jul 2014: Prime minister says ties between east and west are at decisive moment as UN Security Council calls for full access
to crash site
MH17: UN backs Australian resolution demanding access to crash site
Julie Bishop UN 21 Jul 2014: Resolution wins Russian support, but ambassador questions authenticity of taped conversations
and video footage
Morning Mail: MH17 bodies moved from conflict zone; more bloodshed in Gaza
21 Jul 2014: Guardian Australia's morning news briefing from around the web
Russia hits back at claims it supported rebels suspected of downing MH17
21 Jul 2014: Vladimir Putin still blames Kiev for disaster in eastern Ukraine and claims west is using air atrocity for political
gain
MH17 victims' bodies are finally moved out of conflict zone
Emergency workers load the bodies of passengers on to a truck 21 Jul 2014: Train carrying bodies of victims leaves Torez as
plane's black box recorders were due to be handed to Malaysian delegation
MH17 black box handover set to delay escalation of sanctions against Russia
21 Jul 2014: Move means special meeting of EU foreign ministers is unlikely to press ahead with generalised economic sanctions
MH17: Dutch king Willem-Alexander meets grieving relatives in Utrecht
21 Jul 2014: Monarch says disaster leaves a 'deep wound in our society' after he and wife Maxima speak to family and friends
of those killed
Let Putin save face
Vladimir Putin 21 Jul 2014: Angus Roxburgh: The Russian leader hates being lectured. A change of tack could persuade him to
disown Ukraine's rebels
1083 comments
MH17: Obama says Putin 'directly responsible' for investigators' safety
21 Jul 2014: President says Russian leader must 'compel separatists to cooperate', as secure recovery of bodies is 'least that
decency demands'
30 comments
China stays quiet on MH17 disaster
21 Jul 2014: Closer Sino-Russian relations mean Chinese leaders are loth to apportion blame for downing of Malaysia Airlines
plane
58 comments
Joep Lange obituary
Joep Lange in 2005. 21 Jul 2014: One of the world's top HIV/Aids researchers and prominent pioneer of antiretroviral therapy
3 comments
David Cameron's Commons statement on MH17: Politics live blog
21 Jul 2014: Andrew Sparrow's rolling coverage of all the day's political developments as they happen, including Tony Blair's
speech marking the 20th anniversary of his election as Labour leader and David Cameron's statement to the Commons on the shooting
down of flight MH17
589 comments
Heavy clashes in Donetsk as forensic experts arrive at MH17 crash site
21 Jul 2014: Four killed in heavy clashes in rebel stronghold of Donetsk as international pressure builds on Russia
3070 comments
MH17 victim's online charity appeal receives flood of donations
Flowers at Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash site 21 Jul 2014: Thousands of pounds raised on JustGiving account in aid of Nepalese
children since Briton died in Malaysia Airlines disaster
MH17 crash site chaos - in pictures
Ukrainian State Emergency Service employees search amongst the wreckage at the crash site of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17.
21 Jul 2014: Experts fear evidence of how the Malaysia Airlines MH17 plane was brought down could be lost for ever as evidence
disappears from the crash site
UK to press European allies for tougher sanctions against Russia over MH17
21 Jul 2014: EU to consider further oil, gas, defence and financial penalties if Putin does not encourage rebels to allow access
to crash site
353 comments
MH17: Dutch experts arrive at crash scene as heavy fighting breaks out
OSCE inspectors document the bodybags from MH17 at Torez train station 21 Jul 2014: Investigators say train being loaded with
bodies will soon be moved as Ukraine launches offensive near Donetsk station
Sharing pictures of corpses on social media isn't the way to bring a ceasefire
21 Jul 2014: Suzanne Moore: First thoughts: I don't need you to tweet any more images of dead children – spreading them only
devalues the currency of shared humanity
813 comments
MH17: Alan Pardew dedicates season to Newcastle fans who died in Ukraine
21 Jul 2014: Alan Pardew has dedicated the forthcoming season to the two Newcastle fans who died in the Malaysian Airlines
tragedy and praised Sunderland supporters for their generous donations
MH17: Sydney teacher identified as victim of Malaysia Airlines disaster
Gabriele 21 Jul 2014: Gabriele Lauschet, who was 47, was a teacher at the German International School at Terrey Hills
Swedish reporters detained while reporting on MH17 tragedy
21 Jul 2014: They were confined with seven other journalists
24 comments
MH17: Abbott says Australia would take Russian veto of resolution 'very badly'
21 Jul 2014: Australian PM Tony Abbott says world leaders are strengthening their resolve over the downing of the Malaysia
Airlines plane
MH17: purported black box recorder being removed from crash site – video
Black box Ukraine Video (41 sec), 21 Jul 2014: Video taken on Friday purports to show the black box recorder of flight MH17
being removed from its crash site in Ukraine, as cranes were used to remove part of the plane over the weekend. Rebel fighters
say they have the black box and are prepared to hand it to international experts when they arrive in the town of Donetsk
MH17: world's anger at Russia grows as bodies pile on to train at crash site
21 Jul 2014: Experts fear clues as to why Malaysia Airlines plane was brought down could be lost for ever as chaos at scene
persists
1454 comments
Both Sydney A-League clubs touched by MH17 disaster before warm-up games
21 Jul 2014: Western Sydney Wanderers mourn fan Jack O'Brien, while Sydney FC face Newcastle United, who lost two devoted supporters
Malaysia Airlines crash site 'absolutely shambolic', says Australian PM – video
Tony Abbott Video (3min 16sec), 21 Jul 2014: Tony Abbott has branded the MH17 crash site 'absolutely shambolic' and called
on Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin to stick to his word and help repatriate the victims
MH17: holidaymakers, students and family of five among 38 Australian victims
21 Jul 2014: Heartbreaking details emerge as identities of 38 Australian citizens and residents who died in the shooting down
of MH17 over Ukraine are released
MH17: UN resolution on ensuring crash site access set for Monday
21 Jul 2014: Russia will support final version in security council vote if no one is blamed, according to reports in Australian
newspaper
MH17: Vladimir Putin will be held to his word on open inquiry, says Tony Abbott
Tony Abbott
Cameron tells Putin MH17 victims deserve proper funerals - as it happened
Rebel soldiers pass a large piece of debris at the main crash site of MH17 which was shot down over eastern Ukraine. 20 Jul
2014: PM has told the Russian president that he must ensure access to the crash site as negotiations continue to bring the victims'
bodies under Ukrainian control.
834 comments
Morning Mail: MH17 chaos as bodies loaded on to train; Gaza's bloodiest day
20 Jul 2014: Guardian Australia's morning news briefing from around the web
Martin Rowson on the world's current conflicts – cartoon
Martin Rowson 21.07.14 Cartoon, 20 Jul 2014: World's anger at Russia grows following the downing of flight MH17, while the
conflict in Gaza escalates, Isis militants gather strength in Syria and Baghdad bombings kill dozens
183 comments
Cameron tells Putin shooting down of MH17 was 'unacceptable'
20 Jul 2014: Anger grows in EU and leaders prepare fresh sanctions against Moscow as separatists obstruct access to crash site
Malaysia Airlines crash: across globe, prayers said as grief turns to despair
20 Jul 2014: Thousands of miles apart, family and friends united in mourning for those killed when missile downed flight MH17
in east Ukraine
Russians blame Kiev government for MH17 disaster, not Ukrainian rebels
Woman lays flowers at the Dutch embassy in Moscow 20 Jul 2014: Some floral tributes outside Dutch embassy in Moscow read 'forgive
us' but most people believe in plot to undermine Russia
MH17: donations surge in memory of Britons as all 10 passengers identified
20 Jul 2014: Fundraising web page set up by Richard Mayne sees pledges spike, while tribute to Newcastle United fans raises
Ł18,000
Three pro-Russia rebel leaders at the centre of suspicions over downed MH17
20 Jul 2014: Igor Strelkov, Igor Bezler and Nikolai Kozitsyn reportedly discussed the shooting down of a plane soon after jet
exploded
Punishing Russia for the MH17 tragedy will not help Ukraine
flight mh17 20 Jul 2014: Oliver Bullough: Anger at Russia's actions is hardening. Yet our leaders should recognise that the
west had its own role in Ukraine's collapse
540 comments
MH17: missile launcher was in towns near crash site, videos suggest
20 Jul 2014: Videos and photographs appear to show a mobile anti-aircraft missile launcher in neighbouring towns of Torez and
Snizhne
196 comments
Justice for the bereaved after MH17 tragedy
20 Jul 2014: Letters: The bereaved deserve an immediate, transparent investigation followed by appropriate compensation
MH17: air accident experts fear that crash site is becoming contaminated
Malaysian Airlines MH 17 Crash Site 20 Jul 2014: Area in which Malaysia Airlines plane came down should be 'sealed off and
treated like a crime scene' to preserve evidence
Sky News apologises after presenter is seen looking through MH17 luggage
20 Jul 2014: Broadcaster met with storm of criticism after footage emerges of Colin Brazier picking items from suitcase at
crash site
MH17 crash: Kerry lays out evidence of pro-Russia separatists' responsibility
20 Jul 2014: US secretary of state lists 'enormous input that points fingers' and urges Moscow to act as rebels move victims'
bodies from crash site
President Putin is a pariah, say the national newspapers in unison
20 Jul 2014: Roy Greenslade on what the Sunday papers say about Russia's leader after the MH17 atrocity
59 comments
MH17: Kerry says all evidence points to separatists and urges Russia to 'step up'
mh17 crash site 20 Jul 2014: Secretary of state says 'We have enormous input about this that points fingers' and calls on Russia
to help full investigation
524 comments
EU to rethink Russian relations in wake of MH17 tragedy
20 Jul 2014: Britain, France and Germany agree need for more robust stance against Vladimir Putin and may press for further
sanctions
Aids conference pays tribute to Malaysia Airlines victims
Aids 2014 symposium in Melbourne 20 Jul 2014: Aids 2014 symposium in Melbourne honours six experts killed when MH17 flight
shot down over Ukraine
MH17: Vladimir Putin is given 'one last chance' as world fury mounts over downed flight
20 Jul 2014: Dutch PM describes armed rebels' behaviour in blocking access to crash site as 'revolting'
2926 comments
MH17 victims put on refrigerated train bound for unknown destination
20 Jul 2014: International monitors arrive in Torez to inspect wagons accompanied by convoy of heavily armed and nervous rebels
MH17: pro-Russia rebels will allow access to crash site if ceasefire agreed
Armed separatists at MH17 crash site in Ukraine 20 Jul 2014: Separatist leader will guarantee safety of international monitors
as Vladimir Putin gets 'one last chance' to help rescue effort
MH17: Rebels promise safe access to site in return for truce - as it happened
20 Jul 2014: Separatist leader says they will guarantee safety of crash site observers in return for a Kiev-backed truce, amid
accusations rebels are tampering with evidence and removing bodies from the site
2288 comments
MH17: UN draft resolution demands 'guilty should be held to account'
20 Jul 2014: Draft resolution demands all states co-operate with investigation and those responsible for 'shooting down' jet
be held to account
MH17: Tony Abbott says Russia cannot 'wash its hands' of airline tragedy
MH17 20 Jul 2014: The prime minister fears Russia will allow continued interference at the site and of the 298 victims
Aids conference begins in Melbourne with gaping hole in delegates' hearts
20 Jul 2014: Colleagues say the six brilliant minds in the HIV field who died when MH17 was shot down will be remembered and
honoured
MH17: disaster was 'outcome of human evil', bishop tells Sydney mass
20 Jul 2014: Prime minister, governor-general and opposition leaders attend a service at St Mary's cathedral in Sydney
13 comments
MH17: family mourns 'senseless' deaths of three 'gentle, beautiful kids'
maslin children 20 Jul 2014: Three children and their grandfather were four of seven West Australians who died
MH17 flight attendant Angeline Premila Rajandran: 'She loved her job'
20 Jul 2014: Family in Malaysia says 30-year-old stewardess had had job for 10 years, and priority now is for her body to be
brought home
Family and friends pay tribute as last of the British dead in MH17 are named
20 Jul 2014: Ten British citizens died when the Malaysia Airlines jet was shot down over eastern Ukraine. They included a father
of three who died along with his Dutch wife and their children
MH17: the evidence against Russia
Buk missile system on video said to be eastern ukraine hours before aeroplane crash 20 Jul 2014: In the hours after the Malaysia
Airlines crash in Ukraine, evidence assembled from various sources appeared to point the blame at militants armed with Russian
missiles
Ukraine: it's time brutish Putin was held to account
Malaysia Airlines plane crashes in eastern Ukraine 20 Jul 2014: Observer editorial: Russia under Putin has become a threat
– regional and global – and its behaviour should be challenged
533 comments
David Cameron criticises Europe for lack of action on pro-Russia separatists
20 Jul 2014: 'For too long there has been a reluctance to face up to the implications of what is happening,' British PM says
Ukraine and the aftermath of the downing of flight MH17
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 crash site in Donetsk Region 19 Jul 2014: Dmitri Trenin: A ceasefire is only the first step in
a process to reverse the trend towards mutual destruction in the region
256 comments
MH17 and its aftermath: 'ordinary Russians are horrified and frightened'
19 Jul 2014: Natalia Antonova: In Moscow, conspiracy theories abound, along with disdain for the separatists and some support
for Putin
1372 comments
MH17: Kerry expresses US concern over reports bodies and debris moved
19 Jul 2014: Secretary of state speaks to Russian foreign minister as Russia and US put out differing statements on phone call
62 comments
Pilots' group president says MH17 shot down after attempt to avoid storms
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 takes off at 12.31 PM from Schiphol airport near Amsterdam. 19 Jul 2014: Malaysia Airlines plane
was flying lower than planned and may have diverted on to more northerly course over Donetsk
Putin's hard line on MH17 will only push Russia into an ever-tighter corner
19 Jul 2014: Jonathan Eyal: the Russian president has several routes of retreat in the face of growing pressure. He is unlikely
to take any of them
MH17: armed rebels fuel chaos as rotting corpses pile up on the roadside
19 Jul 2014: Pro-Russia gunmen in standoff with international investigators as reports grow of looting and the removal of evidence
MH17: Russia is not yet ready to abandon rebel groups
Russian President Vladimir Putin: not a happy man last week. 19 Jul 2014: Shaun Walker: if Vladimir Putin's 'people' are found
responsible for the tragedy in Ukraine, it will be devastating for him
MH17: Russian media pins blame on Ukraine government
19 Jul 2014: Rebel leaders go on Russian TV to deny role in disaster as state-run channels cover conspiracy theories and counterclaims
MH17: Ukraine claims 'compelling evidence' of Russian involvement
19 Jul 2014: Kiev says it has proof that missile launchers with Russian crews crossed into Ukraine as fears mount that rebels
are destroying evidence and removing bodies from the crash site
3031 comments
Malaysia's airline workers express horror and anger at fate of flight MH17
A candle-lit vigil in Kuala Lumpur for the victims of the MH17 crash 19 Jul 2014: The president of the country's national union
of flight attendants calls the death of all 298 people on board mass murder
MH17: Ukraine accuses pro-Russia rebels of taking bodies from crash site
19 Jul 2014: Kiev says pro-Russia rebels have removed bodies from crash site with help from Moscow, and are trying to destroy
evidence
Malaysia Airlines plane crash: 'an outrage of unspeakable proportions', says Obama - video
Barack Obama Video (1min 47sec), 19 Jul 2014: US President Barack Obama discusses on Friday the shooting down a Malaysian passenger
plane in east Ukraine on Thursday
The 20 photographs of the week
A Palestinian man burns a tyre during clashes with Israeli soldiers Gallery (20 pictures), 19 Jul 2014: The aftermath of the
downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, the escalating violence in Israel, the World Cup final – the best photography in news,
culture and sport from around the world this week
Eyewitness: Hrabove, Ukraine
Flowers are placed on a plane engine at the crash site of the Malaysia Airlines jet Picture, 19 Jul 2014: Photographs from
the Guardian Eyewitness series
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash site integrity may be compromised, says Malaysia - video
Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash site Video (3min 05sec), 19 Jul 2014: Malaysia expresses concerns that the crash site of Malaysia
Airlines flight MH17 has not been properly secured
Russian media is covering up Putin's complicity in the MH17 tragedy
monkey ukraine 19 Jul 2014: Masha Alekhina: In Russia, errors like shooting down a Malaysia Airlines jet could not have happened,
so they simply won't have happened
854 comments
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash – in pictures
Wildflowers are placed on a plane engine at the crash site. 19 Jul 2014: As experts from the UK and Malaysia arrive in Kiev
to assist a Ukrainian-led investigation into how flight MH17 was brought down, the world pays its respects to the dead
Pro-Russia rebels accused of cover-up over MH17 atrocity
19 Jul 2014: World leaders continue to demand answers over the MH17 air atrocity and relatives of the 298 on board mourn
1475 comments
MH17: Kiev and rebels hold talks to set up security zone around crash site
Miners inspect a piece of debris found in a field from an Air Malaysia plane on July 18, 2014 in Grabovka, Ukraine. 19 Jul
2014: Agreement comes as experts from UK and Malaysia arrive in Kiev to assist a Ukrainian-led investigation into how flight was
brought down
1549 comments
MH17: Victorian family of five add to list of Australian victims
19 Jul 2014: Couple and three children from Eynesbury, Melbourne, confirmed on flight as country mourns victims
Australians who died on flight MH17 – in pictures
Albert and Maree Rizk 19 Jul 2014: These are some of the faces of passengers who on board MH17 when it was apparently shot
down over Ukraine
MH17: Tony Abbott increases pressure on Russia as Bishop heads for UN
ukraine church 19 Jul 2014: Australian prime minister says he wants justice for 'dead and the living' and a 'full, impartial'
investigation
All eyes are on Vladimir Putin's reaction to the flight MH17 disaster
19 Jul 2014: Mary Dejevsky: The Russian president can either join international efforts to investigate the tragedy or he can
choose obfuscation and denial
202 comments
MH17: AIDS conference organisers name six delegates killed in crash
19 Jul 2014: International AIDS Society expresses grief at loss of colleagues, saying there will be more
MH17 crash: Julie Bishop urges Russia to back swift investigation
Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop speaks to the media following her meeting with the Russian ambassador, Vladimir Morozov,
in Sydney on Friday. 19 Jul 2014: Australian foreign minister says UN resolution is needed to ensure bodies can be repatriated
and crash site examined
MH17: Northern Territory teacher died returning from holiday
19 Jul 2014: Emma Bell, originally from NSW, was due back for the new term at Maningrida
MH17: rebels block access to part of site of crash as evidence against them grows
19 Jul 2014: First OSCE investigators to the scene retreat after hour-long standoff with armed separatists who fired warning
shots
21 comments
MH17: Australian flags to be flown at half-mast as nation mourns victims
Sister Philomene Tiernan was a teacher at Kincoppal-Rose Bay. 19 Jul 2014: Malaysia Airlines says it will fly families of 28
victims to Ukraine as Tony Abbott asks for official mark of respect at government buildings
Martin Rowson on flight MH17 and the Gaza invasion – cartoon
Martin Rowson 19.07.14 Cartoon, 18 Jul 2014: This week ended with a double dose of horror: Israel's ground incursion into Gaza,
and the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17
205 comments
Obama: MH17 disaster 'an outrage of unspeakable proportions' – as it happened
18 Jul 2014: Answers demanded after the apparent shooting down of a Malaysia Airlines passenger plane with 298 people on board
4589 comments
Number of Aids researchers on flight MH17 'smaller than reported'
Joep Lange 18 Jul 2014: Melbourne conference organisers confirm names of seven delegates on board with 28 Australian victims
MH17 plane crash site: sunhats, sweets … and stakes marking body parts
18 Jul 2014: Human remains, debris from Malaysia Airlines plane and surreal paraphernalia of long-haul travellers covers 15
square mile area
Obama says destruction of MH17 is a 'wake-up call' for Europe
18 Jul 2014: US president says separatists receive anti-aircraft equipment and training 'from Russia'
MH17 disaster creates dilemma for Putin over backing Ukraine's rebels
Russian President Vladimir Putin 18 Jul 2014: Malaysia Airlines crash makes supplying arms to separatists a threat to the world
but pulling the plug means defeat for Russia
Cover-up: Ukraine rebels destroying all links to MH17 air atrocity
18 Jul 2014: UN demands full inquiry but armed Russian separatists block access to crash site amid confusion over black boxes
968 comments
Sifting through the wreckage of MH17, searching for sense amid the horror
18 Jul 2014: Jonathan Freedland: In the face of events from Ukraine to Gaza, we want to believe that the world is not a place
of uncontrollable catastrophe
434 comments
Many airlines have avoided Ukrainian airspace for months
Planes 18 Jul 2014: British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific among those who have taken detours around area where MH17 was
brought down
MH17: Heathrow top departure point for planes that flew near east Ukraine
18 Jul 2014: Flight radar data shows that 930 flights travelled near or around eastern Ukraine over the past seven days
The Guardian view on the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine
18 Jul 2014: Editorial: Could this tragedy lead to new thinking in Moscow and Kiev and bring about fresh negotiations?
634 comments
Dutch king offers condolences to relatives of people on flight MH17
Dutch King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima 18 Jul 2014: Information shows 189 of 298 people on board were Dutch, but overall
reaction to tragedy in Netherlands is restrained
Alan Pardew pays tribute to Newcastle United supporters on flight MH17
18 Jul 2014: Newcastle United players and staff will wear black armbands in New Zealand as they pay tribute to John Alder and
Liam Sweeney
Flight MH17 was following right route, says Malaysian minister
18 Jul 2014: Malaysia Airlines says flight plan was approved and airspace was commonly used for flights between Europe and
Asia
MH17 crash: WHO officer, students and Newcastle fans among British victims
Glenn Thomas, WHO media officer 18 Jul 2014: Glenn Thomas, NUFC fans Liam Sweeney and John Alder, and students Richard Mayne
and Ben Pocock on MH17
Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: what we know so far
A picture taken on July 18, 2014 shows the wreckages of the Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 298 people from Amsterdam to Kuala
Lumpur 18 Jul 2014: Following new developments and global reaction overnight, here is a roundup of what we know about Thursday's
crash in the Ukraine
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash: world demands answers from Russia
18 Jul 2014: US criticises Kremlin's arming of rebels and Hillary Clinton says 'Putin has gone too far' after 298 die in missile
strike
Two Australians on downed MH17 lost relatives on missing flight MH370
Pieces of wreckage of the Malaysia Airli 18 Jul 2014: Family who suffered loss in March tragedy ripped apart again after Malaysia
Airlines jet carrying 298 people is shot down
Malaysia Airlines crash: Putin calls for Ukraine ceasefire
18 Jul 2014: Russian president's call for both sides to enter talks comes as Moscow and Kiev blame each other for the downing
of flight MH17
Russia Today reporter resigns in protest at MH17 coverage
18 Jul 2014: Sara Firth criticises Kremlin-backed news channel's 'disrespect for facts' in reports about Malaysia Airlines
plane disaster By John Plunkett
The MH17 crash images show us what war in Europe looks like in 2014
Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash site 18 Jul 2014: Jonathan Jones: Framing the debate: Rightly, picture editors chose not to show
some photos taken at the site. The wreckage itself communicates all we need to know
336 comments
Dutch travellers react calmly to loss of flight MH17
18 Jul 2014: Schiphol passenger reaction typified by: 'This is something that never, ever happens. It's unlikely to happen
again.'
Malaysia Airlines crash: world leaders condemn attack - video
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 flight crash site Video (3min 12sec), 18 Jul 2014: World leaders, including David Cameron, Barack
Obama and Angela Merkel, condemn the shooting down of Malaysia Airline flight MH17
Photo highlights of the day
David Beckhamwith Cruz and Romeo get slimed onstage during Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Sports Awards in Los Angeles, California.
18 Jul 2014: The Guardian's photo team brings you a daily round up from the world of photography
5 comments
MH17 dominates newspaper front pages around world, but not in Russia
18 Jul 2014: State-run Rossiyskaya Gazeta leads with story about Russians' eating habits, relegating plane crash to bottom
of page
• Follow the live blog on the MH17 crash
MH17 victims include former president of International Aids Society
18 Jul 2014: Joep Lange and partner among number of scientists and activists flying to international Aids conference in Melbourne
'Tragedy of flight MH17 must mark final point in Ukraine conflict'
Yuriah Tanzil (C), sister of Ninik Yuriani, an Indonesian passenger of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, is comforted by a relative
in the family residence in Jakarta. All 298 people on board Flight MH17 en route to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam died when the
plane crashed near a Ukrainian village. 18 Jul 2014: After the loss of so many innocent lives, the international community must
find a way to prevent this stand-off from reaching an even more dangerous level, says Dmitri Trenin
Ukraine responsible for Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 disaster, says Vladimir Putin – video
Russian President Vladimir Putin Video (1min 47sec), 18 Jul 2014: Russian president Vladimir Putin reacts on Thursday to the
shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in Ukraine
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash – in pictures
The crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in Donetsk 18 Jul 2014: The world is demanding answers from Russia after a
Malaysia Airlines jet's destruction over Donetsk, Ukraine, near the Russian border. The area has seen violent clashes between
Ukrainian and pro-Russia separatists since the annexation of Crimea in February
Cameron: culprits who shot down MH17 must be held to account
Wreckage from Malaysia Airlines MH17 in east Ukraine
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shot down in Ukraine – video report
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 flight crash site Video (2min 10sec), 18 Jul 2014: Firefighters and journalists discuss Malaysia
Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down in eastern Ukraine
Ukraine: missile that downed MH17 plane was not ours
18 Jul 2014: Foreign minister denies missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines jet over east of country came from Ukrainian
military
MH17: Russia risks losing standing over handling of disaster, Tony Abbott warns
abbott 18 Jul 2014: Australian PM says Kremlin's denial of any responsibility for downing of aircraft does not bear any 'serious
scrutiny'
156 comments
Can Malaysia Airlines survive MH17 disaster?
18 Jul 2014: Malaysian carrier was still reeling from the disappearance of MH370 in March when news of the crash in Ukraine
broke
Family missed Malaysia Airlines flight owing to lack of seats
18 Jul 2014: Couple with baby son were unable to board flight MH17 to Kuala Lumpur because there was only one seat left
• Follow the latest developments on our live blog
Tony Abbott calls for justice after Malaysia Airlines disaster – video
Tony Abbott parliament Video (1min 39sec), 18 Jul 2014: Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has told parliament those responsible
for shooting down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 'must be brought to justice'. He said Australia would seek a binding resolution
through the UN security council for a full investigation. The bodies of the Australians killed would be repatriated as quickly
as possible, he said, adding 'the bullying of small countries by big ones ... should have no place in our world'.
Malaysia Airlines plane MH17 'shot down' in Ukraine - as it happened
18 Jul 2014: A passenger jet belonging to Malaysia Airlines carrying 298 people has crashed in eastern Ukraine
Aids conference says 100 researchers may have been on flight MH17
18 Jul 2014: Session held ahead of Aids 2014 conference told email exchanges show about 100 attendees booked on flight MH17
UN meets as world leaders call for global inquiry into MH17 crash
Ban ki-moon 18 Jul 2014: UN Security Council meets amid demands for a independent investigation for fear aircraft debris may
be tampered with
Hillary Clinton says Russian-backed rebels likely shot down plane – video
Hilary Clinton Video (2min 15sec), 18 Jul 2014: Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has said if Malaysia Airways flight
MH17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile as believed by US intelligence agencies, then "the equipment had to have come from
Russia". Should Russia's assistance be proven, she called for Europe to step up sanctions against Russia and to "put Putin on
notice that he has gone too far and we are not going to stand idly by".
How the Ukraine crisis has worsened in the past week
18 Jul 2014: Conflict between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces had intensified before jet with 298 civilians on
board was shot down
Malaysia Airlines VP announces nationalities of MH17 passengers – video
Malaysia Airlines Chief Video (1min 03sec), 18 Jul 2014: Vice president of Malaysia Airlines Europe, Huib Gorter, has told
the media what he knows about the number of people killed on Malaysia Airlines flight MH17
MH17: tributes to victims as details emerge of 28 Australians killed
18 Jul 2014: Queensland and Victoria were home to majority of Australians killed in shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight
in Ukraine
MH17: recording shows Russian colonel and rebels 'discussing disaster' – video
Ukraine crash Reuters Video (2min 19sec), 18 Jul 2014: The Security Service of Ukraine has released a recording of what it
says are conversations between rebel fighters and a Russian colonel about shooting down the Malaysia Airlines plane
Malaysia Airlines MH17 flight path map
MH17 flight path graphic Graphic, 18 Jul 2014: • Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 takes off from Amsterdam at about10:30 (UTC/GMT),
headed for Kuala Lumpur
• MH17 is reportedly hit by a missile while flying over Ukraine at about 13:21 (UTC/GMT) and crashes near the village of Grabovo
in an area controlled by pro-Russia separatists
Russian aggression is a threat to global security, Ukraine president says after MH17 crash - video
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko Video (44 sec), 18 Jul 2014: In a televised address, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko
appeals to the global community to treat the missile attack on MH17 as more than just a local problem, calling the attack an act
of terrorism and a wake-up call for the whole world.
MH17 crash: investigators must have full access to site, says Malaysian PM
18 Jul 2014: Najib Razak calls for justice, saying air disaster 'a tragic day, in what has already been a tragic year, for
Malaysia'
MH17: Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop urges Ukraine rebels to co-operate with investigation - video
Julie Bishop Video (1min 18sec), 18 Jul 2014: Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop has urged pro-Russia separatists in
eastern Ukraine to co-operate with an investigation into the explosion of flight MH17, asking for Australian consulate staff to
be given access to the crash site. At least 27 Australian citizens are believed to have been on board the flight
Malaysia Airlines changes route over eastern Ukraine after MH17 shot down
18 Jul 2014: Airline says it had believed flight path over increasingly volatile region was safe, but will now take alternative
route
MH17: Hillary Clinton says Russian-backed rebels likely shot down plane
18 Jul 2014: Former US secretary of state declares 'Putin has gone too far' as White House criticises Kremlin's arming of Ukraine
separatists
Pim de Kuijer, my friend and Aids campaigner, killed in MH17 crash
Pim de Kuijer 18 Jul 2014: A friend pays tribute to the Dutch citizen killed in airliner shot down over Ukraine, who was an
enthusiastic writer and political activist and 'most of all loved by many'
Malaysia Airlines plane MH17: wars have bloomed from far, far less
18 Jul 2014: Paul Daley: Rapid and precise responses are demanded – but publicly displaying genuine empathy and leading public
grieving is just as critical for world leaders, including Tony Abbott
1230 comments
Missile destroys Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine, killing 298 people
18 Jul 2014: Pro-Russia rebels blamed for downing airliner, with Ukrainian president condemning 'terrorist act' and world leaders
expressing shock and revulsion
2192 comments
Malaysia Airlines crash: too early to call a terrorist attack, says expert
Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, Dutch embassy in Kiev 18 Jul 2014: Terrorism doesn't 'make sense' and the shooting of flight
MH17 is 'more likely to be a military event gone wrong'
Australian stock market braces for a fall after shooting down of MH17
18 Jul 2014: Stock futures indicated market would open at around half a percent lower, but sell off could be even worse
MH17 passenger about to board joked on Facebook about plane disappearing
18 Jul 2014: Messages flooded in as people realised young man and his girlfriend from the Netherlands were on plane shot down
Malaysia Airlines crash: Australian PM tells Russia to explain disaster
Tony Abbott talks to the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, in the House of Representatives on Friday morning. 18 Jul 2014: Tony
Abott tells MPs: 'This is not something that can just be dismissed as a tragic accident when you have Russian proxies using Russian-supplied
equipment'
Malaysia Airlines crash: analysts point towards Soviet-era Buk missile system
18 Jul 2014: Rebel groups in eastern Ukraine said to have been shooting at planes and helicopters with Buk missiles over past
week
MH17 crash: Aids researchers heading to Melbourne believed among dead
18 Jul 2014: Scientists were on route to the 20th international Aids conference, due to start on Sunday
Witnesses describe Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine - video
Crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 Video (1min 28sec), 17 Jul 2014: Witnesses describe the scene on Thursday afternoon
when Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed near the Ukraine-Russia border
Malaysia Airlines crash: 27 Australians on board downed plane in Ukraine
Flames and smoke rise from the debris at the crash site. 17 Jul 2014: Tony Abbott says it is a 'grim, grim time' and the world
should be 'filled with revulsion' if it is proved the plane was shot down
MH17 crash site: impact threw us to the ground, say shocked witnesses
17 Jul 2014: Our reporter at scene of downed Malaysian airliner sees debris and body parts across huge area near Russia-Ukraine
border
Ukrainian president calls Malaysia Airlines crash a 'terrorist attack' - video
Ukrainian president calls Malaysia Airlines crash a "terrorist attack" - video Video (2min 10sec), 17 Jul 2014: Journalists
and emergency services examine the crash site near the eastern Ukrainian town of Grabovo where Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 fell
Downed Malaysia Airlines plane: how did it go wrong for flight MH17?
17 Jul 2014: All flights now barred from eastern Ukraine, where airliner was downed while reportedly flying 1,000ft above restricted
airspace
A history of passenger aircraft that have been shot down
17 Jul 2014: Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 may be the latest passenger aircraft to be brought down by militaries around the
globe
Malaysia: 'We're not ready to accept this so soon after MH370 tragedy'
Relatives of passengers on Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 await information at Kuala Lumpur airport 17 Jul 2014: Malaysia Airlines
crash in Ukraine stuns country still searching for answers to and wreckage of disappeared flight MH370
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashes in east Ukraine
17 Jul 2014: Plane carrying 298 people may have been shot down near Russian border but government and separatists deny involvement
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashes over Ukraine - video
Ukraine: Malaysia Airlines plane 'shot down' Video (1min 36sec), 17 Jul 2014: A Malaysia Airlines passenger flight has crashed
over eastern Ukraine with 295 people on board
Ukraine claims fighter plane shot down by Russian missile
Sukhoi Su-25 fighter planes 17 Jul 2014: Russia denies strike on jet, the third reported incident this week, amid accusations
of involvement in attacks on Ukrainian troops
The insurrection in eastern Ukraine has real local roots, whatever assistance the Russians may have given. And the
difficulties of inspecting
the MH17 crash site stem as much from the ongoing Ukrainian military offensive as from obstacles put up by the rebels.
The British press has been particularly ready to shoot from the hip (the Sun proclaimed "Putin's Missile" brought down MH17 well
ahead of evidence that it was a missile, or linked to Russia). The sad spectacle of huge press outrage when pro-Russian secessionists
seized a US journalist, followed by silence when the Ukrainians seized a pro-Russian British journalist, underlines the inconsistency.
Editors can claim, correctly, that Russian official lying justifies aiming off. But, as the "false photos" affair showed, the Ukrainians
are no better. Far too often Russia has become a pantomime villain getting nothing but catcalls.
All of this has real world consequences.
The confrontational course the UK government in particular has taken on the Ukraine issue has undoubtedly been eased by ministers
knowing they are playing to a largely anti-Russian press. In countries (notably France and Germany) where the press line has been
less strident, so has the political reaction been.
Things may be getting better. Indiscriminate Ukrainian bombardment of civilian areas in Donetsk and Luhansk has attracted sharp
questioning, notably by the BBC. The western
lurch down the blind alley of economic sanctions has given rise to some surprisingly sceptical comment (even
in the Financial Times, a consistent advocate of sanctions). But a core part of the west's claim that our system is superior
to Putin's is that our free press is better than Russia's state suffocated media environment. That has been true through this crisis,
but not as true as it should have been.
Sir Tony Brenton is a former British diplomat who served as ambassador to Russia from 2004-2008
SirLuciusOTrigger,04 August 2014 3:00pm
Is western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis anti-Russian?
Do bears crap in the woods?
Reyter01 -> SirLuciusOTrigger,04 August 2014 3:08pm
yeah. A patently ridiculous question. The Guardians pathetic attempt to say 'We really are the "free" press'. And tomorrow
it will be business as usual.
earthboy SirLuciusOTrigger, 04 August 2014 5:46pm
They do.
Guardian trying to present itself as 'other', as usual.
Russia, China, India, the great Eurasian threat to Western power. Clearly the US, UK, et al have a plan to destabilise
Russia and take it over by creeping stealth. How much further east can Nato go before it needs to change its name? The Atlantic
is very far away from the Urals. Even Napolean didn't go that far east.
coober -> AuObserver, 05 August 2014 1:45am
I think the sanctions have tied Putin's hands.
No. It strengthens Putin. US and EU are acting like a cartel. They have now lost their best customer. Russia can be self sufficient
and if they want partners they have BRICS and the rest of the World.
Murdoch loves monopoly and besides ruining Australia he is also ruining the US and the EU.
allunequal -> SirLuciusOTrigger, 05 August 2014 9:50am
Very cleverly written.
They provide lots of detail to support the answer being in the affirmative...
An innovative way to spout propaganda. I'm impressed.
It is quite clearly a corporatist state where state control is heavily enforced and propaganda is rife and used to control
the perceptions of the people in order to line them up behind the state's imperial ambitions.
However - how is the West any different?
I thought the contribution above by the former British ambassador to Moscow was quite astonishing:
Sadly, despite a lifetime of being lied to by their authorities, Russians still accept what their government tells them.
You can replace"Russians" in that quote with any nationality you care to mention and it would still be true.
In the West we are committed to the ideal of pluralist liberal democracy i.e. where everyone may have a say, an ideal itself
founded upon the broader ideals of self-determination, the political equality of individuals, the autonomy of agents, the value
of their projects, the ideal of adequate choices, and a commitment to an idea of liberty as non-domination or political accountability.
In practice these ideals are expressed through strong institutions and norms of substantive constitutional democracy and the rule
of law.
In the West we are committed to the ideal of pluralist liberal democracy
Who is "we" ?
Perhaps you and I would be committed to those ideals you list but the vast majority of the people in power in the west are not.
I think you've fallen into the trap of believing what you are told rather than the evidence of what goes on around us.
I'll point you in the direction of one M.K Gandhi, who, when asked what he thought of Western civilisation said:
I think that was possibly the point of the exercise.
For me the Ukraine crisis has revealed a lot about how the media works.
Pretty much everything the Western-supporters said in Ukraine was relayed as gospel, as confirmed, as official. Anything the separatists,
or the Russians, said, was propaganda.
But, in between that war of words, there were those episodes that weren't properly covered in our media. There was the Nuland
phonecall and the Ashton conversation with the Estonian Foreign Minister, dismissed as a conspiracy theory. There was the massacre
in Odessa, quickly excused as a Russian provocation (before filmed evidence suggested otherwise), the shooting of unarmed civilians
at Mariupol (hardly covere, but caught on film), the Ukrainian airforce raid on Luhansk, and so on. And, in recent weeks, there's
been nothing on the Communist Party being kicked out of the Rada, or the processing of thousands of people through the Ukrainian
courts for speaking out against the ATO.
In the last few days we haven't been informed that Ukraine has used Tochka ballistic missiles, or that there have been riots
against conscription in many western cities. Or that 450 Ukrainian soldiers have crossed the border to escape the fighting, and
that 1500 more are negotiating surrender.
And we haven't been told there's no hot water in Kyiv, that the local currency is collapsing and that there's an extra tax
to pay for the war.
So debate as to whether there is a free press is ongoing. But what we do seem to have is a press, on both sides, which is manipulating
the narrative. I can see how that might happen in Russia.
But we should be asking why is our free press manipulating the narrative. Is the media so in bed with government, or corporations,
that we live in a world where we are to be force fed a particular story?
And should we be surprised if people seek out an alternative version if we recognise that forces above us are twisting the
story?
Excellent post. If the Guardian had really been interested in getting a broad spectrum of opinion on western media treat of the
Ukraine it could have broadened it's 'experts' to include some genuine alternative discourse from people such as John Pilger.
Here is what Pilger had to say on the Western media!
Thanks for the Pilger link, it says all you need to know about the Guardian. It is far more interesting and insightful than
the voices chosen for this piece. Interesting that Seumas Milne is spoken of as "the radical Guardian columnist", what does that
make the other journalists who have covered Ukraine. I think he would describe them rather like he does Aaronovitch, that they
have all "fawned expertly".
llunequal Dinosam, 05 August 2014 9:59am
If the BBC's mission statement is impartiality and objectivity... what do you expect from a newspaper who doesn't have that
mission statement?
FrancesSmith Jeremn, 05 August 2014 10:28am
thanks for that list of things the media haven't told us.
though funnily enough this morning (5/8/14) the today programme on the bbc reported the 450 ukrainian soldiers who had crossed
into russia, however it was mocking the russian version of events, and the journalist said he had interviewed them and they didn't
want asylum, as allegedly russia had said, but to go back.
The mocking tone of the story was interesting, they probably aren't even aware they are doing it, but it seems to be about
peer pressure. You tell lots of stories about how bad the russian media is, and so because no one knows enough about what is going
on there, they believe it, and don't want to be seen to be unaware of that.
Larry144 Jeremn
You are making excellent points, bravo.
Jeremn FrancesSmith, 05 August 2014 12:16pm
BBC reporters on Russia are very biased and tend to sneer about Russia (Sandford especially). I understand the troops were
given the option of remaining in Russia or returning to Ukraine (for possible trial). The officer, Major Dubinak, said they had
been welll treated and the majority elected to remain for the time being.
Russia has also treated and returned Ukrainian wounded.
Hajduk, 04 August 2014 3:13pm
Clear answer: shameless propaganda masquerading as "objective"!
Proof?! "Putin alone is responsible for his Cold War caricature" - Gregory Fiefer, above…
His father is, apparently "astounded" – what is astonishing is that ANYBODY (let alone Guardian) gives column space to this sort
of "objective journalism"!
Or am I particularly stupid and this article is some sort of bad joke?
harryphilby. 04 August 2014 3:14pm
the western reporters on the ground in eastern Ukraine are providing most of the credible information about the fighting
and the terrible toll it's taking on the country, often at risk to their own lives
That is a lie. Name one who even attempted to?
TryingBeObjective harryphilby, 04 August 2014 3:37pm
What about Graham Phillips? I think Gregory Feifer did not think of him when he wrote the sentence.
MuadDibFremen harryphilby, 04 August 2014 3:41pm
Shaun Walker was there?
Jeremn harryphilby, 04 August 2014 3:42pm
Most of those who died were Russians reporting on a war in which Russian-speakers are the primary targets.
TryingBeObjective MuadDibFremen, 04 August 2014 3:43pm
You would not get credible information from Shaun.
While one can attribute the most recent
AP tweeting faux pas to a missed English grammar lesson, when in the aftermath of the MH-17 crash, this:
... became this:
there is no grammatical justification for why two days ago, AP did it again, when a "harshly" worded
tweet by the AP:
... became this, just four hours later.
One wonders how high the propaganda flag pole the objecting parties had to run, make that sprint, to get this "revised wording"
blasted out, and just how many AP pink slips will appear in next week's not seasonally adjusted initial jobless claims print?
Nice quote about presstitutes: "Herszenhorn, like nearly all his MSM colleagues, simply can't find it within himself to display
the journalistic integrity needed to present an evenhanded and unbiased explication of how this crisis unfolded. "
The mainstream U.S. media continues to sell the American people a one-sided storyline on the Ukraine crisis as the Kiev regime
celebrates a key military victory at Slovyansk, an eastern city at the center of ethnic Russian resistance to last February's violent
coup that ousted elected President Yanukovych.
As you read or watch the mainstream U.S. media accounts of the Ukrainian government's military offensive against ethnic Russians
in East Ukraine, it's worth remembering that these MSM outlets have been feeding Americans a highly biased narrative of the crisis
non-stop from the beginning.
For instance, New York Times correspondent David M. Herszenhorn included in a largely celebratory
account of the
Ukrainian blitzkrieg that overwhelmed ethnic Russian positions in the town of Slovyansk on Saturday this summary of the conflict's
background:
"The separatist rebellion is the latest, bloodiest chapter in a crisis that began in November after Viktor F. Yanukovych, then
Ukraine's president, rejected a trade accord he had promised to sign with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia.
Protesters took to the streets of Kiev, eventually driving Mr. Yanukovych from office. Within a week, Russia invaded Crimea, then
annexed the peninsula."
Herszenhorn, like nearly all his MSM colleagues, simply can't find it within himself to display the journalistic integrity
needed to present an evenhanded and unbiased explication of how this crisis unfolded. Instead, it's all about blaming Ukraine's elected
President Yanukovych and Russian President Vladimir Putin for everything.
Always absent is the fact that the EU's trade accord came with a draconian International Monetary Fund austerity plan attached,
a prescription to inflict even more pain on the people of Ukraine who have suffered under a post-Soviet economic system dominated
by a handful of corrupt oligarchs. The IMF plan would have simply hit the average Ukrainian even harder - with elimination of heating
subsidies and devaluation of their currency – while the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Western financial backers would have escaped
the pain, as usual. In rejecting the IMF scheme, Yanukovych opted for a more generous $15 billion loan deal from Moscow.
Blind to the Neo-Nazis
Herszenhorn's narrative also excludes the key role of neo-Nazi militias that were organized in 100-man units to serve as the tip
of the spear in the Feb. 22 coup that drove Yanukovych and his government from power. In recognition of their key role in the coup,
the neo-Nazis were awarded several ministries in the new government, including the office of national security.
Then, there is the cherished MSM tale of the Russian "invasion" of Crimea, which – unlike every other "invasion" in history –
did not involve military forces crossing an international border. Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea under an agreement
with Ukraine's government. And, the impetus for Crimea's secession from Ukraine and rejoining Russia came from the local government
and the Crimean people, not from Russian military force. But repetition of the words "invasion" and "annexation" is needed to elicit
the desired revulsion from the American people.
It's also never noted that after the Feb. 22 coup, the new regime dutifully approved the harsh IMF austerity plan that even Prime
Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk – the new leader hand-picked by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland – acknowledged was "very
unpopular, very difficult, very tough."
All in all, the Ukraine case has been a curious example of U.S.–backed "democracy promotion" – overthrowing a democratically elected
leader so a coup regime could impose a "very unpopular" austerity plan on an already suffering population. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's
"Ukrainians Get IMF's Bitter Medicine."]
Among the Worst
The Times' Herszenhorn has been among the most biased of a long list of biased MSM correspondents who have enforced the false
narrative about Ukraine. Indeed, the oppressive "group think" – blending State Department propaganda with its amen chorus of the
MSM – has made formulating any rational policy toward Russia and Ukraine politically impossible in Official Washington.
It seems that the safe career play is always to go for the most extreme examples of Russian perfidy. For instance, in mid-April,
the Times published a front-page
story by Herszenhorn
excoriating Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev of engaging in clumsy propaganda.
In the article entitled "Russia Is Quick To Bend Truth About Ukraine," Herszenhorn mocked Medvedev for making a Facebook posting
that "was bleak and full of dread," including noting that "blood has been spilled in Ukraine again" and adding that "the threat of
civil war looms."
The Times article continued, "He [Medvedev] pleaded with Ukrainians to decide their own future 'without usurpers, nationalists
and bandits, without tanks or armored vehicles – and without secret visits by the C.I.A. director.' And so began another day of bluster
and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about
the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled
Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week."
This argumentative "news" story spilled from the front page to the top half of an inside page, but Herszenhorn never managed to
mention that there was nothing false in what Medvedev wrote. Indeed, as the bloodshed has grown worse and a civil war has become
obvious, you might say Medvedev was tragically prescient.
It was also the much-maligned Russian press that first reported the secret visit of CIA Director John Brennan to Kiev.
Though the White House later
confirmed
that report, Herszenhorn cited Medvedev's reference to it in the context of "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories." Nowhere in
the long article did the Times inform its readers that, yes, the CIA director did make a secret visit to Ukraine.
Now, as the Kiev regime celebrates its bloody conquest of the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk, it might be advisable for Americans
who don't want to continue being deceived by U.S. government/media propaganda to recognize – and reject – these one-sided and false
narratives. [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine,
Though the US 'Looking Glass'" or The Nation's "The
Silence of America's Hawks About Kiev's Atrocities."]
From comments: "Seriously, Guardian reporting on the Ukrainian crisis has become a bad joke, very similar in tone and approach to
the New York Times reporting on Iraqi WMDs in 2002-2003."
Yes, in contrast we get a much speedier change of tune from the USA. At first we "know that a Russian missile" downed MH17, then
we are just "certain of Russian involvement" in the firing of the missile, then we have "no evidence of direct Russian involvement"
in the missile, and then simply "Russia creating the conditions" for the MH17 tragedy.
Yes, so much less tiring to have the
tune changed so quickly within the space of little more than a week. What we end up with is a meaningless accusation, mindless
of all of the other actors in the situation in the Ukraine. Why doesn't the US sanction itself for its role in helping "create
the conditions" for the whole sorry debacle? It's not as if they didn't encourage the collapse of the fragile democracy that was
holding the society together leading inevitably to this civil-war.
The initial accusation has become just another piece of empty rhetoric.
"The missile remained Russian all the way through. Or had you not worked that one out?"
And the car that caused a fatal
accident that killed more than one innocent pedestrian was a Ford Escort, all the way -- so why have we not imposed sanctions
upon Ford Motor Corporation or the Ford dealership that sold the car to the driver who drove it into the pedestrians?
Because the missile was built by Russia does not mean Russia fired it -- in deed, even the USA admits there is no evidence
of that, and Russia is not stupid enough to shoot itself in the foot by doing so. Or had you not worked that out?
Incidently, I am a non-involved British Citizen, not Russian troll -- I only speak as I did in my above response to you because
the sheer hypocrisy of the USA, Britain and the EU sickens me.
Maybe they are doing this to draw attention away from and shelter their pal, the murderous Israel's horrifying genocide in
Gaza being too exposed to totally justified global anger?
The key thing here is, given a ceasefire, would the Kiev government be able to control the volunteer militia groups, neo-fascist
gangsters one and all, setting themselves up and then driving into rebel-controlled areas to slaughter civilians? I fear the answer
is no, so no ceasefire could hold.
I am sitting in Hackney, East London, no one pays me for my qwerty daily exercises, I do that because of my own conscience. And
yes in the given situation I am pro Russian. Following the track record it is pretty hard not to be and still have sane mind.
Apropos Figaro, articles of this kind are no more that piece in the jigsaw called overall witch hunt on Russia. Figaro,
it is about democracy boomerang that you are getting back what you been doing for decades.
ID7015969, 29 July 2014 9:53pm
'The measures do not affect the trading of oil, gas or other commodities'
All or fucking nothing I say.
mauman, 29 July 2014 9:56pm
a declaration of economic warfare. So Russia cannot hit back all that hard economically. But it can otherwise. Keep pushing
Russia.
So Russis is "punished" for providing political support to a segment of the Ukranian population who took up arms to defend
their heritage the moment their mother tongue was banned and they understood what their future had in store for them under an
ultra-nationalist govt who had no qualms about attacking them and their families and still do. Hundreds of civilians killed/
Our govt want to support AQ inspired fanatics, who behead people on video in Syria and Libya
Our govt backs the one in Israel who have murdered a thousand civilians in Israel in 2 weeks
my goodness. staggering.
photosymbiont, 29 July 2014 9:57pm
Seriously, Guardian reporting on the Ukrainian crisis has become a bad joke, very similar in tone and approach to the New
York Times reporting on Iraqi WMDs in 2002-2003.
Everyone knows that both the leading 'liberal' and the leading 'conservative' news outfits are united in their service to national
self-interest, correct? Anything less would be 'unpatriotic' - and the liberal press adheres to this concept as much as the conservative
press does (and many suspect that the whole liberal-vs-conservative meme is nothing but a puppet show).
It is not unusual in history to see a small number of people benefiting from government organizations, while the vast majority
suffer. The extent to which this situation occurs is indicative of the nature of the government and the human society that is
woven up with it.
Might we be a bit on the sick and decrepit side, all things considered?
Doug Salzmann , 29 July 2014 10:01pm
More annoying and insulting chest-thumping. Consider re-writing this as a puppet-show script.
When you want to return to international prime-time drama, announce an energy-products blockade. Please provide lead time for
orderly evacuation of cities.
The current conflict in Ukraine provides a plethora of examples of the power of doublethink in shaping narratives in order to
justify any actions, beliefs, and statements that are either untrue or so grossly distorted as to be entirely unbelievable.
The novelist George Orwell coined the term doublethink in his classic dystopian novel 1984. He defined doublethink as
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...To tell deliberate
lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again,
to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to
take account of the reality which one denies."
Although the concept is elucidated in a work of fiction, it has clear and unmistakable parallels in the real world that, like
Oceania – the supranational state in which the novel takes place – is in a state of constant war, and seemingly has been from time
immemorial.
For anyone following the situation in eastern Ukraine closely, and specifically the accusations made by Kiev against both the
anti-government rebels and Russia, it seems that Oscar Wilde's quip that "life imitates art" is undoubtedly true. For it is clear
that doublethink is a fundamental part of how the regime in Kiev sees this conflict, its role in it, and the narrative it wishes
to tell the world.
Double thinking MH17, the rebels, and Russia
As the world's attention has been focused on eastern Ukraine in the wake of the tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines flight 17,
the rhetoric coming from Kiev (and its patrons in Washington) has been provocative to say the least. Referring to the eastern rebels
as "terrorists," the nominal government of Ukraine has accused the rebels of being responsible for shooting down MH17. According
to their claims, the forces fighting the Kiev regime shot down MH17 with sophisticated Buk anti-aircraft missile systems supplied
by Russia. Naturally, such accusations imply that Kiev believes that the rebels have the capability of carrying out such a highly
technical and logistically difficult attack.
Indeed, Kiev's assertions are supported by the US, with the State Department, as well as unnamed intelligence officials speaking
with various western media outlets, echoing the sentiments of its client government in Ukraine. As the Wall Street Journal reported
on July 19th:
"New US intelligence assessments indicate that Moscow likely provided pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine with sophisticated
antiaircraft systems in recent days, matching evidence put forward by Ukraine and bolstering charges that Russia was the source
of the weapon that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 this week, killing 298... US officials say they now suspect that Russia
supplied the rebels with multiple SA-11 antiaircraft systems by smuggling them into eastern Ukraine with other military equipment,
including tanks."
And so, both Ukraine and the US have reached the conclusion that, not only did the anti-government rebels have the motive and
opportunity, they had the means to down MH17 as well. Despite the fact that neither Kiev nor Washington has provided hard evidence
to back up their assertions, they have continued to maintain that only the rebels, with Russian assistance, could have been responsible
for shooting down a commercial airliner flying at 30,000 feet. They maintain that the rebels were armed by Russia and were entirely
capable of carrying out this attack.
OK, so even if we might doubt the claims of Kiev and Washington, at least they are consistent, right? Well, not exactly.
On Wednesday July 23rd reports out of Donetsk indicated that two of the Ukrainian military's ground attack planes had been shot
down near the area where MH17 was downed. While these latest developments are no surprise given the fact that Kiev's forces are still
engaging in military operations despite calls for a ceasefire to allow the MH17 investigation to occur, what is interesting are the
comments from Ukrainian officials.
Asked about the downing of these two jets, Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the Ukrainian National Security Council, stated,
"They were not downed by terrorists [anti-Kiev rebels]...According to our preliminary information it was done from across
the border."
So, despite having no evidence to support the claim, the Kiev authorities continue to accuse Russia, not the rebels, of downing
the planes. As Neil Buckley of the Financial Times wrote:
"The Ukrainians alleged Russian forces were involved in shooting down a Ukrainian An-26 transport plane and another Su-25 last
week before the Malaysian aircraft was downed over rebel controlled territory. In both cases Ukrainian officials said they did
not believe the rebels had the technology to shoot down planes at the height at which they were flying [emphasis added]. Russia
denied any involvement."
Wait, what? We have been hearing for days that the rebels do in fact have the capability to shoot down planes at any altitude
thanks to the Buk (SA-11 in NATO speak) provided by the alleged Russian backers. So, which is it? Either the rebels do, or do not,
have the capability.
It seems that, rather than basing their assertions on facts and evidence, the regime in Kiev and its patrons in Washington have
been playing fast and loose with facts, fitting them into their preconceived narrative in which everything bad that happens is because
of Russia and "Russian aggression," and any evidence to the contrary is seen as merely "Russian propaganda." However, deflecting
attention away from the facts can only get you so far. Eventually, people start asking questions and becoming skeptical of your credibility.
Indeed, this is precisely the point at which Kiev finds itself today.
The doublethink is self-evident. The anti-government rebels have the technology and capability to shoot down MH17, and simultaneously
do not have the technology and capability to shoot down the easier targets of the Ukrainian jets. Obviously, the statements coming
from the Ukrainian authorities are based on political expediency rather than facts and evidence. Perhaps this is why, at every opportunity,
they proclaim that Russia is behind everything that happens in eastern Ukraine. Because, as anyone who has ever lied knows, lies
are like the proverbial snowball rolling down the hill.
Orwell wrote of doublethink:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously
two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic,
to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of
democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed,
and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety;
consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed."
While Orwell was describing his fictional dystopia of Oceania ruled by "the Party," he might as well have been describing Kiev's
mentality and public posture today. Of course, the same could be said for the US State Department and political establishment throughout
this crisis. Indeed, the untruths, omissions, and distortions have reached new levels. In time however, their "carefully constructed
lies" will all fall away, leaving their false narrative exposed for the world to see. For the sake of the people of eastern Ukraine,
and those of us around the world who shudder at the thought of further US-Russia escalations, let us hope that moment comes sooner
rather than later.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of StopImperialism.com.
Ohh, those Cameron poodles... More or less honest report was removed due to " due to structural defects and incomplete compliance
editorial values of the British broadcasting Corporation". Textbook example of British hypocrisy. I especially like how this pressitute
states: "The history of the downed airliner extremely complex and multifaceted, and we cover it from different sides."
As I promised in his blog on Thursday, we modified the report of correspondent of Russian service of BBC Olga Ivshina, which on
Wednesday was removed from our site.
And now the story with several modification
appeared again.
Before I noted that the original material was removed due to structural defects and incomplete compliance editorial values
of the British broadcasting Corporation. And not for the reason, which willingly told Russian media that BBC, they say, did
not want to broadcast alternative perspective on disaster Malaysian "Boeing".
You can see that we leave in the report the elements, which, according to our critics, we would like to remove -- the opinions
of the ordinary residents of Donbass and search our film crew of the place from which the missle was possibly launched (if it was
a missile).
This material has been enriched by the fragments, which, in our opinion, it was lacked and that gave the story the volume of the
added context of the content of what people say, located in the center of events. I mean the statement of the official representative
of Kiev on that fateful day over the area of the tragedy in the air was not Ukrainian military aircraft. And expert opinion
about how likely is the use by the military pilots of civil aircraft as a "flying shields".
BBC is not engaged in self-censorship, and expects that its journalists ask questions. Including inconvenient for users.
In revising the plot we almost did not use scissors. The only item that was cut out, is the statement of the head of counter-intelligence
of the security service of Ukraine Vitaly Nayda. Because it was not about what Olga investigated . But interviews of Nayda on our
site left - Click here.
The history of the downed airliner extremely complex and multifaceted, and we cover it from different sides.
To make mistakes is painful and unpleasant. But doing them, we recognize. And in this case we apologized not once, but twice: first,
that the original report was published in haste; secondly, because we have not explained to you why it was removed once we made this
decision.
And then we have tried these errors be corrected in a transparent manner. I'm not sure there's a lot of media that are ready to
do the same.
P.S. After the publication of my blog on Thursday, we received a huge number of comments. I am very pleased how attentively you
read our site and thank everybody who voted. Some of you have asked where you can read the statement about mentioned editorial values
BBC. Here they are in English; Click and
here they are in Russian.
Selected Comments
VS, 25 July 2014 - 19:40 GMT
Why continue this hypocritical blabbing. Everything is already clear to everybody
Yuri, 25 July 2014 - 21:43 GMT
Sawed-off is a part of the story were the locals testify in favor of the official version of the Russian Federation. Censorship
in action.
Vasily, 25 July 2014 - 21:57 GMT
You have rather poor military aviation expert.
The maximum speed of the SU-25 : 950 km/h (with norms. combat load)
Cruising speed: 750 km/h
Speed of the passenger airliner about 800 km/H.
that mean that have approximately the same speed.
Corporate Filtering - 'A Top-Down Intimidation Campaign'
The bias in failing to report the brutalisation of a trapped, impoverished people under occupation is staggering. Many might wonder
why journalists fail to speak out. But several journalists who have exposed Israeli actions, and media bias favouring Israel,
have been punished.
Ayman Mohyeldin, the NBC News correspondent who witnessed the killing of the four Bakr boys, and whose reporting of the tragedy
moved many readers around the world, was subsequently 'told
by NBC executives to leave Gaza immediately'. Glenn Greenwald reports that NBC executives claimed the decision was motivated by 'security
concerns' as Israel prepared a ground invasion. But NBC then sent another correspondent, Richard Engel, into Gaza with an American
producer.
After a storm of protest on social media, NBC announced it had 'reversed its decision'. The broadcaster
dissembled:
'As with any news team in conflict zones, deployments are constantly reassessed. We've carefully considered our deployment
decisions and we will be sending Mohyeldin back to Gaza over the weekend.'
The day after Mohyeldin was pulled out, CNN correspondent Diana Magnay was removed from covering the conflict after she reported
Israelis cheering the bombing
of Gaza from a hillside overlooking the border. When the people cheering allegedly threatened to destroy Magnay's car 'if I say a
word wrong', she described
them on Twitter as 'scum'.
On July 21, journalist and MSNBC contributor Rula Jebreal
said in an interview on MSNBC of MSNBC:
'We're ridiculous. We are disgustingly biased when it comes to this issue. Look how many [sic] air time Netanyahu and his folks
have on air on a daily basis, Andrea Mitchell and others. I never see one Palestinian being interviewed on these same issues.'
The MSNBC interviewer responded: 'We have had Palestinian voices on our show.'
Jebreal replied: 'Maybe for 30 seconds, and then you have 25 minutes for Bibi Netanyahu...'
'I couldn't stay silent after seeing the amount of airtime given to Israeli politicians versus Palestinians. They say we are
balanced but their idea of balance is 90 percent Israeli guests and 10 percent Palestinians. This kind of media is what leads
to the failing policies that we see in Gaza.'
Jebreal said that in her two years as an MSNBC contributor, she had told her producers: '"we have a serious issue here". But everybody's
intimidated by this pressure and if it's not direct then it becomes self-censorship'.
Blumenthal
reported that an NBC producer, speaking anonymously, had confirmed the reality of 'a top-down intimidation campaign aimed at
presenting an Israeli-centric view of the attack on the Gaza Strip'.
Pressure on the executives responsible for disciplining journalists is also intense. Jill Abramson, former executive editor of
the New York Times,
has said Washington often 'played the terrorist card' to get stories spiked:
'Sometimes the CIA or the director of national intelligence or the NSA or the White House will call about a story... You hit
the brakes, you hear the arguments, and it's always a balancing act: the importance of the information to the public versus the
claim of harming national security... Over time, the government too reflexively said to the Times, "you're going to have blood
on your hands if you publish X" and because of the frequency of that, the government lost a little credibility... But you do listen
and seriously worry... Editors are Americans too... We don't want to help terrorists'.
But editors should remember that they are human beings first, Americans second - to behave otherwise risks supporting their
own government's terrorism and that of its allies.
For in truth, biased US-UK journalism is empowering the Israeli government's effort to terrorise the Palestinian people
into accepting gradual genocide as their land and resources are stolen. As we have discussed
here (see
also Gideon Levy here), the hidden backstory
is that this land grab can not be conducted under conditions of peace. It requires Perpetual War; a phoney, one-sided
'war' dominated by Israel's perennial trump card: high-tech military power supplied by that eternal 'peace broker', the United States.
Check out this story by AP and compare
the lame, pathetic and self-evident nonsense of these so-called "intelligence officials" offer with the hard fact based presentation
of the Russian Air Force Chief of Staff.
Here is the full article with my comments in blue.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for "creating the conditions"
that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.
The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists
in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia.
The officials briefed reporters Tuesday under ground rules that their names not be used in discussing intelligence related
to last week's air disaster, which killed 298 people.
The plane was likely shot down by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine,
the intelligence officials said, citing intercepts, satellite photos and social media postings by separatists, some of which have
been authenticated by U.S. experts.
But the officials said they did not know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the
missile launch. They were not certain that the missile crew was trained in Russia, although they described a stepped-up
campaign in recent weeks by Russia to arm and train the rebels, which they say has continued even after the downing of the commercial
jetliner.
In terms of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a
nationality," one official said, adding at another point, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here."
White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the U.S. was still working to determine whether the missile
launch had a "direct link" to Russia, including whether there were Russians on the ground during the attack and the
degree to which Russians may have trained the separatists to launch such a strike.
"We do think President Putin and the Russian government bears responsibility for the support they provided to these separatists,
the arms they provided to these separatists, the training they provided as well and the general unstable environment in eastern
Ukraine," Rhodes said in an interview with CNN.
He added that heavy weaponry continues to flow into Ukraine from Russia following the downing of the plane.
The intelligence officials said the most likely explanation for the downing was that the rebels made a mistake. Separatists
previously had shot down 12 Ukrainian military airplanes, the officials said.
The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the
Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video
of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile.
But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported
to be.
Despite the fuzziness of some details, however, the intelligence officials said the case that the separatists were responsible
for shooting down the plane was solid. Other scenarios - such as that the Ukrainian military shot down the plane - are implausible,
they said. No Ukrainian surface-to-air missile system was in range. (That is a lie as proven by the Russian satellite imagery
and signal intercepts which prove that they Ukies had plenty of batteries freshly brought right next to the combat zone even though
the Novorissians had just one Su-25 close air support aircraft in their entire inventory)
From satellites, sensors and other intelligence gathering, officials said, they know where the missile originated - in separatist-held
territory - and what its flight path was. But if they possess satellite or other imagery of the missile being fired, they did
not release it Tuesday. A graphic they made public depicts their estimation of the missile's flight path with a green line.
The jet's flight path was available from air traffic control data.
In the weeks before the plane was shot down, Russia had stepped up its arming and training of the separatists after the Ukrainian
government won a string of battlefield victories. The working theory is that the SA-11 missile came from Russia, although the
U.S. doesn't have proof of that, the officials said.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said last week that "because of the technical complexity of the SA-11, it is unlikely
that the separatists could effectively operate the system without assistance from knowledgeable personnel. Thus, we cannot rule
out technical assistance from Russian personnel in operating the systems," she said.
Asked about evidence, one of the senior U.S. intelligence officials said it was conceivable that Russian paramilitary troops
are operating in eastern Ukraine, but that there was no direct link from them to the missile launch.
Asked why civilian airline companies were not warned about a possible threat, the officials said they did not know the rebels
possessed SA-11 missiles until after the Malaysian airliner was shot down. (WHAT? Even I new this, just by reading the
reports about the seized Buks, reports which even included photos. They are really insulting our collective intelligence again!)
Have you counted the "caveat words"? I counted fifteen (depending on what you want to include). Notice that they consider the Ukie
missile as "implausible" but that they never explain why this would be implausible. And they admit relying in part on social
media and Ukie government info? How absolutely utterly pathetic. I mean - I feel sorry for them. For any self-respecting intelligence
official to admit such things is to commit a seppuku of your professional pride. It's admitting that you are an amateur and
a drooling moron. And here is the deal - I very much doubt that these men are amateurs or morons. So, yet again, they were back-stabbed
by imbecile politicians like Obama and Power who just are not used to consulting with their own specialist before flapping their
lips and nevermind if they make an entire intelligence community look like cretins.
I can barely imaging how much the US intelligence community must *hate* this administration. Can you imagine what it must be to be
a highly experienced US State Department or DIA career officer and listen to how the Russians constantly berate the US government
for being "un-professional" and "amateurish" only to then hear that kind of absolute utter nonsense spoken in your name.
Look, in this game I am 100% on Russia's side, but part of me, on a (ex-) professional level if you want, feels the pain that
I am sure many career intelligence officers feel today in the USA and they have my sincere sympathy. I met enough of them to know
that they are not the idiots that this Administration makes them out to be.
But of course the big news here is this: the US fairy tale about Putin the terrorist is falling down in flames. Yet again the
Neocons by their sheer arrogance, hubris and boundless stupidity manged to lie their way into a corner from which there is no exit.
Not that the US had much street-cred anyway, not after Colin Powell's dishwasher powder in a vial at the UNSC. But, of course, there
is bad, very bad, even worse and outright terrible. But now the US has reached the "terminal" stage.
The AngloZionists sure had this one coming.
The Saker
PS: in the meantime, check the zoo that the freaks in Kiev made of their "Parliament":
Selected Comments
Anonymous said...
"back pedalling"? Pathetic. What you actually see is that they PERFECTLY generate talking points day after day to keep fools
focused on the false flag.
Yet over and over, visitors to this blog (and others) say the most powerful media factors are the pictures and videos of ordinary
people in East Ukraine that have been ruthlessly murdered by the neo-Nazis from Kiev. Yet this blog uses such images as little as
possible- just as the masters of the zionist mainstream media machine demand.
False flags are never designed to fool the well-informed. So 'proving' a false flag is a false flag is an utterly futile
exercise. Just ask the victims of previously well exposed false flags.
No, one very important intention of a false flag is to create a massive area of swampy ground that the so-called 'thinkers'
of the other side willingly trap themselves in, for as long a time as possible.
Obama ordered Kiev to shoot down the airliner for a very clear battlefield advantage- end of. Now it should be about the response,
but instead of responding, Putin is crawling on his knees, begging the world to notice what a reasonable 'gentleman' he is.
The leaders of the West are in Hysterics. They can't prevent (directly) Russia liberating Novorussia, and with all their vile
evil ongoing genocidal invasions across the planet, they can't preach (convincing) morality to the sheeple if Putin does go in.
So it's a mind game. Using psychology to persuade the Russians to hold back from doing the right thing. To manipulate the supporters
of Novorussian rebels to dribble on and on and on about the false flag.
The current score is:
The West 100, Russia 0
Yes, Russia can still make the killer, game-winning play, and enter Novorussia, but who here now thinks there is any chance of
that happening? And all of you that talk about the false flag, as if the Americans didn't order the missile fired, might as well
be fighting on the side of Kiev.
Anonymous said...
What's also funny about the AP piece is that its headline was changed at least twice. The final version as it is now is:
US: Russia 'created the conditions' for shoot-down
before that, it was for a short time:
US: No evidence of direct Russian link to plane
and the original headline was:
US: No link to Russian gov't in plane downing
Was amazing to watch how all the carriers of the AP story changed the headlines accordingly. You can still see the redirections,
for example look at
this URL
of the Boston Herald and see on which URL you'll end up.
Ministry of Truth corrected that all-too-direct editor. ;o)
Anonymous said...
This is the most laughable US State Daily Briefing I have seen. The information was out-of-date and plain false. The crash site
was secure and agreement had been reached to hand over the "Black Box" to Malaysian Airlines. Teh US State kept saying we have no
confirmation of such.. even though the bodies were being placed in a refrigerated train.
Those on helping with the recovery of
bodies were in fact Ukrainian Police and Emergency personal. The very people that would be called on to do the job had there not
been a conflict in Ukraine.
Instead the US took this is an opportunity to spin their false narrative even going as far as claiming that "They [The US State]
do not do propaganda...
As this case goes on and Ukie/US/EU arguments crumble, there is one more thing (among many others) Putin administration should
do: after MH17 investigation facts will become irrefutable, hire some top lawyers and sue each and every newspaper that was involved
in this despicable propaganda campaign. Demand the following things:
1) In case of newspapers: public apologies on first pages;
2) In case of TV stations: public apologies aired in prime time several times;
3) To pay considerable amount of money (eg. $5M-$10M) to special fund that will be used to provide help to novorussian refugees
and include information about amount being paid and purpose of this money in apologies from point 1 and 2 (and make sure it is clearly
visible)
Even if only some of these cases will be won, it would be significant blow to western media as it would severely undermine their
reputation among their viewership.
burack said...
"The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the
Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it."
So US government is preparing to throw
banderites under the bus should this fiasco backfire badly enough to cause excessive damage to Obama administration. Russians should
now press Obama by speeding up this investigation and provide more and more hard facts. In the end, when MH17 fiasco will be clear
enough and true nature of Kiev regime will be visible, Putin should prepare a statement that he admires Ronald Reagan for jailing
his own staff involved in Iran-Contra scandal and he expects Obama to do the same with Kiev/MH17 perpetrators among his own staff
(Nuland and her pack of rabid dogs + Brzezinski and his bunch of ghouls). In proper circumstances this would give Obama some political
capital to actually do some cleansing among his staff.
Bob Jackson said...
Infowars
has the video:
"In a testy exchange between AP reporter Matt Lee and U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf, Lee virtually corners
Harf into admitting that the "evidence" presented by the U.S. to blame Russian-backed rebels for the shoot down of Malaysia Airlines
Flight 17 amounts to nothing more than YouTube videos and social media posts."
Matt Lee. How did he get in there? Demanding verifiable
evidence, no less. And he works for a major news organisation. The nerve of it! I hope he doesn't get the Helen Thomas treatment.
If the missile was fired from UAF positions then it should have engaged in a "chase mode" and exploded at or near the
rear of the plane. The damage pattern should be significantly different in this case with much damage to the rear portion of the
fuselage to the tail assembly and to the trailing edges of the wings. The cockpit area should not show any evidence of missile damage.
Not true.
The alleged NAF BUK position was in Torez (the still photo of the BUK on the low-boy trailer was "shot" there) or Snizhne (the
video of the BUK travelling alone down the street T-05-22 was "made" there) - possibly these are outright fabrications..
The confirmed UAF BUK position was in Zaroschenske, just 5 miles southwest of Torez, with a TELAR and two TEL's actively linked
to the main UAF BUK radar site at Styla..
If downed by an SA-11 the missile was shot while the plane was over Yenakieve at 17:19 and struck at 17:20. The shot apparently
disabled the planes engines as the plane lost forward thrust over 60-90 seconds and dropped to a 200 km/h glide which was maintained
for about another 90+ seconds untilt he crash.
If you look at the confirmed UAF position and alleged NAF position and the apparent position of the plane, you can see the missile
tracks would be close to the same, as both lie southeast of the strike point.
Andrew said...
BOT TAK:
I believe this is new evidence (I have not heard about it before):
Compare to the Twitter feed of Carlos the ATC from Borispol and the related Eturbonews story on 7/17, which it corroborates.
"Radar screen shots also show an unexplained change of course of the Malaysian Boeing. The change of course took the aircraft
directly over the Eastern Ukraine conflict region."
Anonymous said...
I am not so certain that the US ordered this or knew it was going to happen.
Their goal is to draw Ukraine into NATO and put missile bases on its soil to counter the Russian nuclear strike capabilities. They
do not want to get into a direct shooting match with Russia, no matter how loudly the neocons squeal.
The Kiev oligarchs on the ground are losing the war in the east. Their soldiers aren't combat effective, are demoralised and have
terrible, unmaintained soviet era equipment. They are also conscripts fighting a volunteer army, and we should all know how that
goes every time.
The oligarchs have been screaming for NATO intervention since this all began, getting louder the more their army broke down. They
have been continuously ignored and rebuffed every time, and told to win the war themselves.
By killing 300 western innocents, they hope to cause an outrage that would instantly see NATO soldiers inside Ukraine fighting
the Russians, the exact scenario neither Russia nor NATO want. I've already read a few claims that certain parties were very upset
that didn't happen.
Avakov gave the order. His men were directly involved.
He was under instruction from Kolomoiski.
If I can work it out, then everyone in the intelligence agencies is already well aware.
In fact, the Duma is already looking to investigate the connections to Kolomoiski...
http://lifenews.ru/news/137146
Dutchie said...
Wil this be the new twist by the US in this story ?
U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army "Defector"
In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a "defector" in order to absolve
Kiev.
More to be read : http://www.prisonplanet.com/u-s-prepares-to-blame-mh17-shoot-down-on-ukrainian-army-defector.html
I'm still trying to make sense of the latest map of the area at the time of the shoot down that the Russian Military have posted
http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/
They say there were 2 other civilian airliners close by. If I understand
the map correctly, the Paris to Taipei 17.24 (0368) flight appears to take a sudden very sharp turn south.
Any ideas?
the pessimist
What is the US intelligence budget? and they have to rely on unverified social media to make an intelligence assessment? They
have a fkn spy satellite perched above Ukraine but they don't know what traffic is crossing the border except through FB posts?
OK whatever.
The insanity here is that people are still lapping this stuff up and the major media is full of it - with NO responsible
rebuttals. Moreover, they may even get away with it and the EVIL perpetrators will not see justice. AND they are still using
it to push sanctions on Russia. Its killing me.
Old auntie said...
The story of "looting separatists" also went down like the lame newspaper canard it was:
"Perverted truth: How rebel mourning MH17 victims was turned into looter with trophy"
http://rt.com/news/174332-ukraine-plane-photo-perverted/
And there is at least one Malaysian demanding his newspapers to apologize:
„MH 17 – Malaysian Mass Media Which Parroted Uncritically Zionist Controlled Global Mass Media Propaganda Against Russia Must
Now Prostrate In Shame And Apologise To President Putin And The Ukrainian Resistance - By Matthias Chang (23/7/14)" http://futurefastforward.com/component/content/article/9820.html
I guess one could call it the blowback of lying and getting caught.
Anonymous said...
Russia is uniting us Croats and Serbs
=
I have found this in internet
-
Serb Spartans came to our aid against thousands of punitive army pro-American occupiers!!!
205 Serbian volunteers came to the aid of DPR
Serbian Chetnik commander Bratislav Zivkovic said that in the evening came a large unit of Serbian volunteers.
"Half an hour ago from Serbia arrived 205 volunteers, all of them will join the division of " Jovan Shevich" which before their arrival
counted 45 people. Thus division of Chetnic Slavic group "Jovan Shevich" became the largest by number of fighters, raising the number
from 45 to 250.
We don't have losses in our unit yet, more and more volunteers from the Slavic countries are arriving, about which I am very happy,
because thanks to that Serbs and Croats will unite again, we - the Serbs as no-one understand the importance and significance of
Slavic brotherhood, moreover we have chance to fight side by side with the Russians. Well, how else would we do (laughs), we can't
be without Russians!".
I am a Croat and these people are for me good people and heroes
Ja sam Hrvat i cestitke Srbima na junastvu, vi se borite za plemenitu stvar, neka vas Bog blagosovi to vam zeli od sva srca jedan
Hrvat i anti-natovac.
Anonymous said...
I believe this is new evidence (I have not heard about it before):
MH17 Lost Speed Shortly Before Vanishing From Radars – Russian
Military
"The plane began to steadily lose speed at 17:20 [14:20 GMT] and disappeared from radar screens at 17:23 [14:23 GMT]," said Lt.
Gen. Andrei Kartapolov, the head of the General Staff's Main Operational Directorate.
"The plane followed the established air corridor until Donetsk and then veered off its course to the north," the official said.
He said the plane, which at some point was 14 kilometers away from the course, attempted to return to the air corridor but crashed
before completing the maneuver. Everyone on board – or a total of 298 people – were killed as a result.
"The reason for flying off the course – whether the crew made a navigational error or followed Ukrainian air traffic control commands
– can be learned only from flight recorders, known as 'black boxes,' and from recorded communications of the air traffic control,"
he added."
And now those black boxes are going to Israel's public schoolboi colony. Any evidence on them that doesn't fit the ZPC/NWO plan
will be quietly obliterated.
Anonymous said...
10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash
"1. Why did the MH17 plane leave the international corridor?
2. Was MH17 leaving the route a navigation mistake or was the crew following instructions by Ukrainian air traffic controllers
in Dnepropetrovsk?
3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?
4. Why did Kiev deploy BUK missile systems on the edge of militia-controlled zones directly before the tragedy?
5. On the day of the crash Kiev intensified Kupol-M1 9S18 radar activity, key BUK system components. Why?
6. What was a military plane doing on the route intended for civilian flights?
7. Why was the military jet flying at so close to a passenger plane?
8. Where did the launcher – from the video circulated by Western media and showing a Buk system being moved allegedly from Ukraine
to Russia – come from? As the video was made on the territory controlled by Kiev, where was the launcher being transported?
9. Where is it right now? Why are some of the missiles missing on the launcher? When was the last time a missile was launched
from it?
10. Why haven't US officials revealed the evidence supporting claims that the MH17 was shot down by a missile launched by the
militia?"
See the link for the info accompanying the questions.
the pessimist said...
This site (linked before here in various posts - Ukraine war digest with some good material) has an article on 'Carlos' the Kiev
ATC guy. Makes the point that the tweets he made about the crash were BEFORE the news wires first reported the story - so how could
he know about the tragedy?
Now the fact that the militia has downed 2 more military craft BBC is juxtaposing that information with
the quote "near the crash site" so people will associate them with shooting down planes.
Anon @13:55 - If Russia wants to operate normally in the world it cannot publicly pick a fight with the US - might as well declare
war. The lies about Syria we exposed by social media and some press investigation and the US intelligence community knew they were
false and wasn't supporting a bombing. Russia could work behind the scenes to get the US to agree to support the change in policy.
If Putin publicly picks a fight with the US do you think that can happen?
the pessimist said...
Forgot to paste the site link about 'Carlos':
http://iouco.tumblr.com/tagged/english
Anonymous said...
News: Rebels shot down 2 Su24
The Los Angeles Times article on Tuesday's briefing seemed to address the same information this
way: "U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the
missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military
who was trained to use similar missile systems."
What primitive game they play. We do not need to know nationalities, uniforms, or identities. Show us place on map from where
rocket was fired, then calculate distance to MH17 in time of hit. If over 15km then Ukies shot the plane due they have set batteries
of BUK to be able reach plane from rebels controled area. And because launcher itself has radar operational range 15km.
I'm having an Uncle Volodya moment. There's an old saying that 'a lie has run half way around the world before the truth has got
its boots on'.
The US/EU/NATO are relying on Joe Public having the attention span of a gnat and, sadly, they're probably right. The damage
to Russia and Putin, in particular, has already been done. MH17 will gradually fade from the headlines and front pages.
An air investigation takes a long time so what's going to happen if the conclusions point away from the anti-Kiev forces being
responsible for downing the plane? Will the MSM cover them in the same sort of detail and prominence as they've given to the crash
and 'Russia did it' meme? Of course not. T
he families and friends of those who died will be passionately interested in what actually happened to the airliner – but they're
a small number of people – and who else will be apart from folk who visit sites like KS? Regardless of the facts, evidence and
what is eventually concluded about the fate of MH17, the average person will be left with an indelible impression of the irredeemable
evilness of Russia and its president.
http://www.epixhd.com/twa-flight-800/
Remember the folks that put this^^^ together are now howling about Russian and/or sep duplicity and lies in the MH17 situation.
It's worth watching if you haven't seen it.
"…In terms of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality,"
one official said, adding at another point, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here."…
…The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian
government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher
said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile.
But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported
to be…"
####
Trying it on with the flimsiest of evidence. What a surprise. Looks like the US has seriously overplayed its hand. Are they
stupid enough to keep going?
Listen to this Ioffe statement. She thinks she is describing the Russian media, but she is describing the Western presstitute
media of which she is a part
UPDATE: According to the latest reports, the separatists in Donetsk have handed over to Malaysian authorities the black boxes
from the downed Malaysian airliner, which indicates that those who have been blamed by Washington and the Western presstitute media
have nothing to fear from the facts.
In the 1960s there was a prominent intellectual journal in London, Encounter. The journal had a distinguished editor
and many distinguished people published important articles in the journal. None knew that they were publishing in a CIA cold war
operation.
In retrospect I think Wm. F. Buckley's National Review might have been on the CIA's payroll. The magazine always seemed
to take the CIA's position. The New Republic pretended to be a protest magazine, but it wasn't.
The New Republic article by Julia Ioffe is a collection of nonsense from obscure websites, some of which could be CIA
operations, which Ioffe misrepresents as reports from the Russian state media. Ioffe paints a completely false picture of Russian
reporting on the downed Malaysian airliner. No one could do this inadvertently.
As a person who pays attention to Russian media broadcasts and is routinely interviewed by the Russian media, I have never encountered
any of the absurdities that Julia Ioffe misrepresents as Russian news.
What the Russian media reports is President Putin's calls for objective non-politicized investigation under the auspices of the
International Civil Aviation Organization. What the Russia media reports are the satellite photos of the Ukrainian Buk missile launchers
deployed in the area where the Malaysian airliner was downed. The Russian media reports the Russian government's requests that Washington
release its own satellite photos of the area covering the period of the airliner incident.The Russian media also provides the flight
paths of the Ukrainian fighter jet that approached the airliner moments prior to its demise.
What the West reports are unsubstantiated accusations and insinuations and misrepresentations by the likes of Julia Ioffe.
Listen to this Ioffe statement. She thinks she is describing the Russian media, but she is describing the Western presstitute
media of which she is a part: "The Russian media space has become so uniform and independent voices so cowed and marginalized
that there is no counterweight and, when there's no counterweight, if you repeat a thing often enough, it becomes the truth."
No truer words have ever been spoken about the Western presstitute media and the New Republic.
[Jul 21, 2014] Why Western MSM are treating us as imbeciles
Why criminals from Eurocontol (and this is definitely criminal negligence) who put this plane on the route over fighting
were not fired and put to court? Why airspace over Donetsk region was open, while airspace over Crimea was closed? Is this
about just money or intentional provocation was planned?
What was the main benefits of this tragedy for Ukrainian government? Is this declaring rebels a terrorist organization,
getting more international help, or something else connected with painting Russia into the corner.
Why there was a SU-25 fighter in the vicinity at the moment of the destruction of the airliner ? Who was the pilot
of this SU-25 plane any why he was not questioned about the incident? He is an important witness of the tragedy and if he is
alive he needs to be questioned. Can it be the Su-25 intentionally shadowed Boeing airliner from below to force fire and then
escaped putting larger and less maneuverable airliner to certain death.
It is possible to mistakenly identify such huge and fling that high civil airliner with military jet on BUK radar screen?.
Because generally both height and velocity of the the aircraft should be clearly identified on the radar screen of such
system. this aircrast has speed around 900 km/hour and altitude 10K meters so in no way it could be taken as a target. That
the target should be some other plane as was in Black
see shooing tragegy (where Ukranians also used Buk system). In any case it is clear that even with most basic data any
target, flying from Europe at such altitude and speed toward Russian airspace, is 100% civilian aircraft.
Course of the Boeing airliner over Ukraine has changed. Who ordered this? Was it pilot error or command from Kiev
or Dnepropetrovsk air-traffic control centers? Who ordered the airliner to fly over the war zone? How Ukraine, who is the responsible
party, explains this? Why airliner flight plan was changed to lie directly over the fighting while usually it took 400 miles
to the south from this region, where previous flies crossed this territory?
What fragmentation warhead was used?. Does it belong to BUK ground to surface missile or to air-to -air missile?Does the wreckage of the plane. especially wings really contains traces of elements from the air-to-air rocket as http://stbcaptain.livejournal.com/110169.htmlclaims?
Or it was BUK missile as NYT claims
Wreckage Offers Clues on Why Flight 17 Went Down - NYTimes.com. It might well hit by both. Some of the passengers
bodies must also be struck by shrapnel. That is why the international Commission must now examine the corpses on the presence
in them of metal pieces!
Why most of spikes of turbine visible on one of the photos are intact which probably should not happens if airliner
was shot by rocket (such a rocket has warhead which elect a cloud of fast moving shrapnel several hundred feet before hitting
the target; which generally should destroys most turbine spikes)
Are there any witnesses of smoke trail from BUK rocket? The anti-aircraft missile from "Buk" leaves the distinctive
thick smoky trail that can stay in the air for up to ten minutes.
An SA-11 leaves an enormous smoke trail when fired ... where are the photographs of it? ... surely someone at the
CIA has thought about that ...
However, within hours of airliner hit there were no testimony about existence of such dense smoke trail from witnesses.
Does not this fact increases chances that air-to-air missile from Su-25 was used ? (Lenta.ru)
Was BUK system captured by rebels operational?Why there are no demands to inspect it to determine whether a
missile was fired from it or not? Which would settle the rumors. Ukraine claimed before that Ukrainian military destroyed
the functionality of all air defense systems, which were captured by the militias during surrender of the Ukrainian military
units at the end of June 2014. If functionality was destroyed by Ukrainian military how it could be fired? . Russia denies
that it supplied BUK systems to rebels. How militants obtained and does it has a radar it has (built-in) and rebels definitely
did not have a radar on a separate truck as Ukrainian Army)? They do not even have a special track to load misses (required).
Was it possible for a rebels to form a crew to operate "BUK" air defense system in such short period of time? And
do it without a special radar truck which can "paint" targets for the height up to 20K meters (it looks like autonomous
radar can track targets only below 6.5K meters). See They Did This In Rebel Country,
Disbelief - NYTimes.com"This is a complex system to use, in today's terms," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Patrick
J. O'Reilly, a former director of the Missile Defense Agency, who estimated that each of the SA-11 crew members would have
needed at least six months of training. "You don't just take some folks off the street and 30 days later they're trained."
LA Times
If we assume that it was "militias" who launch the rocket, then to what group those men belong? Is there a chance
that they were militias "mole", i.e. there was a planned sabotage, false flag operation? It is obvious that the attack
is extremely disadvantageous for Russia, militias and extremely advantageous to the United States and the puppet Ukrainian
government.
Was there in fact this "Spanish air controller"? Or this is a dezo. Who is he, what is his name? Why Spanish? In
Kiev, there are not a lot of Spanish air traffic controllers so he should be pretty easy to identify. They say there were 2
other civilian airliners close by. If I understand the map correctly, the Paris to Taipei 17.24 (0368) flight appears to take
a sudden very sharp turn south.
If this is true, why?
If militia has operational middle range air defense system why it was never used for defense of Donetsk from air bombardment
by junta air forces before the incident?
Ukraine conducted BUK training exercises during this day. On the day of shooting down of Malaysian liner air defense
units of the Ukrainian armed forces carried out a training exercise on improvement of removing the lock for rocket launch.
The emergency situation during those exercises could well be a cause of the tragedy with Boeing, said to RIA a source in one
of the law enforcement agencies of Ukraine. Who was the commander and why he was not interviewed about those exercise by international
commission? Why this fact like existence of SU-25 in the vicinity of Malaysian airliner is so carefully ignored by Western
MSM? Were those crews composed of drafted soldiers or contractors? . Where all 17 Ukrainian and single militia BUK system were
located at the time of the tragedy? Are distance between Ukrainian Missile systems and militia missile systems is measured
kilometers or tens of kilometers? Why Ukrainian radar from BUK was operational that particular day ?
Ukrainian Buk battery radar was operational when Malaysian
plane downed - Moscow - RT News
How lame was the American satellite evidence that supposedly can read even car registration plates? Why they do
not provide us with the conclusive evidence despite the fact that the event happened at the height of 10K meters about clouds
approximately at 5 PM? Where is this video of the system that launched the rocket? Where is the pho of faces of people who
served it?
Pilots Reported Problems with GPS in Ukraine Prior to MH17 Crash. Ukraine should provide information on whether
GPS jamming devices were used in the country on the day the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 crashed
Militiamen who arrived at the scene previously said that putrid smell of some of the victims of the disaster was "stale".
Was it really so or this is a result of decompression ?
If it is well known from previous similar accident that Ukrainian standard reaction is "TSE ne mi" (it's not me) and
attempts to hide the evidence, why Borispol tower records were not secured by Dutch military attaché before SBU grabbed them
and possible destroyed or altered them? Id this just professional incompetence or something more serious?
Why did Putin called Obama? What did they say? What the phone call pre-scheduled and on different topic ?
Why the discussion of the situation in the UN hijacked by the USA and its allies? Why UN did not force Kiev to give
all the evidence immediately, especially recordings of Kiev air traffic control center confiscated by SBU ?. Why black boxes
are analyzed in Great Britain which is notorious for close association with the USA and can tamper the records?
Why SBU was so quick to confiscate all record from Kiev traffic control center instead of presenting all of them intact
to international bodies? Do they fear the evidence?
Perhaps most questions have simple answers. But I would like to get answers to them.
The Western media also broadcast the psychology of the flee market marketing. Strange, I realized this only yesterday. And it come
by chance. Yesterday, listening how the BBC journalist denounced the "horror" Russia, as always emotionally at the end of rants cried!
- "And now look what's happening!" (meaning the crashed plane and the fact that Russia sympathize with the Russian South-East of
Ukraine)
How many times have I heard it on the market! When sellers on the flee market loudly proclaimed nonsense trying to attract attention
of buyers and force them to buy their cloth or goods!
Here in this phrase as a drop of water reflects the strategy of playing on produces and emotions of a laymen. Such a layman walks
past rows of goods on the market, and sometimes he leaves the market without buying anything, sometimes with a few items. He usually
do little chit-chat with vendors. This chit-char is the main source of information for a layman. While those sellers stand their
not in order to chit-char, it's not their main purpose. The layman heard some talks, some emotions, he watch his purse, children,
try to not get into garbage heaps and in general exists in a parallel world. He is neutral toward flee market but the market is not
neutral to him. The market is created to lure the simpleton, the market wants his money. In order to coerce him, the vendor should
be emotional and active. It must press a layman to buy to persuade the layman to buy the good inventively, aggressively and intrusively.
As a result he buys a number of goods which are necessary or, usually, not, but he yielded to the persuasion of sellers and bought
it. It takes a certain amount of emotional pressure, to force him to buy this junk.
Above average man or a woman stay away on the flee market. They have their own sources of information.
Bill Marr yesterday in his program on HBO suggested that the story of shooting down MH17 flight will last a month. A month later
everything will be forgotten. And I tend to agree with him. Although yesterday Glossy, one of my colleagues, with tears in his eyes
asked me about the plane: she once worked with a certain physician who was one of the first in the US described the symptoms of AIDS
and death of a number of people related to the treatment of this disease was more than one line in the newspaper.
Hello all,
It's a very long time since I commented as I don't regularly follow the happenings within Russia that much nowadays. It's unfortunate
that my country lost another civilian aircraft yet again.
I just want to say that Putin already lost the propaganda war – in my country and most of the world. CNN, BBC, Guardian etc.
are just too influential and deemed 'impartial' by most people in my country. If you ask me who shot the plane – I'd say wait
for the conclusion of investigators but I have a bad feeling that we will never know what really took place. To be honest, I am
inclined to think the 'pro-Russian rebels' mistakenly shot the plane although I would not be surprised if it turned out the Ukrainian
military did it. Whatever it is, Putin lost in this propaganda war. No matter how, he is already considered a 'mass murderer'
and responsible for 'the deaths of innocent people' in my country and in the eyes of most people of the world.
I think Putin made a mistake in not acting decisively on Eastern Ukraine. He should have either left the pro-Russian rebels
abandoned to their own devices or annexed Eastern Ukraine and brave the wrath of the West. Now, the Western hawks are all behind
Ukraine. I see Putin has not much choice diplomatically Perhaps, a world war is looming – thanks to Western hawkish stupidity.
It does seem like that but it is far from over. 'Winning' the propaganda war though is only one side of the coin and the smoke
hasn't even cleared yet.
A) Can the West effectively exploit this to its advantage in the Ukraine?
I don't see how this could work. What they've come up with is barely circumstantial and cannot be constituted as a hanging
offense for Russia. The coalescing (non political) view seems to be that it was an accident. How far can you run with something
like that?;
B) Lasting damage to Russia's reputation. Is this going to hit trade between Russia and non-Western countries in the short
term, let alone the medium to long term?
For capitalists, it is only a passing issue unless there is an actual war or sanctions become serious. Both major businesses
in the US and Europe have come out publicly against sanctions that could seriously hit trade with Russia. Russia's ties with Asia
and elsewhere are only but expanding, where countries have the money to pay whist the West remain the economic sick men.
C) Will it change political relations significantly?
Neither Germany nor the Netherlands look like they are going to be bounced in to quick action that follows the Washington/London
line. The strategic issue of what to do with Russia has not gone away and is simply much bigger than the current conflict in the
Ukraine. At some time ground rules will need to be negotiated between Russia and the EU, probably behind closed doors. Laying
in personally to Putin would be counter intuitive diplomatically. These countries still need Russian 'help' or acquiescence in
multiple problems around the world.
What if?
What if Kiev is pinned for this? It already has some blame for letting flights go over its airspace.* It cannot be fully absolved
in any case.
The damage would be immense and widespread, taking in NATO, trans-atlantic relations etc. Simply walking away and saying it
was a mistake and expecting everything to remain the same will not be possible even if they try.
What happened is beyond horrible and there's plenty of disgust to spread around for those milking it amorally for their own
political purposes. Nothing has changed.
Al, you ask "what if Kiev is pinned for this?" No problem, it can be easily spun. Depending on whether the US wants to keep
Pork Chop, it can be spun a number of ways such as it was a rogue unit or an attempted coup against Pork Chop and he and his cabinet
knew nothing about it, they were misled by elements within their own intelligence services. This is a god one since the US then
has the excuse to get involved in making Ukraine's intelligence services more 'professional'. Alternatively, if Pork Chop is for
the chop so to speak, it can be described as sheer incompetence, the Ukrainian government were all for putting their hands up
to it but Pork Chop overruled them and so he has to go. Or even it was done by a Ukrainian unit that had been tortured by the
rebels and were suffering from PTSD and worthy of our sympathy and understanding.
The West has had decades of experience at this sort of thing. And the MSM will follow the party line like a flock of starlings
without any apparent awareness that they were flying in one direction and are now flying in the opposite one.
I'm not so sure Fern. Such spinnings may have worked very well in the past but us general voting cattle are no longer related
to the brass monkeys of old.
We see this reflected more and more in comments sections of news items where more and more people say "Well how is this different
from anything we/our government do/does?"). This view is in part driven by disappointment by the failings of our own governments
and seeing decisive leaders in action (Putin), i.e. the grass is greener on the other side syndrome, but this is still people
actively making this view public, not some anonymous passive poll taking with the usual fixed or leading questions.
The complete contradictions become harder and harder to ignore and are amplified when our media simply ignore them and other
basic questions you would expect even the greenest of journalists to ask.
Sure, most people do not spend obsessive amounts of time on public forums picking over everything, but the method is clearly
repeated over and over and over again. Memory can be refreshed by a simple internet search.
I think that finally public consciousness has caught up with the cynical and amoral games our leaders have been playing since
time immemorial and also might have something to do with the recognition of the West's current and relative diminishing of its
global powers. We've all become extremely cynical.
As for the rest of the world, I see similar cynicism yet more hope for the future.
These are extraordinary times we are living in and it is really difficult to look at ongoing events with an impartial perspective
even if you try, but at least us commenters here on Mark's blog recognize this.
Along those lines, I did notice a subtle shift in Western MSM coverage starting today.
The comments gently chiding Ukraine about its aviation "negligence", and such-like.
Is the start of a walking-back and preparation of mass lemming consciousness for the "revelation" that Ukes might have accidentally
shot the missile?
Fingers crossed. Although a 'no conclusive evidence, truth may never be known, all Russia's fault for annexing Danzig' cop-out
is more likely than an outright admission of possible Uke fault.
Is probably true that the West "won the propaganda war".
Which would be the case if people around the world are stupid enough to regard channels like the "BBC" and "CNN" as dispassionate,
objective sources (as opposed to mouthpieces for their respective governments).
In which case, if Russia already lost the propaganda war, then it is all the more urgent that the Rebels win the "real war".
The one on the ground.
In which case, Russia needs to start arming and supporting the Rebs with all due urgency. Otherwise, if Strelkov is right,
the Rebels will be defeated, and then Russia will have lost 2 wars, both propaganda and actual.
And then, following such a defeat, Russia will also lose Crimea again and have to hand over Crimea and the entire Black
Sea to NATO.
.
(Channelling Karl here, but his dire predictions have been right about a lot of things….)
Does anyone else have a desire to just quit following the whole Ukraine mess and reading Russia related articles in mainstream
media? I think I am having this moment right now.
Russia is being attacked from all fronts in our (Finnish) mainstream media. Multiple articles and op-eds are being written
every day and the tone is getting more hateful and aggressive all the time. Each story is being spun in favor of Kiev/West
and against Russia. I'm certain that Russia has never received this much of hatred and venom in Finland since the days of war.
Being a dissident in this environment is getting pretty hard. A few years ago there were some Russia friendly commentators
in news comment sections, but most of them have disappeared. That mat at least partly be a result of censorship. In Helsingin
Sanomat my messages are being systematically censored. Some of the messages were published but were later deleted by the moderators.
I also created an account to a Finnish military forum called maanpuolustus.net. 100% of the folks there were pro-West and
pro-Kiev. I posted some Youtube videos about Kiev atrocities in eastern Ukraine and my account was immediately banned.
The media of my country claims to be "free", but I feel like living in a media dictatorship where only the "correct" and
"patriotic" views are allowed. Being anti-Russian is part of the Finnish patriotism. You cannot be a true Finnish patriot unless
you either directly hate Russia or pretend to be "concerned about human rights/democracy in Russia" and by that way conceal
your hatred behind these "concerns".
Reading the mainstream media only makes me angered and it is not healthy. It is a nice summer so why should I ruin my mood
with this? Trying to fight an anti-Russian propaganda in our media is like trying to swim uphill. You are being either censored
or banned, or you are being attacked and blamed being a Kremlin troll.
Dear Karl:
For your psychological health, I would recommend just taking a rest from the news, at least for a while. Go off somewhere,
and enjoy your summer!
Life is too short to suffer when you don't have to.
Along the theme of "Forget the propaganda war, Rebels MUST win the Real War",
here is an opinion piece by Boris Kagarlitsky, from
yesterday. This is one of the best political analyses I have seen, how this war in Ukraine relates to Russian politics.
PARTIAL TRANSLATION
At the beginning of July, Novorossiya was saved by a whisker. Having avoided he catastrophic defeat that was prepared for it
by "Fifth Column" in Donetsk as well as the "Sixth Column" in Moscow [yalensis: I think he means, not so much the ineffectual
White Ribbon types, as the neo-liberal types who hang around the Kremlin), the Peoples Republics were able to deliver a strategic
defeat to the junta. From this point on, a turning point in the war is possible. But this depends not only on what happens
at the Front.
(...)
The shattering Igor Strelkov's grouping [in Slav'ansk] would have paved the way [for junta troops to enter] Donetsk from
3 directions, without any threats to their flanks. This would have pleased the Moscow liberals. But History decided otherwise.
The reinforcing of Slav'ansk and the bold actions of the Resistance prevented the triumphal march of the National Guard throug
Donbass. Thus was averted the junta's Plan B, which was based on the work of traitors. [yalensis: Here, once again, I believe
that Kagarlitsky has Kurgin'an in mind!] The main forces of the Resistance were supposed to remain in place and continue to
defend Slav'ansk, while at the same time the "Fifth Column" was supposed to open the gates of Donetsk to the army of the "Punishers".
The city (Donetsk) did not have adequate reinforcements, and within the leadership of the DPR sat some people who were loyal
to Rinat Akhmetov. However, this Plan B collapsed at the beginning of July, just as Plan A had collapsed at the beginning of
June.
(…)
There is still no (decisive) break in the war. But it could happen, if the Novorossiya republics can hold out until autumn(…)
This doesn't fit in with the plans of the Kiev junta, nor with the plans of certain very influential people in Moscow. These
latter were shocked by the setback to (Kiev's) latest plan. (…) Their shock at the planned "throwing of Novorossiya under the
bus" gave rise to these rude attacks, on the part of the conservatives, against Strelkov.(…)
The civil war in the Ukraine has exposed the crisis of Russian politics. All the hopes and dreams of the (Russian) elites
to avoid new conflicts with the EU and USA, have been shattered, because internal problems of the Western countries push them
into a fight against the Russian government, and Russian capital [yalensis: "Capital" in the Marxist sense, not the capital
of a country]. The Kremlin's timid attempt to allow some integration of post-Soviet economies is regarded by Brussels and Washington
as an act of aggression, as a threat to the neo-liberal order in Eurasia. And, moreover, the betrayal of Novorossiya by the
"Sixth Column" would not have changed a thing, except for the fact that USA and EU, taking advantage of this situation, would
have struck ever more blows against Russia. Because this is the only way they can secure their hegemony.
The war in Ukraine has divided Russian society. It has divided both (traditional) "lefts" and "rights" into proponents of
reaction; versus those who want to see (a genuine) socio-economic rebirth of the post-Soviet world. Those who support Novorossiya,
regardless of their subjective inclinations and prejudices, are objectively supporting a social republic, a union of peoples,
and an actual democracy (….) The people in power are also divided. But there, the struggle takes on a secretive character.
The opinions of the Russian oligarchy, and the balance between liberal and non-liberal groupings within the government, as
always remain the main obstacle for any Kremlin attempts to defend (Russia's) national interests.
(….)
[Jul 20, 2014] Guardian dutifully uses only approved by State Department talking points: poodle barks at owner command
Indeed, most of what I do know about MH17 came from Twitter and social media and various news websites across the Internet, but
all the information came at the cost of time, tremendous anxiety, great amounts of frustration and traumatic uncertainty. It wasn't
just the pay-walls prohibiting me from getting basic key information, though that was certainly quite unnecessarily frustrating.
(Thanks, Financial Times and NYT.) Rather, it was the escalating environment of speculation, provocation and informational insobriety
among news publications through their online outlets. By noon, there was just too much crap to dig through in order to find actual,
corroborated fact.
... ... ...
The first is the strangely ubiquitous clumsiness around attempts to make some connection to the MH370 disappearance that happened
earlier this year. Indeed, whenever the earlier plane is invoked, it is typically to contextualize the horrible year that Malaysian
Airlines is currently experiencing. (And there actually is a perfectly fine way to do this, like
this Businessweek article.) But there were also moments where journalists and pundits were subtly outsized in their implication
of MH370 within the MH17 narrative. This implicating not only serves as a possible way to derail the real narrative involving Russian-Ukrainian
politics, but also positions the specter of MH370 as an id-like presence compromising the gravity of this tragic situation. Almost
300 people lost their lives in a horrific manner, quite probably as a result of collateral damage in warfare, and what follows from
this should include a serious review of civilian protection around the Russian-Ukrainian border area.
... ... ...
As I mentioned before, tragedies like these are moments of reckoning for digital news. The fact that I - and many, many others,
I reckon - was flooded with information (true and otherwise) moments after first hearing the news is a testament to the fact that
we've figured out how to build a loud, powerful system. Now we need to figure out how to make it learn propriety, humility and purpose.
So this is how the British media, left, right, center and 'independent' (lol), see the downing of the airliner: http://i.imgur.com/XS5YJn4.jpg
The Mind-Benders is an analysis of
the media power in Great Britain. Written in 1997, it details how (and why) the information we receive via the media is censored
and distorted. If we are to avoid insidious totalitarianism we must be aware of the enormous control over every form of mass media...
Course Boeing over Ukraine has changed. Who ordered this? Who in General has launched a war zone? Have you heard anything
from Ukraine as an explanation for this? No, of course. But these explanations should be required.
As the wreckage of the plane were together in one heap? If the plane was shot at a height of 10 kilometers, the debris would
fly for miles. Is this the case or most of it fell in one large heap.
How is it that many carry orn and bags of passengers are barely damaged? How those almost pristine passports that were demonstrated
by "militias" (or whatever it was?) on camera in a few hours after the disaster survived int he crash?
Why Malaysian airline? Why so to speak the shell hit the same spot twice? (the same airline within a few months of becoming
a victim of a mysterious catastrophe).
Why there were no US (or just one) American citizen on board ? This is among other things would give the USA the reason to
investigate the disaster. And this is when the investigation "softens" the guilt of the performers of the American side (if we
are talking about airline bomb by the CIA, not a rocket) - "its something we didn't blow up".
Is it possible for a layman to operate "Buk" air defense system? How militia can acquire such specilists even if the captured
such a system from Ukrainian military?
Because generally the aircraft should be clearly identified on the radar screen of such system. Well, for example, radar on
all air defense systems monitor the movement of all purposes and provide speed and direction, and it is clear that any target,
flying from Europe at 900mikes/h and directed toward Russia, is 100% civilian aircraft.
If we assume that it was "militias" who launch the rocket, then to what group those men belong? Is there a chance that hit
militias "mole", i.e. there was a planned sabotage? It is obvious that the attack is extremely disadvantageous for Russia, militias
and extremely advantageous to the United States and the puppet Ukrainian government.
Was there in fact this "Spanish air controller"? Or this is dezot. Who is he, what is his name? Why Spanish? In Kiev, a lot
of Spanish managers and difficult to identify?
Where are black boxes? What is their fate?
Did the militia has operational middle range air defense systems? If so why it was not use for defense of Donesk from air
bombardment? What about professionals who can manage them? What they say about it?
How lame was the American satellite evidence that supposedly can read car registration plates? Why they do not provide us
with the conclusive evidence? Where is this video of the system that launched the rocket? How can you determine from which zone
Ukrainian or militia has deployed rocket complexes? Are distance between Ukrainian Missile systems and militia missile systems
is measured kilometers or tens of kilometers?
Why is there no data from the Russian radars? Russian military were on high alert at this period and monitor the entire territory
of the military conflict. Was monitoring suspended ? Hardly. Then where is it? Where the data is, for example, about the exact
altitude of the liner at the moment of missile strike?
Militiamen who arrived at the scene previously said that putrid smell of some of the victims of the disaster was "stale".
Was it really so?
Were Ukraine fighters in the air in the vicinity of the aircraft? That is, Ukranian standard raction "TSE ne mi" (it's not
me) does not surprise anybody but those planes can't be hidden. Is there any evidence of present of Ukrainian fighter in the vicinity?
Why did Putin called Obama? What did they say? What the phone call pre-scheduled and on different topic ?
What happened with the discussion of the situation in the UN? Why they did not force Kiev to give all the evidence immediately.
Perhaps most questions have simple answers. But I would like to get answers to them.
Well here at least the reply is unambiguous: only the junta in Kiev could have benefited from this tragedy. For the Russians
and the Novorussians, this is something between a real pain and a disaster. Just when the Novorussians were winning without any overt
help from Moscow and just when Moscow was gradually successful in denouncing the human costs of Poroshenko's murderous policies -
suddenly the entire planet focuses just on one downed aircraft and the imperial corporate media blames it all on Russia. As for Poroshenko,
this disaster is God-sent: not only has everybody forgotten that much promised "surprise" turned out to be a disaster, he can now
kill scores of Novorussians with no risks of that being reported in the corporate media. Not only that, but that gives the Ukies
a golden excuse to ask for ""protection" from their "aggressive and threatening neighbor". Again, the only party who can benefit
from this disaster is the junta. So, in summary, we have this list of candidates:
1) A deliberate or mistaken Russian attack: superlatively unlikely
2) A mistaken Ukrainian attack: most unlikely
3) A deliberate Ukrainian attack: most likely
4) A mistaken Novorussian attack: possible
5) A deliberate Novorussian attack: most unlikely
I don't know about you, but to me #3 is the one blinking red.
Now let's look at some of the crazy rumors which we have heard today.
a) one or two Ukie military aircraft shadowing MH17 before it was shot down.
b) at least one parachute after MH17 was shot down.
c) an air-to-air attack.
d) an attempt as shooting down Putin's aircraft.
I don't know if any of these above are true, but what I do notice is that all of them, if true, only 'fit' scenario #3: a deliberate
Ukie attack. Nobody claimed that MH17 was shadowed by Russian fighters and the Novorussians don't have any anyway (they only have
one Su-25). If somebody was shot down (the parachutes) then it was most definitely not a Russian Air Force aircraft. Ditto for an
air-to-air attack. As for shooting down Putin's aircraft, this seems far fetched to me, even for the crazy freak show in power in
Kiev. However, I would not put that kind of trick passed Uncle Sam who can always blame it on the Ukies. What is sure is that the
US wants Putin dead. So maybe?
The current version of the Novorussians is an interesting one: they say that a Ukie Su-25 shot down MH17 and that they then shot
down the Ukie Su-25. Actually, this is not the most unlikely possibility. Of course, this also means that if the Novorussians attempted
to shoot down a Ukie Su-25 they might have missed and the missile might have continued towards the MH17 especially if its radar had
gone active. So a Novorussian mistake is still a "possible", at least in my mind. If, and this is a big IF, this was a Novorussian
mistake, I don't feel that we can blame them very much. The one undeniable fact is that this disaster happened in Ukrainian ATC space
and they, the Ukie ATC, had the primary responsibility to keep MH17 in a safe air corridor and not the Novorussians who had neither
the technical means nor the legal obligation to do so. Also, just a few days ago the Ukies had announced that they were closing the
airspace over the combat zone to an altitude of 9600m (if I remember correctly). If the Novorussians heard this, they could have
easily concluded that MH17 was a military recon flight flying towards Donestk from Dnepropetrovsk. Besides, I am not at all sure
that the radar on the Buk M1 can differentiate between 9'600m and 10'000m or, if it can, that the operator would have been aware
of the difference this could mean.
Again, keep in mind my caveat above. I am not, repeat, not a specialist of air defenses. But I did do some air defense and monitoring
work in my past, and on the basis of that experience and of what I have heard so far is here my guess:
I would say that at this point in time I am 90% in favor of the deliberate Ukie attack theory. The remaining 10%
I would give to the mistaken Novorussian attack version. I am more than willing to change my mind if I get new facts.
Stuff we should look for
First, the black boxes. Even when hit, most pilots have the time to say something and that something is usually recorded and radioed.
Depending on the frequency used, that "something" should have been heard by PLENTY of receivers, not only the Ukie ATC. But at the
very least, we should have the voice and data recorders from the last minutes of MH17.
Second, Russian radar tracks. That is a problem. The Russian military is one of the worst offenders in terms of secrecy and short
of a direct order by Putin, they are likely to be most uncooperative. Still, these guys probably have it all: ATC chatter, pilot
messages, transporter signal, exact location of the missile(s) launched, point of impact, etc. As I said, they most likely had a
20/20 vision of the air space over Donetsk. The trick is to get them to share it, especially with the corporate media and the "independent"
experts all already clamoring that the Russians are tampering with the flight recorders. Still, things are changing in Russia, possibly
after the PR disaster following the Soviet shooting down of KAL
007 (which most definitely was a US spy mission and deliberate provocation), they are more willing to share data. A spokesman
for the Russian Air Force has already disclosed that they had recorded the signals of a Ukie BukM1 battery surveillance radar at
the moment of the tragedy. He even identified the exact Ukie unit involved. Hopefully, as this scandal snowballs, the Kremlin will
order the Russian Air Force to make more data public. Not to convince Uncle Sam and his EU minions, of course, but at least to convince
the rest of the planet.
Speaking of Uncle Sam and his EU minions. They also know. The US and NATO maintains a 24/7 surveillance of Ukie and Russian air
space at least to the Urals, possibly even on the other side (though I am not sure). I bet you that Obama was told who done it within
2 hours of the tragedy happening. That info was probably shared with the Echelon countries, but not with the rest of NATO, but even
they probably know thanks to their own intelligence capability (Banderastan is chock-full of EU spies not a single one of
which was ever caught by the Ukie SBU since independence!). So here again we have a 9/11 kind of situation: everybody knows, but
nobody will admit it.
The last question then
There is an obvious last question which we need to ask: if the Ukies did it, could they have done so without the US knowing about
it? The answer, in case anybody had any doubts about this, is absolutely categorically and emphatically not. No way Jose, not this
regime, not one which is 110% dependent of, and submitted to, Uncle Sam. In other words, if this was a deliberate Ukie attack, then
this really was a deliberate US attack. Not quite a "false flag", but a sneaky dirty trick, a longtime US specialty. The typical
US way works like this: organized and planned by Uncle Sam, paid for by the Saudis, executed by the Israelis. At least that is the
historical record for US dirty tricks. That is also most likely how 9/11 was done. Why bring in 9/11 several times at the risk of
infuriating the doubleplusgoodthinking crowd yet again? No, not just for the heck of it, but to remind everybody that the
folks who killed 3000+ people on 9/11 would not hesitate for a nanosecond to kill "only" 300 or so, especially if the risk of getting
caught is negligible, which in this case it is. If in the case of 9/11 it is the entire Establishment which by stupidity or by cowardice
which was made an accomplice of the crime, in this case the folks who did it will have the support of a rabidly russophobic Establishment
which will not care one bit about the truth as long as it allows it to further flame the flames of hatred against Russia.
A provisional conclusion of sorts - Lasciate Ogni Speranza
This crime will never be properly investigated nor will the culprits ever be punished for it. Oh sure, there will be plenty of
books in the future who will reveal it all in minute details but, as Michel Parenti always reminds us, history is not only written
by victors, it is also written by the elites, the oligarchs, the banking establishment, the 1%ers. If anything, 9/11 has proven that
our society is completely indifferent to facts and proof. Our society is ruled by ideological dogma and political expediency. In
the case of MH17 the accepted dogma is that the Novorussians are the bad guys and the political expediency says that this latest
crime cannot be blamed on the "heroic Euro-Ukrainian freedom fighters" or, even less so, on Uncle Sam.
Just as I wrote this last sentence above, I decided to check my favorite
Imperial Mouthpiece and, sure enough, I read this: "US President Barack Obama has said a surface-to-air missile fired from
a rebel-held area in east Ukraine brought down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17". See, it is that simple! How needs flight recorders
of radar tracks anyway?! If the US President said so, then it is so. Any other interpretation is a criminal delusion bordering on
terrorism. Who needs proof when we got both Poroshenko and Obama saying that the Russikies did it?
I am disgusted beyond words by both of these ugly, evil, clowns.
Well, I hope that that some of you will have found the exercises above useful, regardless of all my caveats. I wish my recollection
of working with air defenses was better and I wish my knowledge was not 25 year old. As always, this is the best I can do and I share
it to you, my friends, in the hope to resist the imperial propaganda machine the best I can. If there are those amongst you who have
a more recent and possibly more hands-on knowledge of these topics, I beg them to share that knowledge with the rest of us.
100% Chance Ukrainian Kiev intentional directed the plane over that path and lowered its flight path
to 1000 m above prohibited space, AND (then 50% Ukrainians shot it down OR 50% the Self Defense Forces shot it down thinking it
was a Military Plane. )
In all cases, it is the Ukrainian Kiev failure to indicate that should be a complete no fly zone. Now in return, I have seven
apartments in Lugansk being shelled by massive Ukrainian Arty attacks with the Ukrainians Lying Openly and claiming the LPR is
shelling their own city.
Which mind you many of these LPR people are Lugansk Residents. Lugansk has a much larger percentage of Lugansk residents then
Donetsk. Non of the peole I know would ever shell Lugansk willingly.
Frankly the decision to NOT have refugee camps for civilians in Ukrainian Territory says it pretty much. The goal is to drive
AS MANY of the people (civilians) as possible out of Eastern Ukraine permanently.
Unfortunately for the Ukrainians, the officer staff of the DPR is significantly more competent then the ATO forces. Fairly
obvious. Yes, I wrote once or twice before. Need to visit Florida.
Anonymous, 19 July, 2014 00:00
What is happening with the offensive against junta? Was it all stopped because of this, evidently Kiev's/CIA engineered, crime
against the passengers of the Malaysian airline? There is absolutely no news of any kind on this front. It seems to be like this
is yet another layer of evil directed at the anti-Nazi resistance of Novorossiya.
Sligo, 19 July, 2014 00:07
Spin isn't reality. This business will do nothing to change the facts on the ground. I can pretty much guarantee that no
popular Western crusade against Russia or the Eastern Separatists will develop as a result of this. The civil war will grind on.
The self-generated media hysteria will accomplish nothing and in a week or so the MSM will be off yipping and hooting at the
newest bright and shiny thing.
Nobody will be prosecuted. Someday the facts may come out, but nobody but enthusiasts will care.
Anonymous:
Another very, very simple question:
Why would pro-Russian fighters even target an aircraft flying at 33,000 ft. and clearly headed into Russia which is only 20
something miles away.
Personally, I think this is in a realm of total impossibility.
123abc
I think it's safe to say that ultimately there won't be conclusive evidence about who is responsible for the planecrash.
The positions at the UN security council remained unchanged. Russia's foes accused Novorussia and/or Russia. Russia's friends
remained neutral and insisted on impartial investigations. Given that there won't be proof either way I think that ultimately
the planecrash is not a gamechanger. The long-term projects (Eurasia, BRICS) will continue. Short-term there will be more sanctions,
but they won't be life-threatening.
Russia has already successfully dealt with at least one such incident (Ghouta), so it is experienced in maneuvering in such
stressful situations on the diplomatic front, it also has experience in doing sufficient propaganda work to fizzle out MSM hysteria.
Sanctions will come, but Europe didn't fall for Ghouta, so hopefully they will also not fall for the planaecrash incident.
My only concern is that there is a danger that the propaganda work may be overdone, for example „Der Spiegel" is already portraying
Putin as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
What we can expect is that the US increases weapons supply to the junta, maybe even overtly. But I hope it won't really change
anything substantial on the ground. Russia will have to be more careful with supplying Donbass, but I think they will manage somehow.
The worst case is that someone from Novorussian Army mistakenly shot down the plane and that undeniable proof comes out. Is
that a gamechanger? I think only if Europe wants it to be.
The question is will Russia still be able to support Novorussia? I think yes, they will call for the responsible to face punishment,
there will be hysteria, but it could be concentrated on one person, or a small group of persons. And a month or two after that
everything will continue like before.
JohnM
This whole "incident" has the same smell as the Syrian gas attack false flag.
There will likely be the same kind of bullshit that followed that one.
I agree that the Russian military should have ALL the information on this, especially if Putin's plane had been in the
air ANYWHERE near the area or ANYWHERE close to the time it occurred.
Does any intelligent adult believe anything coming out of the Ukrainian Junta's propaganda machine anymore?
Anonymous
Virgin Atlantic plane was in same area as MH17: Packed Heathrow-bound airliner was flying through Ukrainian airspace at same time
as Malaysia Airlines aircraft was shot out the sky
So how come the Novorussians decided to shoot at MH17, but at none of the 100s of others before it?
There is no way Novorussians would see MH17 as anything other than one of the 100s of airliners that have traversed their territory.
mijj said...
yeh .. presenting evidence won't change US Regime propaganda one iota. But, intelligent people who are wondering will welcome
anything that has basis in reality.
What matters more than convincing the US Regime leaders to face reality, is to convert the people into basing their views on
evidence rather than propaganda. Ie. the schism between the Regime and it's people is in proportion to the difference between
the propaganda and reality.
The US Regime rulers have a mindset where they think they can create a reality by controlling information. But we're all embedded
within reality, reality isn't a figment of the imagination to be controlled by propaganda. we all have an instinct for when propaganda
differs from reality .. so, that instinct needs to be helped along by presentation of evidence whenever possible.
/rant
Mario Drumond said...
I am writing in Portuguese with English translation from Google. My comment disputes the Saker in the following point: the
important thing is not knowing who shot down the plane of Malaysia but who put him where he was. And we know that Kiev was the
guilty one of this. If the resistance militias shot down, did the legitimate right of defense since it does not have air force
or information or air traffic control in the region and thus for them anything that fly over their heads is the enemy attack.
But if the forces of the coup regime did so, it is a war crime as they have access to all information of air traffic in the region.
It is known that the coup regime of Kiev thinks about war crimes.
Thus, anyone who guided the aircraft passengers to the center of the fire, or has allowed it drove there is to blame for the
accident. I would think so if any of my loved ones were on that plane.
DonbassBrussels said...
Saker thanks for this analysis.I do have a probably stupid question for you,but anyway.
I can't believe that MH has two fatal ''accidents''(one being this missile attack,but nobody knows what happened to the other
MH flight earlier in march).
The probabilities of the very same airline,with the very same type of boeing(777)having twice in a such short period of time
two fatal crash and or attacks,are near 0.000000000001 pct for me.
I used to work in the airline industry,MH is not a bad company eventhough they are no Emirates or or any other IATA legacy
airline.
They don't have so many flights from Europe to KUL compared to their competitors.They must have been targeted and chosen on
purpose.
Do you think Malaysia could have a kind of conflict with the empire?And that maybe because they did not get the RIGHT message(blackmail)with
the first crash..we have a second attack over Ukraine...and over the Donbass and indirectly against MH..very very very strange
coincidence no?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist fan at all,but I do have difficulties to believe that.
Like we say in french'faire d'une pierre deux coups'.The Empire(US/NATO/UE)having used this flight for both aims,the first being
to destroy the credibility of Russia/dpr once and for all,and the second,a second attack on MH and or Malaysia for a reason we
don't know?
Let' s note that the first MH flight involved China and this time it is Russia..two BRICS countries and the two most and probably
last ennemies resisting the anglozio empire.
What do you think about that?
Thanks coop.
nb: just thinking about a mossad or mercenaries possibility as the Oligarchs have very deep connections in Israel and very
deep pockets as well, eventhough they are quiet buzy in Gaza for the moment.
But never know..
John-Albert said...
As several people have pointed out, the BUK was sent into the SE for some reason. And the BUK is principally designed to shoot
aircraft down. There are not yet SE aircraft. Only Ukes and civilians. I think via Occam's razor we have it there. The BUK are
*inappropriate* for SE battle, period. So I conclude the Ukrainians moved the BUK into SE with the clear intention of shooting
a civilian airliner down and blame it on Russia, which they've managed to do. They had that flight fly as low as possible, to
make certain of the BUK success. Cui Bono + Occam Razor convinces me.
Q said...
Collateral Damage
I find it far to early for anybody to blame any side.
First one assumes that as with any civilian death in a war-zone that it was unintended collateral damage. To fly into a war-zone
that has every day airplanes shot at is a risk no airline should take if alternate routes are available.
At this stage nothing should be excluded. One may speak about probabilities - anybody who claims to know what happened only creates
suspicion on himself.
One more possibility would be that a bomb had been placed in the plane which was triggered either by gps or radio-signal to explode
over the conflict zone.
The story with a su-25 being the one who shot it down doesn't sound reasonable. Those planes don't fly at 10000m and usually have
very limited air to air capability. They normally carry only air to ground weapons and are to slow to chase an airliner at 10000m/900+kmh
anyway.
One can never exclude pure coincidence but two airplanes in a few month is stressing chance to the limit. Especially as many predicted
that MH370 would reappear in a false flag. MH17 is a bit like seeing a ghost plane.
Anyway lets hope that is not another
RMS Lusitania.
keyhoti1 said...
I got some information on the Buk system.
It requires a minimum of four vehicles - five if extra missiles are carried, or the launch vehicle is not loaded.
The three other vehicles are for detection, aiming and control.
A highly trained crew of 15-17 personnel is required, so it all points to the Junta eh, given all else.
Larchmonter445
On the way to my advanced degree in Communications I studied Mass Communications and Propaganda.
An overarching Law of Communication came from Goebbels.
"He who says it first is right."
Hitler's Basic Principles of Communication were simple.
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases.
Give only one side of the argument.
Continuously criticize your opponents.
Pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification.
Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda developed the art into science.
Propagandists must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.
Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
It must issue all the propaganda directives.
It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.
It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences.
The Propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.
Propaganda must affect the enemy's policy and actions.
By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence.
By openly disseminating propaganda whose contents or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions.
By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself.
By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity.
Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign.
To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting medium.
Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.
The purpose, content, and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose'; and the nature of current
propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.
Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.
Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy's prestige or lends support to
the propagandist's own objective.
Black rather than white propaganda must be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.
Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.
Propaganda must be carefully timed.
The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.
A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment.
A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness.
Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
They must evoke responses which the audience previously possesses.
They must be capable of being easily learned.
They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations.
They must be boomerang-proof.
Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.
Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat.
Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than that concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and cannot be reduced
by people themselves.
Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated.
Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective.
Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or
both.
These would be principles guiding the conduct of propaganda operations.
Larchmonter445 said...
james@wpc said...
It has only ever been the psychopaths against the rest of us. So I think it wise to reject all labels they use to divide us and
see ourselves as one humanity that instinctively cares for each other.
Good advice. And the perspective on the Elites as psychopaths is correct. They brag on Wall Street of their own pathology.
Books are written of the psychodynamics of these rulers of economy, military and politics.
Anonymous said...
From your first paragraph:
"...no matter what, the AngloZionists will blame Russia..."
Earlier today I took a screenshot of an NBCNEWS page. A video had a short descriptive sentence which was spooky, sad and comical
all at the same time. It is like watching the movie 1984 but it is real life and I cannot leave the theatre.
"Officials are trying to find out whether Ukrainian separatists or Russians fired the shot that took down Flight 17.
"I don't want America destroyed. I want her REDEEMED. Any American who DOESN'T want that is NOT an American."
AMEN, Sister! Thank you for all you said. God, if we could just all work together developing strategies to regain control of
our politicians and rein in the oligarchs instead of bickering and blustering and attacking each other.
james@wpc,
That was an excellent comment. Yes, psychopaths are drawn to power like moths to a flame -- but in a system of representative
government the constraints on their power, regardless of however well it was designed, still boil down to the same thing: the
willingness of the public to get, and stay, involved in the process. That is precisely where we dropped the ball, and while we
were busy doing other things, the danged ball got hidden and we don't even know where to look.
But the answers to this dilemma are out there just waiting for us to get our act together enough to.. act together and get
something done that really matters, to everyone eveyrwhere. Please folks, let's get going on at least getting along and trying
to decide what we really want, and the best means of achieving it.
But, here is the kicker. Notice the red tips on the missiles. This designates they are training rounds with inert warheads.
Red tips on missiles to designate training or test rounds is a standard practice for all ex-Soviet states including Russia and
Ukraine. The DPR leaders, or anyone knowing how to use this equipment, would know this and would never try to use them to actually
shoot something down.
If you look at any deployed BUK launchers, they always have white tips. These are live. I have not seen any evidence that the
militia have acquired live missiles to replace the test rounds. This could be a good reason why we have not seen them deployed
or talked about since they were acquired. This could also explain the conflicting reports from Kiev about the militia having them
and then not having an active system.
WizOz 19 July, 2014 04:19
@Larchmonter445
You are unfair to the real father of Propaganda, Edward Bernays, the nephew of Dr. Freud, who wrote in 1928 a book entitled
"Propaganda"!
"I remember a book I read called PR: A Social History of Spin. The author discussed how the Nazi Minister of Propaganda,
Dr. Josef Goebbels, was an ardent student of Mr. Bernays, despite the fact that Mr. Bernays was Jewish. Goebbels desperately
wanted to meet Mr. Bernays and apparantly sent numerous books to him to be autographed. We don't know if Mr. Bernays autographed
them, but Goebbels claimed that he did. Goebbels, who had a PhD in philosophy (which is crucual in terms of understanding how
he was able to understand Bernays and apply his writings in the way that he did), apparantly had an even larger library on
propaganda than Mr. Bernays and had not only read all of his books, but had largely memorized a good deal of them as well.
Goebbels was able to utilize Bernays' ideas on propaganda in a manner that was the most malicious and homicidal ever seen
in the 20th century: to support the Final Solution".
Actually you find a good presentation of Stuart Ewen's book "PR!A Social History of Spin" @PR! A Social History of Spin; Mapping
out the Development of PR" (pdf).
Anonymous said...
Fwd from Canuckistan
@Larchmonter445
Thx for that excellent summary re: propaganda.
It will surely help "us" in our collective quest to counter and challenge "our" yellow journalists that repeat the narrative
and precanned scripts that fuel the politicos suspicious motives.
@Saker et @all, thx for your continued efforts and keep fightin' the good fight!
"Propaganda is as propaganda does,eh?"
Writer said...
Saker,
Listing and comparing all possibilities is good logical discipline and a useful exercise in any confusing situation. With that
in mind, one possibility has not been adequately examined, an attack using interceptor aircraft. To understand why, compare the
characteristics of an interceptor to a surface-to-air missile.
A manned interceptor allows a visual identification of the target. (This is particularly important in peacetime operations.)
It also allows confirmation of destruction, with repeated attack, if necessary. And it allows (at altitude) the use of guns rather
than guided rockets. While none of these may have been an issue in this case, there is another characteristic that makes an interceptor
attack quite distinctive: it can be done at long range.
This means (in principle) that anyone within a thousand kilometers (or more) could have attacked that aircraft. Of course,
this goes "down the rabbit hole" quite far, but it is a possibility, and should be considered.
Having said this, and together with everything else that has been said on this subject, one might ask, what was the purpose
of this attack? Besides the propaganda value, it is a distraction from what is actually happening "on the ground", so to speak.
It allows the media, and whole societies, to focus on something of little significance while ignoring important developments.
In that respect, it has been successful, even here in this forum.
Perhaps this war has a similar function, in a wider context.
Anonymous said... 19 July, 2014 05:25
"The death of about 300 people fully lies at the Ukrainian government's door," Matviyenko said. The incumbent authorities in
Kiev "are like thimble-riggers - they say one thing and do a totally opposite thing."
"Independent investigation will give all the necessary assessments and we hope it will cool off the hotheads in Kiev and will
bring them back to senses and will show them that it's impossible to continue the combat actions because a full-blown civil war
will be the next phase," she said.
Anonymous said...
You don't even need to walk on the quicksand of "nineelven" for an example. There are plenty of undisputed (any more) ones.
Remember the Maine anyone ?The US blew up one of its own battleships with about 1200 men onboard, just to start a war with
Spain. How about the Tonkin Gulf incident...even mainstream corporate press admit that was a set up.
What about the recent sarin gas attack on Syrian peasants arranged by the degenerate govt. of Turkey with the foreknowledge
and tacit approval of the Obama administration ? That's been outered in detail by Seymour Hersh..
Anonymous said...
Thanks for the analysis. This is a False Flag in the oldest tradition of the US War Party. I'm sure Russia knows exactly what
happened. The ukie air space must be the most closely monitored in the world.
Anonymous said...
Fools think 'the truth' will save Russia- but the famous saying "truth is the first casualty in war" is ever true. The
'zionists' took control of the mainstream and fake alternative media outlets to control the 'truth' perceived by the sheeple-
and in this aim they are 100% successful.
False flags are used because false flags work. That a false flag is a lie by definition never matters. False flags are always
a small part of a well co-ordinated propaganda effort.
The aim of the West was to draw Russia into the Ukrainian situation (by threatening to eject Russia from its essential port
in Crimea), but ensuring Putin did not take the big step and liberate the entire region of Novorussia. The 'stick' was the claim
that if Russia went into Ukraine, the West would immediately go into Syria. This argument persuaded Putin to be an 'appeaser',
and we all know how that works out.
Did you know the BBC claims that all the shelling on civilian areas in Novorussia is actually likely to be a result of rebel
ground-to-ground missile strikes? You and I would choke on the thought of a lie that big, but the BBC states that lie every time
it covers the situation in Novorussia.
Their evil knows no bounds. If you make the mistake of thinking that because your opponent is the West, in some sense there
is 'hope' because the values of the West are fundamentally 'good', you are literally insane.
I would humbly suggest you look again at how the 'Allies' (the West) fought WW2. Not even Genghis Khan had the same taste for
exterminating whole cities full of innocent Humans that the British and Americans used as their main method of waging war. Yes,
the wartime Japanese were unthinkably evil, and the Nazis ruthless beyond all excuse, but the Allies were led by a far higher
evil- one that used every aspect of WW2 to prepare the ground for one final World War- the World War we are drawing ever closer
to.
BuckHam said...
The actual airliner shooting and the corresponding mass propaganda are a clear indication of the "target Russia strategy" and
the culpability of the puppet masters.
circumstantial evidence shows it.officially facts don't matter, they never did. the western propaganda machinery will not be
distracted from it's ultimate goal: the dismantling of Russia by all means.Voltaire net's quote is most fitting here:
"Since the attacks of September 11, we are witnessing a transformation of the way the media report the news. They lock
us in the unreal. They base truth not on the coherence of a presentation, but on its shocking character. Thus, the observer
remains petrified and cannot establish a relation to reality.
The media are lying to us, but at the same time, they show us that they are lying. It is no longer a matter of changing
our perception of facts in order to get our support, but to lock us in the spectacle of the omnipotence of power. Showing the
annihilation of reason is based on images that serve to replace facts. Information no longer focuses on the ability to perceive
and represent a thing, but the need to experience it, or rather to experience oneself through it."
The Lockerbie case which turned factsupside down blaming Lybia's Ghaddafi is a case in point (among others).
Think! Peace in Palestine would be trivial for the West if it were desired. Peace in the Ukraine simply required the same solution
witnessed peacefully in Czechoslovakia- a division into new nations on long-standing ethnic lines. The destruction of Libya, Syria
and Iraq only happened because the West chose such evil. When the 'Cold War' ended, the West actually ramped up its nuclear weapons
programs, ending the anti-missile treaties so 'first strike' nuclear strategies could be advanced.
Humanity does not want World War, but the mosters that rule the West surround themselves with various types of influential
death-cult servants like the zionists and fundamental 'Christians' (who are not Christians, because they follow the Jewish Old
Testament/Torah which Christ and his followers specifically rejected when they created their new religion).
The entire ruling class in the USA wants to see Russians subject to the same never-ending military aggression that the Palestinian
people live with on a daily basis, yet Putin chooses to cozy up to the monsters of Israel, because of their historic links to
Russia.
Russia's supreme strategy is to own a nuclear arsenal far, far larger than most suspect, and to ensure that if the worst happens,
they have the absolute capability of wiping out every square inch of the USA. What this fails to take into account is that the
ultimate evil that has taken control of the West is anti-life. It craves the destruction of all life on Earth- to turn our planet
into another lifeless body, like Mars (not so long ago, Mars was also green and blue).
Mankind has an inherent sense of self-preservation. True evil must seek to over-rule this somehow. First evil needs to take
control of Man's destiny, and this is what zionism is for. This is what the full surveillance programs revealed by Snowden are
for.
Paul Cockshott said...
remember that there are multiple possible causes of the crash .
1. Rebels had a missile system capable of reaching it ( which is uncertain ) and shot it down. 2. Russian air defensem missiles
shot it down.
3. There is some systematic fault in Malaysian 777 which caused it.
4. There was a bomb on the plane like the Lockerbie crash.
5. Ukrainian missile accidentally shot it down.
6. Ukrainian fighter jet shot it down ( eye witness reports claim to have seen these in area at time of crash).
7. Mid air collision between airliner and fighter. Until there is an investigation we do not know.
Talking about likelihood, just how likely is is that Malaysian airlines should lose two planes of the same type in a few months.
There was an old Navy saying that to loose one ship was carelessness, to loose two was enemy action. 'Enemy action' in this case
could stand for a systematic plot by somebody hostile to Malaysia or a system error that affected both planes.
There are videos which it is claimed show chaff, which would support the hypothesis that another military aircraft was involved.
But the streamers alleged to be chaff could as easily be something else from the poor image - rolls of paper - toilet tissue or
printer rolls.
When at the battle of Jutland Royal Navy battle cruisers exploded, eyewitnesses on other ships described the streamers formed
from the rolls of plotter paper from their gun control room. This could be a similar effect. To identify chaff one would have
to find it on the ground, not rely on grainy videos at a distance.
19 July, 2014 12:03
Oscar said...
They (US, CIA, NATO, Zions, etc).
will blame Russia whatever the outcome of the investigation. There is no way back for the rebels they must keep pummeling the
Ukie forces non stop. It is fundamental here the support of the other BRICS nations specially China. China should stop with this
timid, coward? behavior what happens to Russia is a mirror of what the "empire" is preparing for them.China, Wake up for Gods
sake!!
19 July, 2014 12:06
Dei iudicium said...
Recent statements by various Australian government officials indicate positions that are predetermined and hostile towards
Russia. Similarly, in addition to already attributing guilt to Russia (even though the source of the missile strike has not been
established and was clearly an accidental downing as no party if found guilty would benefit from such an action), Australian ABC
News (government affiliated) are engaging in anti-Russian narratives and distortions (propaganda such as claiming the downing
of MH17 was terrorism, Russia is an aggressor state, labelling Igor Strelkov as 'Igor the Terrible', etc.). But such information
warfare is a component of ongoing anti-Russian actions. Indeed, several ABC assets/journalists have been agitating within and
against Russia for many years.
But as Australia is an extension (partner) of the U.S./NATO Israel alliance, unfortunately such a position and actions are
to be expected. In addition to supporting successive wars of aggression (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, proxy war operations
against Syria, etc.), the U.S./NATO backed offensive military operations by the Ukrainian regime (and associated war crimes) are
also backed by the Australian government and media.
Some of the key agitators within the ABC and SBS are known to be affiliated with U.S. (and Israeli) intelligence (imbedded
assets). Such allied information operations through media organisations have been disclosed in various reports. However demonization
strategies and claims of terrorism by the ABC, SBS and various other western sources are clearly not based in reality so while
such distortions may influence and manipulate domestic public opinion, the resultant prejudices resulting from such efforts to
incite hatred are irrelevant to Russia.
Andrew said...
An award needs to go to the Daily Mail for the single clumisets bit of agitational propaganda published.
They've doubled down on their previous claims that Strelkov himself personally shot down the plane.
Larchmonter445
Anon 7:10/weasel
Has it right. The body of the plane's skin shows that the strike was with rods not cubed shrapnel the BUK uses
in its missiles warhead.
This points to air-to-air missile strike. At 30,000 feet.
The plane, as in all crashes, will tell the truth.
The black box might indicate something ambiguous.The voice recorder might tell us little. But the exterior of the plane in very
good condition already tells us hypersonic penetration of the skin by "arrows".
Maybe they thought the BUK was going to work and it didn't and so they finished the plane with a missile from a jet.
Maybe they thought it would fall into their territory and it didn't so they couldn't hide the evidence of a missile strike
air-to-air.
The war is being run by Western non-professionals and incompetent Ukies. It is a means to an end, not a war fought to be won.
After all, it is a war with Russia, not with the militia. Even the dolts in Kiev understand that much. It is meant to destroy
Russia rising economically and Putin personally.
But it is boys and gays and women with no combat knowledge, specifically, CIA case officers who are stoked that military actions
finally came to Ukraine, that the stooge agents they manage are following their orders moving troops and tanks and blasting cities
to rubble.
This is war with all its horrors but it is an amateur hour Kievian production. Comedy movies will be made about in subsequent
years, because it is farce and tragedy mixed in ideological wrappings.
In the end of this shoot down, the 777 will tell its story. It will get spun into more porridge of lies and deceit. But we
already have the photographic proof of the "how". And it tells us the "who".
And we know the "why".
They needed a break on the ground, not a propaganda win. That's just a bonus. They need to break out of the boilers. They need
to keep attacking Lugansk unmercifully. They need to reacquire ground lost at the airports.
And that's what's going on.
The militia needs to win this war of armies.
The air crash is a diversion. It is political distraction from the military moves. They should have called in the Chinese to
establish a corridor to Russia for all the experts to move back and forth safely. China has interests in Ukraine. It never takes
sides until things change one way or the other. And they move fast.
Know your enemy. Maybe its genetic. But Sicilians like me are born with an eye and nose for enemies. The West is so predictable.
They cannot change their behavior pattern. Haven't in a hundred years. Why is it so difficult and surprising that they would keep
accusing and dominating the media with falsehoods?
The grassy knoll, the Twin Towers, the WMDs, the downed airplane . . . forked tongues, the Indians used to say.
Elena, of recent fame as Motorolla's new wife in a video from June 18 claiming that
Kiev was shadowing civilian airliners with military planes to provoke the NAF to shoot down a civilian airliner.
Actually, just to make sure you know the Daily Mail crapola is clumsy propaganda, Fox News in the US is repeating the same
tripe, insisting that the tape of Ukrainians watching the aircraft dowining is actually Strelkov himself on tape gloating over
his handiwork.
Ukrainian battalions of 27 Buk-M1 missile systems able to hit targets across the entire altitude range have been deployed near the
city of Donetsk, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement Friday.
"According to Russia's Defense Ministry, battalions
of the Ukrainian Armed Forces operating air defense systems such as Buk-M1 are deployed near the accident site [of the crash of a
Malaysian passenger plane]. These systems can detect air targets within the range of up to 160 kilometers and hit them across the
entire altitude range within the range of over 30 kilometers," the statement said.
The Ministry also expressed doubts over the recent claims by Kiev that Ukrainian Buk air defense systems and air force planes
had not shot at air targets near the Boeing crash site.
"The claims by the official Kiev suggesting these systems or planes did not carry out shooting at air targets raise serious doubts.
It is impossible to draw a definite conclusion at such an early stage, especially amid running battles in this region," the ministry
elaborated.
A Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed near the town of Torez in the Donetsk Region on Thursday.
Various sources speculated that the plane was shot down by a Buk surface-to-air missile.
Earlier in the day, an adviser to the Ukrainian Interior Minister wrote on his Facebook page that a Buk surface-to-air missile
system was indeed used to down the plane, but insisted that the self-defense forces had done that.
[Jul 19, 2014] And now talking points from WashPost:
WP: "For Obama, tragedy may open up possibilities in Ukraine" ... At a
short news conference, Obama said Thursday's tragedy might persuade European allies and other nations to push more forcefully for
an end to the conflict in Ukraine. This week, Europe chose to adopt only modest new economic sanctions against Russia even as the United
States
ratcheted up the pressure on some of its largest energy and banking firms.
[Jul 19, 2014] Talking point of State department as revealed by NYT:
The current Ukrainian government is essentially the same junta which came to power in February, with Poroshenko as sitting president.
Note that investigation did not started yet by rebels are already blames although both rebel and Kiev anti aircraft systems were present
in the area. With rebels possibly having only one damaged until that they captured from Ukrainian army in Donetsk, only one with training
rockets. I think that rebels never downed any Kiev fighters with Buk before the incident. Only military of Russia, Ukraine and USA has
probably sufficient details about who did it. Russians claim that they detected working of Ukranian radar from Buk system before the
incident )one radar track can control several rocket launchers on different trucks which can be geographically dispersed).
The Doublespeak Award is an "ironic tribute to public speakers who have perpetuated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive,
euphemistic, confusing, or self-centered." It has been issued by the
National Council of Teachers of English since
1974.[1][2]
Its opposite number is the Orwell Award for authors, editors, or producers
of a print or nonprint work that "contributes to honesty and clarity in public language."[1]
The other night, I saw George Orwells's 1984 performed on the London stage. Although crying out for a contemporary interpretation,
Orwell's warning about the future was presented as a period piece: remote, unthreatening, almost reassuring. It was as if Edward
Snowden had revealed nothing, Big Brother was not now a digital eavesdropper and Orwell himself had never said, "To be corrupted
by totalitarianism, one does not have to live in a totalitarian country."
Acclaimed by critics, the skilful production was a measure
of our cultural and political times. When the lights came up, people were already on their way out. They seemed unmoved, or perhaps
other distractions beckoned. "What a mindfuck," said the young woman, lighting up her phone.
As advanced societies are de-politicised, the changes are both subtle and spectacular. In everyday discourse, political language
is turned on its head, as Orwell prophesised in 1984. "Democracy" is now a rhetorical device. Peace is "perpetual war". "Global"
is imperial. The once hopeful concept of "reform" now means regression, even destruction. "Austerity" is the imposition of extreme
capitalism on the poor and the gift of socialism for the rich: an ingenious system under which the majority service the debts of
the few.
In the arts, hostility to political truth-telling is an article of bourgeois faith. "Picasso's red period," says an Observer
headline, "and why politics don't make good art." Consider this in a newspaper that promoted the bloodbath in Iraq as a liberal crusade.
Picasso's lifelong opposition to fascism is a footnote, just as Orwell's radicalism has faded from the prize that appropriated his
name.
A few years ago, Terry Eagleton, then professor of English literature at Manchester University, reckoned that "for the first time
in two centuries, there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way
of life". No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake for utopian dreams, no Byron damns the corruption of the ruling class, no Thomas
Carlyle and John Ruskin reveal the moral disaster of capitalism. William Morris, Oscar Wilde, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw have
no equivalents today. Harold Pinter was the last to raise his voice. Among the insistent voices of consumer- feminism, none echoes
Virginia Woolf, who described "the arts of dominating other people … of ruling, of killing, of acquiring land and capital".
At the National Theatre, a new play, Great Britain, satirises the phone hacking scandal that has seen journalists tried
and convicted, including a former editor of Rupert Murdoch's News of the World. Described as a "farce with fangs [that] puts
the whole incestuous [media] culture in the dock and subjects it to merciless ridicule", the play's targets are the "blessedly funny"
characters in Britain's tabloid press. That is well and good, and so familiar. What of the non-tabloid media that regards itself
as reputable and credible, yet serves a parallel role as an arm of state and corporate power, as in the promotion of illegal war?
The Leveson inquiry into phone hacking glimpsed this unmentionable. Tony Blair was giving evidence, complaining to His Lordship
about the tabloids' harassment of his wife, when he was interrupted by a voice from the public gallery. David Lawley-Wakelin, a film-maker,
demanded Blair's arrest and prosecution for war crimes. There was a long pause: the shock of truth. Lord Leveson leapt to his feet
and ordered the truth-teller thrown out and apologised to the war criminal. Lawley-Wakelin was prosecuted; Blair went free.
Blair's enduring accomplices are more respectable than the phone hackers. When the BBC arts presenter, Kirsty Wark, interviewed
him on the tenth anniversary of his invasion of Iraq, she gifted him a moment he could only dream of; she allowed him to agonise
over his "difficult" decision on Iraq rather than call him to account for his epic crime. This evoked the procession of BBC journalists
who in 2003 declared that Blair could feel "vindicated", and the subsequent, "seminal" BBC series, The Blair Years, for which
David Aaronovitch was chosen as the writer, presenter and interviewer. A Murdoch retainer who campaigned for military attacks on
Iraq, Libya and Syria, Aaronovitch fawned expertly.
Since the invasion of Iraq – the exemplar of an act of unprovoked aggression the Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson called "the
supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"
- Blair and his mouthpiece and principal accomplice, Alastair Campbell, have been afforded generous space in the Guardian
to rehabilitate their reputations. Described as a Labour Party "star", Campbell has sought the sympathy of readers for his depression
and displayed his interests, though not his current assignment as advisor, with Blair, to the Egyptian military tyranny.
As Iraq is dismembered as a consequence of the Blair/Bush invasion, a Guardian headline declares: "Toppling Saddam was
right, but we pulled out too soon". This ran across a prominent article on 13 June by a former Blair functionary, John McTernan,
who also served Iraq's CIA installed dictator Iyad Allawi. In calling for a repeat invasion of a country his former master helped
destroy , he made no reference to the deaths of at least 700,000 people, the flight of four million refugees and sectarian turmoil
in a nation once proud of its communal tolerance.
"Blair embodies corruption and war," wrote the radical Guardian columnist Seumas Milne in a spirited piece on 3 July. This
is known in the trade as "balance". The following day, the paper published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber.
On a menacing image of the bomber were the words: "The F-35. GREAT For Britain". This other embodiment of "corruption and war" will
cost British taxpayers Ł1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered people across the developing world.
In a village in Afghanistan, inhabited by the poorest of the poor, I filmed Orifa, kneeling at the graves of her husband, Gul
Ahmed, a carpet weaver, seven other members of her family, including six children, and two children who were killed in the adjacent
house. A "precision" 500-pound bomb fell directly on their small mud, stone and straw house, leaving a crater 50 feet wide. Lockheed
Martin, the plane's manufacturer's, had pride of place in the Guardian's advertisement.
The former US secretary of state and aspiring president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, was recently on the BBC's Women's
Hour, the quintessence of media respectability. The presenter, Jenni Murray, presented Clinton as a beacon of female achievement.
She did not remind her listeners about Clinton's profanity that Afghanistan was invaded to "liberate" women like Orifa. She asked
Clinton nothing about her administration's terror campaign using drones to kill women, men and children. There was no mention of
Clinton's idle threat, while campaigning to be the first female president, to "eliminate" Iran, and nothing about her support for
illegal mass surveillance and the pursuit of whistle-blowers.
Murray did ask one finger-to-the-lips question. Had Clinton forgiven Monica Lewinsky for having an affair with husband? "Forgiveness
is a choice," said Clinton, "for me, it was absolutely the right choice." This recalled the 1990s and the years consumed by the Lewinsky
"scandal". President Bill Clinton was then invading Haiti, and bombing the Balkans, Africa and Iraq. He was also destroying the lives
of Iraqi children; Unicef reported the deaths of half a million Iraqi infants under the age of five as a result of an embargo led
by the US and Britain.
The children were media unpeople, just as Hillary Clinton's victims in the invasions she supported and promoted – Afghanistan,
Iraq, Yemen, Somalia - are media unpeople. Murray made no reference to them. A photograph of her and her distinguished guest, beaming,
appears on the BBC website.
In politics as in journalism and the arts, it seems that dissent once tolerated in the "mainstream" has regressed to a dissidence:
a metaphoric underground. When I began a career in Britain's Fleet Street in the 1960s, it was acceptable to critique western power
as a rapacious force. Read James Cameron's celebrated reports of the explosion of the Hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll, the barbaric
war in Korea and the American bombing of North Vietnam. Today's grand illusion is of an information age when, in truth, we live in
a media age in which incessant corporate propaganda is insidious, contagious, effective and liberal.
In his 1859 essay On Liberty, to which modern liberals pay homage, John Stuart Mill wrote: "Despotism is a legitimate mode
of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that
end." The "barbarians" were large sections of humanity of whom "implicit obedience" was required. "It's a nice and convenient myth
that liberals are peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers," wrote the historian Hywel Williams in 2001, "but the imperialism
of the liberal way may be more dangerous because of its open-ended nature: its conviction that it represents a superior form of life."
He had in mind a speech by Blair in which the then prime minister promised to "reorder the world around us" according to his "moral
values".
Richard Falk, the respected authority on international law and the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, once described a "a self-righteous,
one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign
of unrestricted political violence". It is "so widely accepted as to be virtually unchallengeable".
Tenure and patronage reward the guardians. On BBC Radio 4, Razia Iqbal interviewed Toni Morrison, the African-American Nobel Laureate.
Morrison wondered why people were "so angry" with Barack Obama, who was "cool" and wished to build a "strong economy and health care".
Morrison was proud to have talked on the phone with her hero, who had read one of her books and invited her to his inauguration.
Neither she nor her interviewer mentioned Obama's seven wars, including his terror campaign by drone, in which whole families,
their rescuers and mourners have been murdered. What seemed to matter was that a "finely spoken" man of colour had risen to the commanding
heights of power. In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon wrote that the "historic mission" of the colonised was to serve
as a "transmission line" to those who ruled and oppressed. In the modern era, the employment of ethnic difference in western power
and propaganda systems is now seen as essential. Obama epitomises this, though the cabinet of George W. Bush – his warmongering clique
– was the most multiracial in presidential history.
As the Iraqi city of Mosul fell to the jihadists of ISIS, Obama said, "The American people made huge investments and sacrifices
in order to give Iraqis the opportunity to chart a better destiny." How "cool" is that lie? How "finely spoken" was Obama's speech
at the West Point military academy on 28 May. Delivering his "state of the world" address at the graduation ceremony of those who
"will take American leadership" across the world, Obama said, "The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary,
when our core interests demand it. International opinion matters, but America will never ask permission …"
In repudiating international law and the rights of independent nations, the American president claims a divinity based on the
might of his "indispensable nation". It is a familiar message of imperial impunity, though always bracing to hear. Evoking the rise
of fascism in the 1930s, Obama said, "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being." Historian Norman Pollack
wrote: "For goose-steppers, substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader,
we have the reformer manqué, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while."
In February, the US mounted one of its "colour" coups against the elected government in Ukraine, exploiting genuine protests against
corruption in Kiev. Obama's national security adviser Victoria Nuland personally selected the leader of an "interim government".
She nicknamed him "Yats". Vice President Joe Biden came to Kiev, as did CIA Director John Brennan. The shock troops of their putsch
were Ukrainian fascists.
For the first time since 1945, a neo-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital.
No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism in the borderland through which Hitler's invading Nazis took millions
of Russian lives. They were supported by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), responsible for the massacre of Jews and Russians they
called "vermin". The UPA is the historical inspiration of the present-day Svoboda Party and its fellow-travelling Right Sector. Svoboda
leader Oleh Tyahnybok has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on
the political left.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles
as part of its Nato Enlargement Project. Reneging on a promise made to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would
not expand "one inch to the east", Nato has, in effect, militarily occupied eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato's
expansion is the biggest military build-up since the Second World War.
A Nato Membership Action Plan is Washington's gift to the coup-regime in Kiev. In August, "Operation Rapid Trident" will put American
and British troops on Ukraine's Russian border and "Sea Breeze" will send US warships within sight of Russian ports. Imagine the
response if these acts of provocation, or intimidation, were carried out on America's borders.
In reclaiming Crimea - which Nikita Kruschev illegally detached from Russia in 1954 – the Russians defended themselves as they
have done for almost a century. More than 90 per cent of the population of Crimea voted to return the territory to Russia. Crimea
is the home of the Black Sea Fleet and its loss would mean life or death for the Russian Navy and a prize for Nato. Confounding the
war parties in Washington and Kiev, Vladimir Putin withdrew troops from the Ukrainian border and urged ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine to abandon separatism.
In Orwellian fashion, this has been inverted in the west to the "Russian threat". Hillary Clinton likened Putin to Hitler. Without
irony, right-wing German commentators said as much. In the media, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis are sanitised as "nationalists" or "ultra
nationalists". What they fear is that Putin is skilfully seeking a diplomatic solution, and may succeed. On 27 June, responding to
Putin's latest accommodation – his request to the Russian Parliament to rescind legislation that gave him the power to intervene
on behalf of Ukraine's ethnic Russians – Secretary of State John Kerry issued another of his ultimatums. Russia must "act within
the next few hours, literally" to end the revolt in eastern Ukraine. Notwithstanding that Kerry is widely recognised as a buffoon,
the serious purpose of these "warnings" is to confer pariah status on Russia and suppress news of the Kiev regime's war on its own
people.
A third of the population of Ukraine are Russian-speaking and bilingual. They have long sought a democratic federation that reflects
Ukraine's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are neither "separatists" nor "rebels" but citizens
who want to live securely in their homeland. Separatism is a reaction to the Kiev junta's attacks on them, causing as many as 110,000
(UN estimate) to flee across the border into Russia. Typically, they are traumatised women and children.
Like Iraq's embargoed infants, and Afghanistan's "liberated" women and girls, terrorised by the CIA's warlords, these ethnic people
of Ukraine are media unpeople in the west, their suffering and the atrocities committed against them minimised, or suppressed. No
sense of the scale of the regime's assault is reported in the mainstream western media. This is not unprecedented. Reading again
Phillip Knightley's masterly The First Casualty: the war correspondent as hero, propagandist and mythmaker, I renewed my admiration
for the Manchester Guardian's Morgan Philips Price, the only western reporter to remain in Russia during the 1917 revolution
and report the truth of a disastrous invasion by the western allies. Fair-minded and courageous, Philips Price alone disturbed what
Knightley calls an anti-Russian "dark silence" in the west.
On 2 May, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. There is horrifying
video evidence. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as "another bright day in our national history". In the
American and British media, this was reported as a "murky tragedy" resulting from "clashes" between "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) and
"separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). The New York Times buried it, having dismissed
as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington's new clients. The Wall Street Journal
damned the victims – "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Obama congratulated the junta for its "restraint".
On 28 June, the Guardian devoted most of a page to declarations by the Kiev regime's "president", the oligarch Petro Poroshenko.
Again, Orwell's rule of inversion applied. There was no putsch; no war against Ukraine's minority; the Russians were to blame for
everything. "We want to modernise my country," said Poroshenko. "We want to introduce freedom, democracy and European values. Somebody
doesn't like that. Somebody doesn't like us for that."
According to his report, the Guardian's reporter, Luke Harding, did not challenge these assertions, or mention the Odessa
atrocity, the regime's air and artillery attacks on residential areas, the killing and kidnapping of journalists, the firebombing
of an opposition newspaper and his threat to "free Ukraine from dirt and parasites". The enemy are "rebels", "militants", "insurgents",
"terrorists" and stooges of the Kremlin. Summon from history the ghosts of Vietnam, Chile, East Timor, southern Africa, Iraq; note
the same tags. Palestine is the lodestone of this unchanging deceit. On 11 July, following the latest Israeli, American equipped
slaughter in Gaza – 80 people including six children in one family - an Israeli general writes in the Guardian under the headline,
"A necessary show of force".
In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting
techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerised Germans; it was her Triumph of the Will that reputedly cast Hitler's
spell. I asked her about propaganda in societies that imagined themselves superior. She replied that the "messages" in her films
were dependent not on "orders from above" but on a "submissive void" in the German population. "Did that include the liberal, educated
bourgeoisie?" I asked. "Everyone," she replied, "and of course the intelligentsia."
John Pilger is the author of Freedom Next Time. All his documentary films can be viewed free on his websitehttp://www.johnpilger.com/
Shaun Walker is a despicable pressitute, so reader comments are much more interesting then the article. Still with 50:1 in manpower
and 100:1 in military hardware Ukies army is probably able to kill most of anti-fascist and confederate forces ("pro-Russian separatists"
as Guardian call them) before September. As Napoleon observed, God is always on the side with better artillery.
"My order is now in effect
– tighten the ring around the terrorists," the president posted on Twitter after Slavyansk was regained. "Continue the operation
to liberate Donetsk and Luhansk regions."
There were signs that rebels from Slovyansk were falling back on the regional capital, Donetsk, to continue the resistance. Igor
Girkin, the military commander of Slavyansk, told the Russian agency Life News that he had arrived in Donetsk.
"We will continue the combat operations and will try not to make the same mistakes that we made in the past," said Girkin, a Russian
also known by his nom de guerre, Igor Strelkov. Thousands turned out to rally behind the rebels in Donetsk on Sunday afternoon.
Girkin has been one of the most intriguing characters of the uprising. A Russian citizen with apparent links to military intelligence,
he was previously known for enjoying costumed military re-enactments, and has been an elusive figure since he emerged as the figurehead
of the Slavyansk resistance, giving interviews to only a few trusted Russian correspondents and issuing decrees threatening to shoot
people for desertion or looting.
The separatist leader Pavel Gubarev read out a message from Girkin to the crowds in Donetsk, in which the commander compared the
flight from Slavyansk to the decision by the Russian army to abandon Moscow in 1812. Without that, Girkin said, Russia would not
have defeated Napoleon and marched on Paris, and for the same reason the fighters had left Slavyansk to regroup and eventually drive
Kiev's armies from the east before marching on the capital itself.
However, with Slavyansk back under Kiev's control, numerous casualties among the separatists and no sign that Russia has any appetite
to become more officially involved in the conflict, it appears that the tide may have turned.
Poroshenko faces a decision on whether to attempt a final and decisive victory over the separatist movement by taking on the fighters
in Donetsk and Luhansk, major urban conurbations where civilian casualties would appear to be likely.
Already, there is a huge amount of anger in the east over some of the methods used during the "anti-terrorist operation" to
rid the east of fighters, much of which has relied on hastily assembled volunteer battalions.
Tanya Lokshina, of Human Rights Watch, called on the Ukrainian authorities to mount a "thorough and impartial investigation" into
apparent air strikes on villages near Luhansk that killed a number of civilians including a five-year-old boy, according to witnesses.
Selected Comments
GeneralVV -> Walrave, 07 July 2014 11:53am
You trust stories told by western/Ukranian mass media, which DISTORT the REAL events that happen in REAL Ukraine (I mean Ukraine
with ordinary residents, but not that Ukraine with paid up oligarchs who are ready to sell out their country and their poor people
and in this case blinking the reality with hundreds of dead people, damaged buldings and destroyed lives!!!).
Every country wants to be free and independent and Ukraine is not an exception and it WAS independent but now it's on the hook
de facto (but not on the hook of "rebels", who are trying to protect Ukranian native lands and towns but not bombing, or "pro-Russian
separatists" or Russia itself ). Every day Ukranian press informs citizens that the common situation is under control but no...Sooner
or later everything will be over and I mean not the civil war...
Kympachash -> Walrave, 07 July 2014 1:14pm
They are not rebels --- they are antifaschists. Shame on Europe and USA for their open support of Kiev faschist junta.
The EU free trade deal will in the short term ONLY benefit the EU whose companies can flood Ukraine with goods straight
away, whereas it will take Ukrainian companies months/years to comply with the relevant regulations.
This will mean that EU companies will effectively kill off any Ukrainian competition before it even has a chance to
compete. Therefore the free trade deal will ONLY benefit the EU in the medium and long term as well.
It will greatly benefit the US-Neocon establishment and their multinational corporate interests, which thanks to the TTIP will
soon have a free hand (and legal immunity) to do whatever they want to Ukraine. The chaos and carnage is exactly what they want
-- thereafter, they'll loot the remains. Likely add a US military base as well. A levered-in US/NATO puppet government would not
be inclined to oppose the likes of Monsanto anyway... But the same also applies to EU controlled Europe, including the UK
Buenaventura71, 06 July 2014 6:40pm
For all we know the self-defence militias could be laying siege to Kiev and the Neocon Daily (sorry, the Guardian) wouldn't
report it, like it failed to report the basic facts about the Odessa massacre or to do any sort of balanced, in-depth journalism
about the broader Ukraine crisis other than press the Neocon line.
How does it feel to go, in the course of a few months, from being a reference newspaper which ample sectors of the public trusted
to report fairly on most issues to a Bush-Blairite rag which no one in their right mind would trust to tell the truth??
Congratulations, Guardian, I hope you feel proud of yourselves, and if in doubt please check the Comments section on your 'reports'
about Ukraine to realise that nobody, I mean, nobody, is buying the Victoria Nuland version of events.
mauman Buenaventura71, 06 July 2014 6:43pm
Neocon Daily (sorry, the Guardian) wouldn't report it,
Surprised your comment hasn't vanished. Mine do, frequently
Russian Channel One reporters went on a road trip around Western Ukraine, asking people in the street what they thought of
the conflict in the East.
Everywhere save Odessa (I wonder why, hmm) the sentiment was "kill the terrorists, there are no civilians left there, they
have all fled into the West" and "Crimeans are traitors, they are not true Ukrainians".
When I saw that televised mob in Independence Square (Kiev) during the ceasefire baying for blood, I knew that Ukraine as a
unified political state was over. How can you have a unified state which treats half its population as 'the enemy' with the full
backing of the other half. As for the people of the East they must struggle on even if Putin has abandoned them - which is what
it looks like - since the alternative for them is Palestinianization.
The Kiev-regime has evidently copied the methods of Mossad and the IDF.
It is extraordinary how this report shifts terminology. The opening establishes "Ukrainian troops" (photo), "Ukrainian
authorities" (Para. 1) and "Ukrainian forces" (para.2). Then the notion of Authority is reinforced by quoting President Poroshenko's
words: "...tighten the ring around the terrorists" and "continue the operation."
The proponents of federalism are now demeaned by the word "terrorists" and dehumanized by the word "operation". A
few brief words from federalist/"terrorist" leaders then suggest their future strategy before they are again demeaned by reference
to "mistakes", high casualties, withdrawal and possible Russian disinterest.
Only in the penultimate paragraph does an overview suggest that the victorious Ukrainian Army may largely consist of "hastily
assembled volunteer battalions" who are closer to mercenaries than the Ukrainian regular "troops/authorities/forces" so guilefully
evoked at the start of the report.
Is it surprising that Guardian readers are confused?
The point the OP was driving at, I believe, was that the article is written in a way that deliberately dehumanizes the
anti-Kiev side, denying their point of view any, well, point.
"They're evil orcs from Mordor, and they eat babies for breakfast", you know?
"So go on, give up your sons for the volunteer corps which we will issue these brand new (actually recently shipped in from Poland)
state of the art (actually Soviet army surplus) rifles and ballistic vests (shown even on Ukrainian TV to be unable to stop an
AK bullet) and let us send them to fight for the glory of the Independent Ukraine!"
Indeed, a symbolic win. An all-out army assault on a small contingent of untrained self-defence.. Army using aviation, mortars,
all sort of heavy artillery to shell indiscriminantly civilian targets - hospitals, schools everything ... led defenders to perform
a tactical retreat. With almost all of their forces easily escaping from the surrounded town. They started with a 100 of unexperienced
volonteers with 1 kalashnikov for every 3 of their men and left Slavyansk haing several hundred hardened and experienced fighters
armed to teeth with machine guns, trusks, APCs
Like the supposedly independent team looking for WMD in pre-war Iraq, which turned out to include a contingent working for the
CIA and related agencies who hid US missile guidance devices.
What happens when the media is either owned by big corporations or reliant on those corporations for advertising dollars? Unobstructed,
honest commentary tends to be the first casualty.
In this Nation Conversation, actor, author and CBS Radio News commentator Charles Grodin talks about just how easy it
was for him in his TV work to run afoul of AT&T and GE-in two cases decades apart. Listen to the full conversation to hear what he
did to make them so angry.
Dear colleagues-journalists, editors and media owners!
We all are living in the conditions of information war, which accompanies the fighting and this fighting continues in form of
fight for the minds and hearts of people. Current problems in the South and East of Ukraine also to a large extent are the result
of propaganda, which for years was carried out by Russia through its own media and cinema in our territory, with full non-interference
of the Ukrainian government.
These brief recommendations are not binding. Moreover, we do not aim to restrict your freedom of speech. However, if you love
our country and want this war to be over with minimal consequences for all, please read it and act according to his own conscience.
This checklist was developed by experienced journalists together with psychologists who know the laws of distribution of the information,
its effects on the mind, and how does the human psyche reacts to a traumatic event.
It is necessary for everybody to go through official accreditation in the SBU (Ukraine Security Service -- translator) . This
will protect you in case of need and will help to separate insurgents with fake identities from real reporters covering the fighting.
In the future as a result of mutual agreements it will give some guarantee of security for journalists from both sides.
Avoid the display of corpses. If possible, do not use even the word "corpse" or "dead", replacing it with "perished", "diseased"
or "body". Demoralizing influence of appearance of dead bodies can destabilize if not military, then their parents, who will do everything
to make their son did not get to the front.
If possible, do not transmit feeling of hopelessness even in the reports even the defeats. Use the counterpoint. Those who died,
might have children, and the memory of their heroic actions will remain in the generations of descendants, who will be proud of their
parents.
Never show the video that was put on YouTube by the hostile party. Russia uses the professional propagandists for this purpose.
If the video of our prisoners or their calls home from captivity comes online, this is designed and can lead to the total demoralization
of those who can resist terrorists in the Ukraine. If you make a report about the captives, look for the official commentary of the
person who will negotiate with terrorists. People should not think that the problem of liberation from captivity falls squarely on
the shoulders of the family;
If you've exposed the problem connected with organization of provisioning of the troops, do not let the report aired, until you
can tell that this problem is now started to solve or at least officials promised to fix it promptly;
At the time of hostilities do not give materials about the political discord and strife. For the enemy all Ukrainians are "Bandera
followers and nationalists". Regardless of who has what the ending of their surnames, language, or even the party. And if you are
offered money to throw mud at the party opponent, the opposition or the authorities, - encourage this party to spend the money to
help the wounded or troops;
Do not abuse showing the funeral of the dead, unless this is a widely know person,. death of whom produced public resonance. We
are very sorry, but if we can't help, that such a report does not give up hope -- think twice about whether to publish it on the
pages of the newspaper or broadcast.
Do not show the faces of the participants of combat operations. Even when they say they are not afraid to do it. After Chechen
campaign 1994 in Russia, there was a wave of crimes, when the relatives of the murdered revenged "offenders". Information on the
soldiers and their families was found due to reports from the scene.
Don't publish numbers and names of detachments, particularly in relation to their barracks. This way you can save many lives.
Remember that the enemy regularly analyzes the open sources of information.
Do not help the enemy to disorient Ukrainian citizens - many of them, hearing battalion names, can't understand whether this is
Ukrainian or Russian military unit. Instead of the name of battalions, such as "Aydar", "Dnepr", "Azov", it is better to use the
phrase "Ukrainian military", in "one of the territorial battalions", "the Ukrainian army". Instead of a battalion "East", it is better
to say "Kadyrov mercenaries", etc.
The experience of the countries that suffered the consequences of wars on its territory, in particular Israel, shows that focus
on hope in the future allows people to go through the stress with fewer losses.
We must get out of this crisis stronger, make the right conclusions, which will not allow the possibility of the recurrence of
similar events. Much depends not only on the government, but on each of us be it journalist, photographer, cameraman or editor of
the media.
We do not choose the time to live, but we choose how will behave ourselfes in a time when we live in.
Let us together make our country and our lives better.
The checklist developed by the joint journalists support Centre of the national NSSHU and NMPU.
"have you noticed that since things aren't going as they want The Guardian & other Western Media keep hiding the news from Ukraine...
Right now you have to press News & then Europe & then Ukraine to find this one, even if it is the one with more comments by far?"
have you noticed that since things aren't going as they want The Guardian & other Western Media keep hiding the news from Ukraine...
Right now you have to press News & then Europe & then Ukraine to find this one, even if it is the one with more comments by
far?
what do you think they would say if they did the same in RT? what would they say of Putin & the lack of true Democracy in Russia?
Oskar Jaeger tanyushka, 23 June 2014 4:45pm
We do not expect very much from RT anyway, it is all propaganda.
tanyushka Oskar Jaeger, 23 June 2014 4:58pm
interestingly, they don't do it in RT... i won't deny that they are "official" news, but you should try & read them, you'll
find they are more open to show both sides of the story than most Western Media... the comments section is quite open too, you
can write whatever you want there
If you control the information available to decision makers and provide only that information that keeps them in power, then
you are the power.
Censorship in Nazi Germany was implemented by the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. All media-literature, music, newspapers,
and public events-were censored. Attempts were also made to censor private communications, such as mail and even private conversation,
with mixed results.
The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information.
Punishments ranged from banning of presentation and publishing of works to deportation, imprisonment, or even execution in a concentration
camp.[citation needed]
Hitler outlined his theory of propaganda and censorship in Mein Kampf:
"The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time so they
may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind."
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
"10. Small bus evacuating children from Slavyansk fired on by right sector 21:00"
In Polish media presstitiutes are claiming that "terrorists" have kidnaped childrens with a bus. No information about shooting
was given. Every day Polish people get junta BS like this one.
Only people with nonfunctioning brain belive that civilians shelled by mortars and rockets will go back to merciless assualters,
like these banderists and foreign mercenaries.
Andrew,
13 June, 2014 13:56"
They are brainwashed:
Is this the Propaganda Machine of the USA in Kiev ?
http://uacrisis.org
Who is behind this propagandachannel? Answer: George Soros
Some of you will find it interesting that Soros also has links to Associated Press and Reuter, and that the so called western
media often uses these sources for their articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
German TV in scandal:
http://www.freitag.de/.../zdf-skandal-berichte-im-auftrag...
http://operation-gladio.net/reports-on-behalf-of-kiev...
It is obvious that this is a scandal in Germany. Thus, it is this agency that seem to push the propaganda on to the western
media, which appear to be happy to receive it.
Link this information about euromaidenPR, with the videos, and you get a idee whats maybe going on:
search youtube;
The Truthseeker: NGO documents plan Ukraine war (E35):
9 facts that prove the U S is behind Ukraine crisis:
This information could possibly explain people's resistance to knowledge that contradict the official "truth. It seems like this
have been going on for a long time.
Information published on this blog: (Seems real)
"Below is the domain name registration info on euromaidanPR. I find it remarkably short of any identifying information. I don't
claim to know what rules ICANN has in that regard, but to me it smells of belonging to a three-letter USGov agency.
Domain Name: EUROMAIDANPR.COM
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.name.com
Registrar URL: http://www.name.com
Updated Date: 2014-03-24T18:06:51-06:00
Creation Date: 2014-03-14T17:03:21-06:00
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-03-14T17:03:21-06:00
Registrar: Name.com, Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 625
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.17202492374
Resellser:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registrant Name: Whois Agent
Registrant Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Registrant Street: PO Box 639
Registrant City: Kirkland
Registrant State/Province: WA
Registrant Postal Code: 98083
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4252740657
Registrant Fax: +1.4259744730
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Admin Name: Whois Agent
Admin Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Admin Street: PO Box 639
Admin City: Kirkland
Admin State/Province: WA
Admin Postal Code: 98083
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.4252740657
Admin Fax: +1.4259744730
Admin Email: [email protected]
Tech Name: Whois Agent
Tech Organization: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Tech Street: PO Box 639
Tech City: Kirkland
Tech State/Province: WA
Tech Postal Code: 98083
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.4252740657
Tech Fax: +1.4259744730
Tech Email: [email protected]
Name Server: ns1.wordpress.com
Name Server: ns2.wordpress.com
DNSSEC: NotApplicable
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/ >>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2014-05-10T13:28:57-06:00
<"
Anonymous said...
To 16:35: Sitting Bull indeed. BTW -- there is some evidence Custer was set-up. And Sitting Bull eventually threw-in-the towel. And
his "victory" didn't help Native Americans. But I digress.
Don't know if I'm brave enough to predict the future. However, I am confident of the paradigm shift in the way American's view
the CIA and its operations in Syria and Ukraine. Many American's believed the CIA conducted operations to "protect + defend" American.
It's increasingly obvious that the CIA -- and their Mossad handlers -- are not in the business of helping Americans. People underestimate
the impact of this quickening. All the radio call-in programs are 3 or 4 to 1 against the US sending ANY help to Syria, Ukraine and
(now again to) Iraq. Whatever happens on the ground in Ukraine -- now or later -- is not lost on Americans. This will push policy
changes which will impact relationships and outcomes throughout the world.
My sense is VV's biggest threat is through and from Poland. If there something being planned or in store -- that's the launching
pad. Poor Poland. CIA successfully eliminated any independent Polish government -- and have used them as their "bitches" ever since.
But the CIA is a house divided too. Do they work for Israel, Oligarchs, Cartel or America? Langley must be a horrible work enviornment
-- unless one is a dual-citizen -- like the folks at DOS.
There's a card game I play with my kids called SET. It is based on seeing patterns, i.e. Visual Perception. My sense is a change
in consciousness reverberating throughout the world is unfolding -- with increasing speed -- that recognizes the CIA and its activities
as evil. And that FACT is changing everything. Watch and see. AGS
13 June, 2014 20:47
Anonymous said...
Just as reminder how brainwashed poor people of Ukraine are:
Andrii Deshchytsia, Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, today:
"Talked to #Russia FM Lavrov, demanded to immediately release and return to #Ukraine earlier abducted Ukrainian children"
And this is from Tymchuk, somebody translated part of his post from today:
"Brothers and sisters, on June 13.
From bad news:
1. Now it's clear why pro-Putin TV channels and newspapers disinformed so long, alleged Ukraine forces use multiple rocket
launchers BM-21 "Grad" in zone of operation. Given that no Grad was noticed in possession of Ukraine security forces in the
area of ATO (anti-terror operation).
Today a group of terrorists - Caucasian mercenaries and local fighters - fired from Grad at vegetable base at Dobropolye.
Terrorists were using three such Grads. At the same time terrorists were in uniforms of Ukraine National Guard.
There are no limits of cynicism of Kremlin, planning and executing these cynical operations, and local scum of all "DNR"
and "LPR" dutifully obeying orders from Putin. If we do not take urgent action tomorrow instead vegetable house could be anything
(their target).
2. Today, the Russian Mi-35 broke the Ukrainian border and accompanied the column. He was flying on our side of the border
long time, but circumstances of the incident amazing.
After all, it was following our military convoy. In my opinion, it's just breaking all norms. But it is possible based on
the fact that Russians do not believe in ability of our security forces to effectively counteract. Unfortunately, as we see,
they (Russians) don't.
....
And other similar lies which I frankly lazy to traslate"
I just can´t believe it, this are 100% lies. I even don´t know, how you can spread such nonsense which goes againt all facts.
And poor Ukrainians believe it and what´s worse western presstitues publish it as true.
I just can´t get over the scale of the lies. Why to lie just a little bit when you can create your own reality independent of
facts? Be bold, go big.
Guru said...
First, junta is just black dirt under the fingernail of the masters hand.
Second, master does not need an enemy, it'S enemy to itself.
We need to support guys on the ground. That's all. Don't try to win. Just give them chance to hang themself.
VV is very, very, smart guy. Trust him.
Anonymous said...
@ Crazy Ivan
"Poland is deep in this s*** up to the ears."
Russia's First Channel is reporting that a sniper in Mariupol is speaking English to a member of the Azov Battalion. The footage
they show of militia beseiging the DNR/LNR position in the town also features men with orange armbands, presumably they were told
to take off the SS Das Reich vintage yellow armbands previously used by the Avoz Battalion (Ihor K's private thug army). Moreover
they are shown shooting a heavy machine gun off a civilian Kamaz truck at the building, rather than using BTRs, tanks or artillery.
"Mike"'s accent does not sound American, but European. I'm guessing he's either a Polish or Baltic national. Anti-Maidan twitter
feeds have also clearly identified a Swedish 'volunteer' or mercenary sniper who incredibly enough maintains a Swedish language
Twitter feed listed as based in Kiev.
Seems either NATO/NWO is upping the ante by making presence of foreign mercs undeniable even for Kiev and western presstitutes
(they've previously insisted Ukrainian National Guardsmen speaking perfect Italian or broken Russian were just Ukrainians who
came back from abroad to defend their country).
What would be the objective of making foreign merc presence obvious? I think it's either to bait Putin into direct intervention
or possibly to deter it by making it clear if Polite Men in Green show up in Mariupol and make mincemeat out of the Azov Battalion
they'll be killing or capturing EU citizens.
American Kulak
Anonymous said...
State Dept. is insisting Russia has sent actual tanks into Ukraine, when the only tanks filmed on the DNR/LNR side are clearly
captured Ukrainian T-64s and not leftoever Russian or even Ukrainian T-72s that have bigger wheels.
Presumably Kerry, Psaki and co. are turning to the Big Lie in order to distract from Ukrainian forces violating Russian territory
with BTRs, and the destruction of Slovyiansk:
Also seems with manpower needs to salvage situation in Iraq and prevent ISIS from going for the southern oil fields if they
want to DC getting nervous that Putin will make his big move soon.
Gleb Bazov is tweeting out that Putin has issued a warning to the OSCE envoy visiting Russia (the same one who spoke with refugees
in Belgorod?) that the 'ATO' must stop soon. However there's no mention of the 'or else' part of the threat. But the Ukrainians
announced today that utilities must be prepared for a Russian gas cut off so this June 16th deadline unlike the rest is not likely
to be extended and Kiev is whining about paying the Chinese price for the same gas!
American Kulak
know the truth said...
Mohamed wrote :
"So, both Obama and Putin are in cahoots. Including Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE .... to get rid of
these Tafkiris once and for all. Good luck to them".
I am sorry but this is one time I will have to disagree with you. President Putin and Obama are definitely not in cahoots over
getting rid of these terrorist scum. While president Putin and the Russians recognise the very real danger to all humanity that
these takfiri scumbags represent, the Americans on the other hand are training and providing logistical support for them including
providing deadly weapons such as TOW anti tank missiles and other goodies and communications and intelligence in their demented
drive to topple Basher al Assad from government.
America is NOT fighting any so called "war on terror". They are the biggest state sponsors of terrorism on the planet together
with their allies Saudi Arabia. You cannot say you are "fighting" takfiris in one country and at the same time be actively supporting
the same takfiris in the neighbouring country. Al- Qaeda and its various branches have grown into the monster it is today as a
direct result of American support. Hell, al-Qaeda was even an American creation to fight the soviets in Afghanistan so I really
don't know when people are going to wake up to the fact that "al.qaeda" is actually an American asset.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous @ 13 June, 2014 20:55 re: Tymchuk's use of the Goebbels propaganda technique of the 'BIG LIE' or 'flip the script'
(accuse the other side of doing exactly what your own forces just did or were caught doing). Witness the pattern over and over
again:
1) SBU snipers loyal to Yanukovich inexplicably shot some of their own Berkut just to blame the poor Maidan activists in Kiev.
Nevermind why SBU would try to shoot unarmed Berkut who were already loyal to the Yanukovich government and fighting for their
lives without guns against armed Maidan urban warriors trained at Poland's police academy (a story the Poles fiercely deny as
'black propaganda'). BBC's Sanford upholds Kiev version of the story insisting shooting came from buildings in direction of Berkut
not Maidanists despite this story being contradicted at the time by RT's reporters who were nearby that day and the German TV
report that strongly suggests pro-Kiev shot some of their own
2) Odessa fire began because 'pro-Russians' inside building were too stupid to open a window before throwing Molotov cocktails
at pro-Ukrainian activists. Pro-Russians also said to have shot at pro-Ukrainian activists but no confirmation of any gunshot
wounds or deaths on part of pro-Kiev attackers of Trade Unions Building despite footage that allegedly shows 'pro-Russians' wearing
red armbands firing from the rooftop. In truth the 'pro-Russians' with red armbands were all part of the false flag and the absence
of gunshot wounds isn't explained by the rooftop shooters being such poor shots but that they were shooting blanks, such that
the big fat guy who was coordinating the assault felt no fear of shooting a pistol standing in the open at the Trade Union building
windows. Tymchuk and EuroMaidanPR dropped all references to red armbands soon after the massacre, whereas earlier they were pointing
out the obvious that the red armbands coordinated with the cops they dropped this claim as soon as the police supervisor involved
in the false flag fled for his life to the DNR/LNR and eventually to Russia, fingering Avakov and Parubiy as the masterminds of
the massacre funded by Ihor Kolomoisky and celebrated as a 'Colorado beetles roast' by the sick bastards at EuroMaidanPR and in
the Rada before their CIA sponsors told them to stop gloating about civilian deaths
3) Mariupol wasn't a massacre of cops as a warning not to switch sides to DNR/LNR by Nazi Guard, as alleged by a Communist
member of the Rada who was shouted down by Turchnynov. No it was an 'anti-terror operation' against 'terrorists' who seized the
Mariupol police station. Note that Vice magazine was the only foreign English speaking outlet to report on the Mariupol attack
and they did it in half-hearted 'locals say, government says' he said she said fashion rather than dig into the truth....4) Finally
all these big lies about Russian tanks breaching the border rather than captured Ukrainian hardware, Russian helos attacking Ukrainian
units or shadowing them rather than Ukrainian choppers breaching Ru airspace, and of course Vice reporting on the killing of a
supervisor at a pig farm/processing plant in Slovyiansk. Note in this clip at no point does the interviewer ask the women even
once to ID the attackers as being either NAF or Ukrainian forces, thus implying that the looters/thieves were NAF without any
evidence.
So yes, Wayne Madsen was correct, Vice is an arm of CIA disinfo, even if the junior reporters besides Ostrovsky are not necessarily
in on it but the details of what the women said about the attackers in Slovyiansk had clearly been edited out, and the reporter
who issued the latest dispatch emphasized shelling from BOTH sides rather than admitting that the NAF lacked artillery capable
of causing such damage and at any rate was targeting the Karachun hill not the town where there are no Ukrainian troops!
I used to think Tymchuk was just a fanatical Ukrainian ultranationlist/fascist who had been with the Ukrainian units in Iraq.
Now I think he was probably recruited by the CIA while there to be one of their guys in Ukraine as this 'fight Putin to the last
Ukrainian' contigency plan has been in the works for YEARS. Tymchuk knows the stuff he's saying is BS, he is not one of these
idiots living in an alternate reality where he can claim with a straight face one day Lugansk was an errant MANPAD launch and
in the next admit it was an air strike but imply it was a Russian Su-25 false flag.
I found it shocking the way American media portrayed the Russian people and Pres. Putin during the opening of the Olympics
this year. I thought to myself this is the opposite of what the Olympics are supposed to be about.
It was clearly a propaganda machine designed to put the American people against Pres. Putin and Russia. It's like they were
bringing the cold world back into this timeline on purpose. And it hasn't stopped, I don't even have cable TV and I can't get
away from it. My first thought was why? It was ridiculous how much time they spent on the bathroom incident.
It really showed the maturity of the American media, comparable to bullying kids in the schoolyard. Thank you for this well-written
article. I wish people would think for themselves instead of letting media dictate reality. And for those people who are guaranteed
to slam me with insults for writing this, or call me unpatriotic, it's not true I love my country. I but I don't love how media,
lies to us every single day and tells us what our values are, what is true and what is not true. But as always, if you really
want the truth follow the money, follow the power, and the motives will be there as clear as the nose on your face.
Mark, June 6, 2014 at 11:09 am
I worked in the archive at an international advertising agency for many years. I spent most of my days reading through marketing
strategies and advertising/marketing/media journals from around the world. In the early 90′s the latest buzz in adworld was "globalisation".
No, they weren't referring to the NWO. Globalisation in the ad industry spoke in terms of corporate identity becoming consistent
at every brand/consumer interface around the world. There was talk of big brands aligning with one global agency to achieve this.
However there were also predictions that in a few years time all media outlets across TV, radio, print, outdoor and internet would
be owned by a handful of companies. Today 90% of global media is owned by 6 companies, and they all speak with one voice.
In 1994 i never thought of media companies as "news media". They were just another platform to promote goods and services.
It was only after 911 when I had my light-bulb moment. The bullshit these people were peddling was so obvious. It was as if the
news scripts were written by the state department. And ever since then I know immediately when they are lying. Actually, to be
honest. I initially bought into the Obama mania. So yeah…they managed to fool me again.
The lightbulb moment was life changing event because from that moment all my favorite movies and the hero's i admired were
suddenly deduced to nothing but propaganda. James Bond taking on the bad USSR was a load of shit.
I enjoyed your article. I've admired Putin for a long time. The demonizing campaign was done to Ahmadinejad, Gadaffi, Mugabe
and countless others. I wish people would actually read the transcripts of what these men actually have to say at UN General Assembly
meets.
Why are the deaths of these people worth a headline but the civilians who died in the shelling of their apartment block by
the Kiev forces don't get more than a passing ref?
It's morally outrageous of course, but beyond that there is the greater worry. - What is the plan? As we've said before
(the smart ones anyway) this relentless propaganda and vilification of "the baddies" is the standard way of softening up a population
for war. If this is truly the agenda this time - either through intent, stupidity or inertia, we all need to worry, and stopping
this slide has to be the most important thing for any of us.
Unfortunately there are many who are too stupid to see beyond their own tiny prejudices or grievances. They need to realise
the current demonising of Russia, and the obvious attempts to justify more aggression, should be of concern to everyone, even
Russophobes, not because Russia is great, but because if this goes far enough war will become unavoidable. And none of us will
survive that.
Robobenito, 29 May 2014 11:43pm
Recommend: 58
"Pro-Russia, pro-Russia, pro-Russia".
Dear "pro-American" Guardian "journalists", please stop using this ridiculous term (pro-Russia). That horse left the barn months
ago.
Your readers are not as stupid as you wish we were, and you make yourself look like paid hacks every time you trot out
these propaganda terms.
Please start providing writing and coverage that is worthy of your readership. The Guardian is supposed to be a news service,
not a propaganda ministry. Please start acting like it.
Why do we tolerate the threat of another world war in our name? Why do we allow lies that justify this risk? The scale of our
indoctrination, wrote Harold Pinter,
is a "brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis", as if the truth "never happened even while it was happening".
Every year the American historian William Blum publishes his "updated summary of the record
of US foreign policy" which shows that, since 1945, the US has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democratically
elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological
weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.
In many cases Britain has been a collaborator. The degree of human suffering, let alone criminality, is little acknowledged in
the west, despite the presence of the world's most advanced communications and nominally most free journalism. That the most numerous
victims of terrorism – "our" terrorism – are Muslims, is unsayable. That extreme jihadism, which led to 9/11, was nurtured as a weapon
of Anglo-American policy (Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan) is suppressed.
In April the US state department noted that, following Nato's campaign in 2011, "Libya
has become a terrorist safe haven".
The name of "our" enemy has changed over the years, from communism to Islamism, but generally it is any society independent of
western power and occupying strategically useful or resource-rich territory, or merely offering an alternative to US domination.
The leaders of these obstructive nations are usually violently shoved aside, such as the democrats
Muhammad Mossedeq in Iran,
Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador
Allende in Chile, or they are murdered like
Patrice Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo. All are subjected to a western media campaign of vilification – think Fidel
Castro, Hugo Chávez, now Vladimir Putin.
Washington's role in Ukraine is different only in its implications for the rest of us. For the first time since the Reagan years,
the US is threatening to take the world to war. With eastern Europe and the Balkans now military outposts of Nato, the last "buffer
state" bordering Russia – Ukraine – is being torn apart by fascist forces unleashed by the US and the EU. We in the west are now
backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.
Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of
Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against
every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.
But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin
can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to
spill into Russia itself.
Instead, Putin has confounded the war party by seeking an accommodation with Washington and the EU, by withdrawing Russian troops
from the Ukrainian border and urging ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to abandon the weekend's
provocative referendum. These
Russian-speaking and bilingual people – a third of Ukraine's population – have long sought a democratic federation that reflects
the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous of Kiev and independent of Moscow. Most are neither "separatists" nor "rebels",
as the western media calls them, but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland.
Like the ruins of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine has been turned into a CIA theme park – run personally by CIA director
John Brennan in Kiev, with dozens of "special units" from the CIA and FBI setting up a "security structure" that oversees savage
attacks on those who opposed the February coup. Watch the videos, read the eye-witness reports from the massacre in Odessa this month.
Bussed fascist thugs
burned the trade union headquarters, killing 41 people trapped inside. Watch the police standing by.
A doctor described trying to rescue people, "but I was stopped by pro-Ukrainian Nazi radicals. One of them pushed me away rudely,
promising that soon me and other Jews of Odessa are going to meet the same fate. What occurred yesterday didn't even take place during
the fascist occupation in my town in world war two. I wonder, why the whole world is keeping silent."
Russian-speaking Ukrainians are fighting for survival. When Putin announced the withdrawal of Russian troops from the border,
the Kiev junta's defence secretary, Andriy Parubiy – a founding member of the fascist Svoboda party – boasted that attacks on "insurgents"
would continue. In Orwellian style, propaganda in the west has inverted this to Moscow "trying
to orchestrate conflict and provocation", according to William Hague. His cynicism is matched by Obama's grotesque congratulations
to the coup junta on its "remarkable
restraint" after the Odessa massacre. The junta, says Obama, is "duly elected". As
Henry Kissinger once said: "It is not a matter of what
is true that counts, but what is perceived to be true."
In the US media the Odessa atrocity has been played down as "murky" and a "tragedy" in which "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) attacked
"separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal damned the
victims – "Deadly
Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Propaganda in Germany has been pure cold war, with the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung warning its readers of Russia's "undeclared war". For the Germans, it is a poignant irony that Putin is the only
leader to condemn the rise of fascism in 21st-century Europe.
A popular truism is that "the world changed" following 9/11. But what has changed? According to the great whistleblower
Daniel Ellsberg, a silent coup has taken place in Washington and
rampant militarism now rules. The Pentagon currently runs "special operations" – secret wars – in 124 countries. At home, rising
poverty and a loss of liberty are the historic corollary of a perpetual war state. Add the risk of nuclear war, and the question
is: why do we tolerate this?
Most optimistic people of the world realize the US is the bright shining light on democracy hill, and - we, of course - have
the interests of all the freedom loving people of the world foremost in mind.
Jeesh, everybody knows this. Would we have slow-motion eagles and flags if it wasn't true?
Beckow -> NOTaREALmerican 13 May 2014 10:20pm
US government means well, after all they say so all the time. The scary thing is that they are - most of them - probably
quite sincere in this narcissistic delusion. The elites in Washington are not as much evil (there is a bit of that), as they completely
lack experience. They misunderstand history, they live in clichés, they like to argue with slogans. So "bombing" other people
for freedom are just words they throw around. Any rival is always demonized, any lie will do.
The media mostly acts to elaborate on existing stereotypes, otherwise people simply couldn't grasp what is going on. It is
the lazy leading the ignorant. As long as the good fortune and wealth lasts, it is an amusing spectacle. But what if one day the
goodies are gone?
These elites lack real experiences with life. Their education is based on simplistic good-bad formulas, with a heavy doses
of myths. Their understanding of other people's history is dismal. They think WWII was won by US invasion of Normandy and fought
over Holocaust. They don't get other people because they simply don't get complexity, nuance, local histories. They still don't
understand the concept of "ethnic" identity. So they break stuff and retreat to their ignorance.
There is also the acquisitive angle: give us your resources, buy our stuff, borrow and pay us back, after all US is primarily
a business. There are too many around the world who dream of getting something from the benevolent Americans, and some do.
Enough to keep this latter day cargo cult going. In Ukraine this mindless US approach hit a wall, so they are angry. When people
with no real experiences and a great sense of self-worth and entitlement get angry, it can be scary. But I still think at the
end they will pull back, they have a short attention span and there are other, easier places to liberate and plunder.
Joel Parker -> Beckow 13 May 2014 11:57pm
I pick up a bit more true evil from the people you describe as just stupid. I must believe there are a few more evil for evil
sake type of people on the earth altogether.
Beckow -> Joel Parker
There is some evil, sure. Mostly just selfishness and careers. There is also an enormous external ethnic lobby that comes into
this, some just emotional, others with old agendas, etc... This ethnic angle probably causes more damage than anything else.
But, do not underestimate how ignorant some of these decision makers are. They are trained to come across as "knowing", they
talk a lot, some are even eloquent, but their knowledge and experience is often an inch deep. Plus, they are hyper-conformist,
that's really why they made it that far. So they are trained to spout the official line. No real thinking required. So they get
manipulated.
UdomThongpai -> Beckow
It's in their nature. Cowboys don't bother trying to outwit their opponents. They just shoot them... Americans play hockey
and american football, while many of their opponents play chess. They only have the experience of going straight for the goal
with violence.
Davo3333 -> NOTaREALmerican
Actually the US isnt the bright light of democracy you claim it to be at all. There are only 25 true democratic countries in
the world and the US ranks about 21st which means it is fast sliding down to the status of a "flawed democracy". By comparason
with the true democracies it has much higher levels of corruption and press freedom is only about 48th in the world.
Also it has more people in jail than any other country and the highest rate of being sent to jail and also still maintains
the death penalty on a large scale. And its archaic gun laws result in Americans being 20 times more likely to be shot than in
other more advanced democracies.
The US is desperately using military means to try to hold onto its position in the world , but it is a hopeless case as it
is now heading towards Greek levels of debt and China is going to have an economy that is 2-3 times bigger than the US.
NoOneYouKnowNow -> Beckow 14 May 2014 3:35am
You're very wrong. The elites in Washington are as evil as anyone else can be. Decades of death squads, invasions, torture,
mass murder, all in the name of profits. Millions of dead.
That's pretty fucking evil.
franklin100 Beckow 14 May 2014 5:47am
Your describing the average Joe in America. If you think the elite or the government are stupid that's dangerous. Now we know
the extent of surveillance in the US then it's obvious that any dissenter in government could be and would be blackmailed.
I don't know who owns the CIA but it sure isn't the American people. I think America is a fascist state as it's impossible
to separate corporate interests from the state.
The problem is that Putin is no beacon for the people either he is FSB writ large controlling thieving murdering oligarchs.
Certainly the psychopaths are winning.
Beckow -> franklin100 14 May 2014 6:52am
Psychopaths with their reckless ignorance and drive for power often keep on winning. Until they don't. Ukraine looks like a
place where these policies hit a wall.
The Washington elite is ambitious, but not much smarter than the average Joe. Look at the results, they have pretty much failed
in almost everything they try to do. Collecting endless data and repeating slogans about "freedom" is not a policy - it is what
people do when they don't have real policies.
Bush Junior was a perfect example of an uneducated, action driven, lazy leader. What he was in public, is really the way
almost all of them are. He just had a lack of social inhibitions, so the cowboy-like stupidity was just too glaring. But he is
quite typical of what the world is dealing with. They like to "bomb" others to spread human rights and democracy. How smart can
you be even saying something that crazy?
Most optimistic people of the world realize the US is the bright shining light on democracy hill, and - we, of course -
have the interests of all the freedom loving people of the world foremost in mind.
Are you going for the joke of the day post?
The US "govt" has been at war with the world since 1945 and now is at war with its own people and is a menace to the world,
to world economic stability, to the environment, to world peace, and to life itself. Polls across the world place the US at no.1
as the greatest threat to world peace, above even Israel and Pakistan.
The US "govt" nominally comprises the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court, but since the JFK assassination it is controlled
by a cabal of bankers and oilmen who carry out false flag operations (I get moderated if I name a certain one which is used to
legitmise the "war on turrr") and world domination, as spelt out in the PNAC document and in Brezinski´s book The Grand Chessboard.
Yes, yes I know, its all a conspriacy theory. But read what a former US Treasury Secretary has to say on this:
As serious analysis goes, This is the purest codswallop, it reduces the world's and history's most dangerous and rampant and
expensive military machine down to the level of a Victoria Wood sketch with well-meaning, sincere but inept people at the helm.
RichardMid Beckow, 14 May 2014 3:04pm
I think you delude yourself.
Review the "philosophy" (if that be a name for it) of one Leo Stauss, father and poisonous inspiration of the Neocons and the
Neo-Neocons (Nuland, her husband, Kagan, and their foul friends).
Nobody should doubt that these intellectual runts actually believe the destruction of all manknd has produced over centuries
should be destroyed, literally, to make way for the cleansing new...
This is not a Monty Python sketch.
XW1234 -> Pindi
"the PNAC document"---the "Mein Kampf" of U.S. Corporate-Fascism.
Beckow -> MereMortal 14 May 2014 5:52pm
" it reduces the world's and history's most dangerous and rampant and expensive military machine down to the level of a
Victoria Wood sketch with well-meaning, sincere but inept people at the helm."
Well, not quite. First of all I would nominate the Nazis as the history's worst. And I agree that especially due to
strong manipulation by emotional ethnic lobbies and military industry, US foreign policy has often been evil. There is also
a point where ignorance, self-righteousness and egoisms are just evil in practice. And I said that. But they think that they mean
well.
There is an air of earnestness among Washington foreign policy elites. They don't get that other people might think differently,
that there are different explanations for what happens, and that those explanations are not always mutually exclusive. That is
by the way why almost nothing they have tried has worked.
By the way, in order to analyze one would need a lot more space. These are just brief comments. My main point is: thank god
that people like John Pilger are around.
Beckow -> MartinAlaskan
"America could/should do a far better job of responsibly using its power"
If US foreign policies would reflect the views of majority of Americans, they would be much better. That would be a good start.
I am not suggesting any other countries - and I have not seen any of those countries seriously suggest themselves. Currently
only US elite insists that "US is indispensable and special". And what does that make the rest of the world? Dispensable? Or worse?
MereMortal -> Beckow 14 May 2014 7:55pm
I like it when people are civilised in their retorts, like you were and I wasn't, kudos to you...
I thought that you were letting them off too lightly. I wonder if what you think is sincere, is what I think is 'a firm belief
that what we're doing is in our best interests, but we mustn't involve the sheep, because they won't like it'. That way they get
to at least have a rationale for their actions and for all that secrecy. I don't buy that they are sincere in thinking they are
good, because then I think they'd be delighted to share their true motives with the world and would not be so paranoid and persecutory
of Manning/Assange/Snowden.
I mean there is such a thing as realpolitik, and the other countries know it and all get up to their own dirty tricks,
it's just that they don't have the same ability to project their power and military violence.
Beckow -> MereMortal 15 May 2014 12:52am
That depends on what we mean by "sincerity". What you and I and most normal people consider sincerity is not the way the foreign
policy elites and the neo-cons (mostly the same people) see it.
They have a functional understanding of sincerity, in other words: "does what I think, what I do, what I say, advance my career?
Does it make me a part of the team? Am I advancing our objectives?"
It is a business "sincerity", they are true to themselves because that helps with their careers and with the "business".
What is lacking is actual critical thinking, self-reflection, etc....But they truly believe this stuff, they never give it a second
thought.
John Pilger is one of the all-time great journalists who was never afraid to speak truth to power.
He was there in Central America when the US sent in its covert ops to organize the mass murders of untold numbers of innocent
peasants. He's seen firsthand the death, destruction and mayhem that are part and parcel of the US's dirty wars.
And now it's happening all over again in Ukraine.
Here is perhaps one of the greatest speeches Pilger ever gave, where he points out the Grand Canyon which lies between the
opinions, attitudes, beliefs and values of the American 99% and those of the American 1%:
stripedone, you use a common tactic of the gchq avatars performing their "perception management" duties: omission
Bear in mind that most readers here haven't forgotten the key event that came before the Russian move to secure its military
assets in Crimea: the installation by US sponsored coup d'etat of an extremist russophobic government hand picked by the US.
Not mentioning this rather crucial piece of context only works on stupid or inattentive readers.
Russia reacted to a regime change, Russia did not instigate the upheaval. They acted defensively.
John Brennan visited Kiev (on a false passport!), result: one thousand hooligans moved into Odessa, Right Sektor "National
Guard" take over from Ukrainian army - Odessa Massacre & Mariupol shootings.
Joe Biden flies into Kiev for meetings with ultra-nationalists, result: Hunter Biden joins the team of Burisma Holdings
Burisma Holdings is a privately owned oil and gas company with assets in Ukraine and operating in the energy market since
2002. To date, the company holds a portfolio with permits to develop fields in the Dnieper-Donets, the Carpathian and the Azov-Kuban
basins
Dnepropetrovsk is the base of the oligarch Kolomoisky and Yarosh's eastern neo-nazi militia HQ
(h/t Jeremn & neomarxist)
whitja01 -> 3KOSTURA, 14 May 2014 4:46am
Indeed. If what looks like a planned ethnocide in eastern Ukraine proceeds, I hope the Guardian editor is treated as a war
criminal, along with Obama, Kerry, Nuland and that entire putrid State Department. If you support neo-Nazi thugs, you are one.
Anyway, thanks again for this article. I hope an anti-war, anti-fascist movement will emerge over this issue.
As for 'bringing democracy', a look at all the recent countries USA has 'interfered' with in the past 20 years, most are or
were trying to get out of the petrodollar regime. It's nothing to do with democracy, but all about controlling both oil and the
corrupt petro-dollar. Without it, USA would be the third world country that it actually is.
Charles Edmund Coote Sykes -> ocixem2
Brilliant article. If the US and UK did not interfere in other peoples' countries the enormous death rate would be reduced.
Consider the two Iraqi wars and the "peace" since they caught and hanged Saddam. After the first one child leukemia shot up due
to the use of depleted uranium tank shells and then the sanctions meant that medicines could not get through. After they deposed
Saddam in the second, the death rate has been a hundred times what it was under that dictator.
So consider the balance sheet. Huge military spending benefits a few companies, including private security companies. The tax
payer is poorer in both countries. Left alone Iraq would have got on with its own life and produced a modest amount of oil (from
its massive reserves), more if sanctions had not restricted its production. Most people have no idea about Iraqis, many of them
had Masters degrees from Western universities.
So the UK and US intervene in Iraq and cause maybe 1m deaths but can't be bothered to intervene in Rwanda where the same number
were killed. Is that because there is no oil in Rwanda?
3KOSTURA -> Alleagra , 14 May 2014 10:25am
This, alas, is the only way you can talk sense into a degrading and abusive power with a wanton disregard for human life, dignity
and intelligence. There comes a point when pitchforks and guillotines become the only viable form of communication between the
clueless rulers and their abused subjects. Expletives are one step removed from that point. Think of them as a final warning.
RedMercurius -> 3KOSTURA , 14 May 2014 1:27pm
It is just another Pentagon asswipe. The odd CIF article doesn't change that. They echo the drumbeats of war and promote the
agenda as fervently as the rest, at the moments that matter, and have done so diligently for at least the last 20+ years - ever
since humanitarian war came into vogue.
Then they point back to stuff like this to rescue their liberal credentials. But propaganda is all about rhythm and inflection
points, and they never fail on that...
3KOSTURA -> RedMercurius 14 May 2014 5:36pm
Yes. in it's current form and configuration, The Guardian is a Pentagon asswipe. No two ways about it. I think we all - Guardian's
Board of Directors included - recognize this sorry fact and can readily attest to it. Like everything in free capitalism: freedom,
human rights, democracy, human life, science, open society, The Guardian, too, has been debased and lowered to the absolute gnawed-out
bottom of the pathetic little barrel. Perhaps the revolutions eat their children, but the free-market does not only it its own
children: it eats its children, its grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, as well as children and grandchildren
of its cousins, family and friends. In fact, it eats and devours everything in sight, so why shouldn't it eat another child of
its own -- free, honest, investigative journalism.
This obvious truth notwithstanding ("Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the theater performance"?), I think it is clear
to everyone that, by placing people of honor like John Pilger at the core of it's Op-Ed section, Guardian's team is trying to
send out a forceful coded S.O.S. message to the rest of the world: We did not sell out: we have been hijacked and we are not at
freedom to speak; please understand us and dismiss our public words as utterly insincere and scared; instead, please read between
the lines..
No one really knows how long even this thin sliver of resistance and independence will hold out. The powers of darkness may
silence even those whispered voices any moment now.
On the other hand, we, the rest of the humans, have the right and the moral obligation to let those sinister forces know that
this is one war they cannot possibly win; that their attempts to silence the voices of truth and reason cannot realistically succeed
- now or ever (they never had) - and that medieval ways of warlord dominance, hegemony and terror, or the Stalinist mind control,
have long since gone the way of the dinosaurs. If they want to pick a lost fight, it is their prerogative. But it is our obligation
to inform them that the Emperor's undies have dropped to his ankles, that they have become sick, tired, demented and abusive and
that, if they do not change their evil ways - and change fast - they have nowhere to go but the gigantic junkyard of history -
already cluttered with fossils and skeletal remains of the free-capitalism foot fetishists, AynRandists, MiltonFriedmanists, Laissez-Faire
apologists and free market cretins of all kind and ilk.
I am tossing in my two cents toward our shared goal.
LeonWolfeson -> 3KOSTURA
Ah, so in your world it's being a binary choice between being an asswipe of the Pentagon or Putin.
That says a lot about you, really. It's not good and honorable to support, for example, blogger registration laws.
3KOSTURA -> LeonWolfeson
No, it is not my choice. It is CIA's. Check under: Edward Snowden.
titeuf -> 3KOSTURA
Well said, and I very much hope you are right about The Guardian's team. They certainly deserve the credit for publishing
John Pilger's article.
If I remember well, it was John who said in one of his famous university speeches in the US years ago that
".. For some time now we have to read between the lines of the corporate media in order to understand what really is going
on, just like people in Eastern Europe a couple of decades ago".
One thing is for sure, judging by the number of anti-Pilger comments, NSA, GCHQ and other trolls have mobilised all their forces
and have been working round the clock since this article was published.
karlo -> huzar30, 13 May 2014 9:12pm
John Pilger is writing it as it is, not as Obama or Cameron would have people like you believe.
Victoria Nuland's comments made public show that the US was puppeteering behind the scenes, the recent visit of the head of
the CIA to Kiev which was denied until they could no longer lie,, the reported sending of several hundred US 'assassins in Polo
shirts' (credit to the film "the A-Team") to Eastern Ukraine..there is lots of evidence out there ...but you need to be prepared
to open your eyes and ears when its much easier to just go with the propaganda flow.
DrKropotkin -> RvonMises, 13 May 2014 9:39pm
The leaked Nuland tape is evidence of the US backed coup. Why do you say the fascists are only a minor part of the government?
Firstly, they hold the interior and defence ministries, as well as two other key positions. Secondly, even if they were a small
part of the government, that should still be unacceptable for a western ally. It seems the west is desperate for friends these
days and will take anyone who is against their enemies. A dangerous strategy and not guaranteed to succeed.
seamuspadraig -> RvonMises 13 May 2014 10:56pm
Washington is always caught off-guard--especially by the results of their own actions! Consider the case of Iraq, for example.
The fascists probably are only a low-level element in the current government, but right now, they're the only dependable gunmen
that Kiev has to attack the east. The regular army of Ukraine has been--for some odd reason!--remarkably slow to attack its own
citizens. So the government has marshaled the 'Pravy Sektor' into a newly formed and deputized National Guard to attack the east.
Scipio1 -> RvonMises
Prior to the coup the ineffable Ms Nuland had spent $5 billion of US taxpayers' money aiding 'democratic institutions' (never
specified) in the Ukraine. So don't give us that stuff about the US being caught off-guard. And BTW the whole 'government'
of the Ukraine was catapulted into power by the Sector 5 Sturmabeitilung with the blessing of Svoboda. The coup would not
have happened without these paramilitaries.
And the Kiev regime would collapse in their absence. It is precisely for this reason Yatsenyuk and his oligarch friends will
not and cannot control them.
maggieTee -> RvonMises
Fascists are "at best only a minor part of the Ukrainian government"
Last time I checked the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party are heading the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence in Kiev.
Not sure if those two qualify as "a minor part" of Kiev's government?
greatwhitehunter -> RvonMises 14 May 2014 4:54am
I think russia moving into crimea caught them off guard the rest was planned . maybe they assumed the russia would bend over
for them
whitja01 -> RvonMises
Leaked Nuland phone call shows careful planning, right down to who should be the new leader, and voila, he was. Continuing
sanctions and threats thereof against Russia show that they are not washing their hands of the situation.
FBI and CIA have set up offices in Kiev, and 400 Academy soliders are assisting the Ukraine army in their ethnic cleansing,
er pacificaton drive. Kerry taking a lead role in all the negotiations. Does this sound like being caught off guard?
It's stunning how a lot of very clever liberals on here really have't got a clue about world events past and present...
You think you're all geopoliticically aware because you've been spoonfed CNN/MSNBC/BBC bullshit.
You don't have a fucking clue.
How about researching some of the claims made by Pilger?
You'll find that he's speaking a refreshing truth compared to most Western media outlets who are just reading White House press
releases verbatim.
SeamasWilliamsmasaski
13 May 2014 9:54pm
Your trying to convince people that are trapped in a mind set, and I commend you for it, but you probably won't get anywhere.
People who think there is actually and left and right are not really able to think critically, and there are plenty of them on
here. They are not even able to discern that the article is about US foreign policy. And because Pilger is critical of it, it
therefore follows that he must support Putin. An elementary logical fallacy, that so many caught in the inane left right paradigm
will never see. Again, I commend you for trying. Its like someone on drugs or a drink problem, only they can get themselves out
of it, and they have to accept they have a problem, before they can do anything about it.
whitja01 -> masaski
a friend of mine, a much awarded journalist from India, refers to the kind of reporting done recently on Ukraine by most of
the western press, as 'stenography to power.'
Exclusive: As Ukrainian soldiers from the coup regime in Kiev tighten the noose around anti-coup rebels in eastern Ukraine,
the New York Times continues its cheerleading for the coup regime and its contempt for the rebels, raising grave questions about
the Times' credibility, writes Robert Parry.
For Americans interested in foreign policy, the New York Times has become the last U.S. newspaper to continue devoting substantial
resources to covering the world. But the Times increasingly betrays its responsibility to deliver anything approaching honest journalism
on overseas crises especially when Official Washington has a strong stake in the outcome.
The Times' failures in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War are, of course, well known, particularly the infamous "aluminum tube"
story by Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller. And, the Times has shown similar bias on the Syrian conflict, such as last year's
debunked Times' "vector analysis" tracing
a sarin-laden rocket back to a Syrian military base when the rocket had less than one-third the necessary range.
But the Times' prejudice over the Ukraine crisis has reached new levels of extreme as the "newspaper of record" routinely carries
water for the neocons and other hawks who still dominate the U.S. State Department. Everything that the Times writes about Ukraine
is so polluted with propaganda that it requires a very strong filter, along with additives from more independent news sources, to
get anything approaching an accurate understanding of events.
From the beginning of the crisis, the Times sided with the "pro-democracy" demonstrators in Kiev's Maidan square as they sought
to topple democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, who had rebuffed a set of Western demands that would have required
Ukraine to swallow harsh austerity measures prescribed by the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych opted for a more generous offer
from Russia of a $15 billion loan with few strings attached.
Along with almost the entire U.S. mainstream media, the Times cheered on the violent overthrow of Yanukovych on Feb. 22 and downplayed
the crucial role played by well-organized neo-Nazi militias that surged to the front of the Maidan protests in the final violent
days. Then, with Yanukovych out and a new coup regime in, led by U.S. hand-picked Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the IMF austerity
plan was promptly approved.
Since the early days of the coup, the Times has behaved as essentially a propaganda organ for the new regime in Kiev and for the
State Department, pushing "themes" blaming Russia and President Vladimir Putin for the crisis. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's
"Ukraine, Though the US 'Looking Glass.'"]
In the Times' haste to perform this function, there have been some notable journalistic embarrassments such as the Times' front-page
story touting
photographs that supposedly showed Russian special forces in Russia and then the same soldiers in eastern Ukraine, allegedly proving
that the popular resistance to the coup regime was simply clumsily disguised Russian aggression.
Any serious journalist would have recognized the holes in the story – since it wasn't clear where the photos were taken or whether
the blurry images were even the same people – but that didn't bother the Times, which led with the scoop. However, only two days
later, the scoop blew up when it turned out
that a key photo – supposedly showing a group of soldiers in Russia who later appeared in eastern Ukraine – was actually taken in
Ukraine, destroying the premise of the entire story.
Soldiering On
The Times, however, continued to soldier on with its bias, playing up stories that made Russia and the ethnic Russians of
eastern Ukraine look bad and playing down anything that might make the post-coup regime in Kiev look bad.
On Saturday, for instance, the dominant story from Ukraine was the killing of more than 30 ethnic Russian protesters by fire and
smoke inhalation in Ukraine's southern port city of Odessa. They had taken refuge in a building after a clash with a pro-Kiev mob
which reportedly included right-wing thugs.
Even the neocon-dominated Washington Post led its Saturday editions with the story of "Dozens killed in Ukraine fighting" and
described the fatal incident this way: "Friday evening, a pro-Ukrainian mob attacked a camp where the pro-Russian supporters had
pitched tents, forcing them to flee to a nearby government building, a witness said. The mob then threw gasoline bombs into the building.
Police said 31 people were killed when they choked on smoke or jumped out of windows.
"Asked who had thrown the Molotov cocktails, pro-Ukrainian activist Diana Berg said, 'Our people – but now they are helping
them [the survivors] escape the building.'"
By contrast, here is how the New York Times reported the event in its Saturday editions as part of a story by C.J. Chivers and
Noah Sneider focused on the successes of the pro-coup armed forces in overrunning some eastern Ukrainian rebel positions.
"Violence also erupted Friday in the previously calmer port city of Odessa, on the Black Sea, where dozens of people died in
a fire related to clashes that broke out between protesters holding a march for Ukrainian unity and pro-Russian activists. The
fighting itself left four dead and 12 wounded, Ukraine's Interior Ministry said. Ukrainian and Russian news media showed images
of buildings and debris burning, fire bombs being thrown and men armed with pistols."
Note how the Times evades placing any responsibility on the pro-coup mob for trying to burn the "pro-Russian activists" out of
a building, an act that resulted in the highest single-day death toll since the actual coup which left more than 80 people dead from
Feb. 20-22. From reading the Times, you wouldn't know who had died in the building and who had set the fire.
Normally, I would simply attribute this deficient story to some reporters and editors having a bad day and not bothering to assemble
relevant facts. However, when put in the context of the Times' unrelenting bias in its coverage of the Ukraine crisis – how the Times
hypes every fact (and even non-facts) that reflect negatively on the anti-coup side – you have to think that the Times is spinning
its readers, again.
For those who write for the Times – and the many more people who read it – the question must be whether the Times is so committed
to its prejudices here that the newspaper will risk whatever credibility it has left. The coup regime from Kiev may succeed in slaughtering
many ethnic Russians in the rebellious east - as the Times signals its approval - but will this bloody offensive become a Waterloo
for whatever's left of the newspaper's journalistic integrity?
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections
to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
...media critic and Rupert Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff is legally married to Cold Spring lawyer Alison
Anthoine, from whom
he famously separated
in 2009
to
pursue
a then-28-year-old
Vanity Fair
intern named
Victoria Floethe
(pictured
above with Wolff).
While it's not clear what happened with Wolff and Floethe -- the pair were
photographed
at a
Financial Times
party in
2012 -- the former's marriage remained intact, at least by the courts.
No more.
Tom Scocca · 10/21/13 11:47AM
New York policy expert Michael Wolff believes you can
take the subway
"
from
Red Hook to Wall Street
." (Also: the
Guardian
believes "sleaze balls" should be two words.)
Quote: "By far the most important change I've witnessed is today's near-total absence of a genuinely free U.S. media (elements
of the Internet/Web being the sole and salutary exception). There is no way to exaggerate the significance of that sea change."
Secretary of State Kerry, who has bumbled through a string of propaganda fiascos on Ukraine, decries Russia's RT network as a
"propaganda bullhorn" that Americans should ignore · just trust what the U.S. government tells you, an idea that ex-CIA analyst Ray
McGovern rejects.
When specialists with a good sense of history insist that war with Russia is "not unthinkable" precipitated by events in Ukraine,
one should take careful note. The "not unthinkable" quote is from pre-eminent American historian of Russia, Stephen F. Cohen, who
recently appeared with John J. Mearsheimer, historian of U.S. foreign policy, on
RT's Crosstalk.
That Cohen and Mearsheimer are professors should not be held against them. They typify the best; they are not of the ivory-tower
type. And, on Ukraine, they are a far cry from the ersatz-professors, the former U.S. officials and the blathering pundits dominating
TV and newspapers, including the New York Times which is supposedly pledged to provide "all the news that's fit to print."
The Cohen/Mearsheimer commentary provided much-needed historical perspective for what is going on in Ukraine. And the possibility
of a war between nuclear-armed U.S. and Russia over Ukraine is unsettling. But watch the Crosstalk program; it will help you understand
why Secretary of State John Kerry has launched his own personal vendetta against RT, which is funded by the Russian government but
offers important on-the-ground reporting and diverse opinions on a wide variety of topics.
Ironically, Kerry was warned three years ago by his predecessor of the steady strides being made by RT – as well as Al-Jazeera
and CCTV (the new English-language programming set up by China). At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with then-Sen.
Kerry in the chair, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented that the U.S. is "losing the information war," and added that she
finds watching RT "quite instructive."
Are Kerry and Clinton unable to grasp that the U.S. corporate media's regurgitation of the manifold and manifestly deceitful
justifications for U.S. actions abroad is the main reason why RT and others are gaining on us? Despite awesome advances in communications
technology, it remains difficult to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, which is often what U.S. policies abroad are, especially
to the people of the targeted countries.
It is easy to blame "Russian propaganda" for just about everything, including the public distrust of the endless propaganda pouring
forth from Official Washington and its "fawning corporate media." But people tire of the constant spin from U.S. officials and the
one-sided coverage by the U.S. mainstream press. I may be naďve about this, but I think people really do prefer the truth.
Yet, it is in vogue to blame Washington's loss of credibility on Kremlin propaganda. At a State Department press conference last
Thursday, Kerry lashed out at RT for its coverage on Ukraine:
"The propaganda bullhorn that is the state-sponsored RT program has been deployed to promote – actually, RT network – has been
deployed to promote President Putin's fantasy about what is playing out on the ground," Kerry said, adding that RT spends almost
all its time "propagandizing and distorting what is happening, or not happening, in Ukraine."
After years leading CIA's Soviet Foreign Policy Branch, I know what effective propaganda looks like. The "public diplomacy" effort
led by Kerry and his merry propagandists at the State Department is a poor facsimile. True, Soviet propagandists played fast and
loose with the truth – as all propagandists do. But they were pros at it, which led them, inter alia, to avoid embarrassing
their government for the short-term gain of 24-hour spin.
President Barack Obama needs to have a counseling session with Kerry, who could not resist the temptation to run with the spurious
story on new registration requirements for Jews in pro-Russian eastern Ukraine. Nor could he pass up the chance to be able, finally,
to adduce "proof" of Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine by citing photos front-paged by the New York Times, with the photos and
story very quickly debunked and retracted. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Retracts Russian Photo Scoop."]
And he wonders why the U.S. is continuing to lose what Hillary Clinton called the "information war?" As for "state-sponsored,"
is that not an apt description for what has become of the mainstream U.S. media, given the eagerness of career-minded "journalists"
to accept U.S. government handouts as a way to prove their "patriotism" and to shield themselves from accusations that they are pawns
of Russian "propaganda"?
Full disclosure: I am a regular guest on RT and an occasional interviewee on Al-Jazeera and CCTV-America. Have I ever been given
"guidance" as to what would be acceptable for me to say? No. Am I free to speak on live broadcasts as critically of President Vladimir
Putin as of President Barack Obama? Yes. Lately, have I been more critical of Obama and the mischief-making Kerry people than of
their Russian counterparts? Yes.
And why is that? Simple. In Ukraine, the U.S. has sponsored one "regime change" too many. And, although this is rather obvious
to thinking people, Obama has not yet been able to rein in his neoconservative "regime changers" and do what is necessary; i.e.,
fold his cards on Ukraine before he makes more of a fool of himself.
And how do Obama and Kerry get a pass from the American people for what they are doing? Because the mainstream U.S. media has
left Americans brainwashed. In the biased U.S. coverage, for example, there has been little or no mention of NATO's eastward expansion
despite solemn promises at the highest U.S.-Russian level not to do that. Indeed, a cartful of relevant facts that could provide
crucial context goes unmentioned. It's simply, "Putin bad; Putin very bad. Shame on him; he sometimes has no shirt on, even on a
horse. Bad, bad Putin."
Degraded U.S. Media
It was 51 years ago when I began work in Washington, so I have seen not only a lot of propaganda, but a lot of significant change,
as well. By far the most important change I've witnessed is today's near-total absence of a genuinely free U.S. media (elements
of the Internet/Web being the sole and salutary exception). There is no way to exaggerate the significance of that sea change.
What has this to do with Stephen Cohen's warning that events in Ukraine could lead to war with Russia, and John Mearsheimer's
instructive comments on U.S. exceptionalism? Everything - particularly since most Americans citizensseem pretty well brainwashed
by U.S. government propaganda, even though only a small minority can point out Ukraine on a map. Certainly, the "group think"
on Ukraine and against Putin seems almost total among Americans who have access to a TV talk show or a newspaper op-ed page.
True, the corporate media was not able to convince many Americans that the U.S. should attack Syria last summer. Russia is another
story, given the animosities engendered by nearly a half century of the Cold War between Washington and Moscow. Thus, it is much
easier to conjure up fear and hatred of Russia's alleged "expansionist ambitions." We all remember the "Red Dawn" movie.
On RT's "Crosstalk," John Mearsheimer made the important point that Americans view the United States as "the benign hegemon."
He explained:
"We think we're different from other great powers and that when we expand our influence, countries like Russia will understand
that we're ultimately not very threatening because we are the good guys in the international system. This is a remarkably foolish
way of thinking about the world. But I think that, if you spend any time in Washington, it becomes clear that this delusion is widespread."
I have always harbored doubts that Official Washington could really believe all that and use it to underpin foreign policy, but
I defer to Mearsheimer on this. The point here is that it is the guidance given to, and adhered to, strongly by the corporate
media that serves to impoverish the citizenry's store of accurate information. The way things are going, it will be far easier
to drum up support for the kind of risk taking that could lead to war with Russia than was the case on Syria. That's one key problem;
but there is another.
... ... ...
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He came
to Washington over 50 years ago and worked as a CIA analyst under seven Presidents, one less than GaRay now serves on the Steering
"In the old days of journalism, we used to apply the scrutiny before we published a story on the front page or on any other
page, especially if it had implications toward war or peace, whether people would live or die.
However, in this case – fitting with the anti-Russian bias that has pervaded the mainstream U.S. press corps – the scrutiny
was set aside long enough for this powerful propaganda theme to be put in play and to sweep across the media landscape."
Hey, but that's OK. The sheep remember the lies, not the retractions. So no damage done, people continue to cite NYT
articles as if the lies they contain have some relevance beyond documenting the pathological corruption of that company's owners
and the leadership of the country that BS organ resides in..
As the standoff in the eastern Ukraine deteriorates into violence it's up to world powers to step in and calm things down. Despite
tough talk from Washington, the US, EU, Russia and Ukraine have managed to reach a framework to peace in Geneva. But will it be enough
to avert a civil war? Sophie asks the Russian Foreign minister himself – Sergey Lavrov is on Sophie&Co today.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Sergey Lavrov, Russia's Foreign minister, it's great to have you on our show today.
Sergey Lavrov: Thank you for the invitation.
SS: So, just the other day Joe Biden on his visit to Kiev said that time is short for Russia to make progress on its commitments
made in Geneva. What is expected of Russia?
SL: Well, it's difficult to say because I discuss this almost daily with John Kerry. And frankly the American
colleagues chose to put all the blame on Russia, including the origin of the conflict and including the steps which must be taken.
They accuse us of having Russian troops, Russian agents in the east and South of Ukraine. They say that it is for the Russians only
to give orders and the buildings illegally occupied would be liberated and that it is for the Russians to make sure that the East
and South of Ukraine stops putting forward the demands for the federalization and the referendum and so on and so forth. This is
absolute…you know…switching the goal post if you wish. In Geneva we all agreed that there must be reciprocal approach to any illegitimate
action in Ukraine, be it in Kiev, be it in the West, be it in the East, be it in the South. And the people who started the process
of illegitimate actions must step back first. It is absolutely abnormal due to any norms in a European city that Maidan is still
occupied, that the buildings in Kiev are still occupied and in some other cities, that those who put on fire the buildings belonging
to Communist party headquarters in Kiev, the buildings belonging to the Trade Union headquarters are not even under investigation.
I don't even want to mention the sniper cases because everyone forgot about those snipers. And we only hear that "Let's concentrate
on eliminating terrorist threats in the East and in the South".
So in Geneva we all agreed that there must be end of any violence. Next morning or next afternoon Turchinov declared almost
a state of emergency and ordered the army to shoot at the people if the people are engaged in peaceful protests. In Geneva we
agreed that there must be total rejection of extremists and the Right Sector is still very active, and after Geneva the Right Sector
staged provocations killing several people in the vicinity of Slavyansk during Easter Sunday. So nothing which was agreed in Geneva
and which certainly is for the authorities in Kiev to start implementing was done by them. Yes, they introduced a draft law on amnesty.
But our reading of this law indicates that this is not for political prisoners. Yes, they announced a pause in what they call
"counter terrorist operation". But now that Joe Biden visited Kiev this counter terrorist operation was declared in the active
phase again. Well, it's quite telling that they chose a moment of vice-president of the United States visit to announce the resumption
of this operation because the launching of this operation happened immediately after the John Brennan's visit to Kiev. So I don't
have any reasons not to believe that the Americans are running the show in a very close way.
SS: Well, you have hold on John Kerry to actually put pressure on the government in Kiev and on its behavior. But does it really
mean that you can see America has decisive influence on the country?
SL: I think this is absolutely the case. Not on the country. On the regime which took power in Kiev. They
have I think overwhelming influence. They act in much more open way without any scruples compared to the Europeans. Europeans
try to be a bit more subtle. And the fact that…you know, there are so many reports about the role of the CIA in analyzing the situation
and in being present in Ukraine, including the building of the Security Council of the Ukrainian State, occupying a floor. Then there
are numerous reports which were revived recently on what was the role of the American embassy during the events in Maidan - direct
interaction and communication with the activists who were armed and who were planning the actions like storming the buildings and
other illegal acts.
All this has not been denied in the way which would be persuasive. And, yes, when you get daily phone calls from John Kerry telling
you: "You must, you must, you must" and when you understand how many thousand kilometers the United States is away from
Ukraine and then you see how agitated they are about seeing their sponsored people not really delivering on the things which
are obvious then you cannot avoid the impression that they are running the show very much.
SS: But what about Russia? Well, I know Russia has reiterated many times that it doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the government
in Kiev, but nevertheless diplomatic meetings are held on high levels in Geneva, I remember in the Hague, the meeting of the Foreign
Ministers as well, does Moscow have any leverage over Kiev?
SL: Not over Kiev. No, not at all.
SS: What about the Eastern Ukraine?
SL: In the East the people revolted after several months of total neglect of their interests. And when
they saw what happened in Kiev through Maidan, through the Right Sector, other extremists, the sniper fire killing dozens of people,
then immediately all those who were against the Yanukovich government were granted amnesty, which is not happening now to the people
who just engage in political activities in the east and in the south. So, yes, we see what were the reasons for the revolt in the
east and in the south. They just don't want a repetition what happened in Kiev and what was attempted in Crimea, by the way, and
these people, of course they want to be friendly with Russia, they have many Russian relatives, they listen very carefully to what
Russia says. But these people are not puppets. We cannot just guarantee that they will be ready to take for granted whatever
promises they hear from Kiev. They are fed up with words, they need real deeds. The regime must withdraw the order to use the
army against the people, the regime must liberate political prisoners, they must start doing what they committed themselves to on
21st February signing the agreement, which said "surrender illegal arms", they must start disarming the Right
Sector and they must stop just saying "we will invite the regions to a constitutional reform process".
They must sit down with them and instead of going abroad - you know, I heard that Yatsenyuk is going to the Vatican, I think the
better place to go for him would be south. When he went there a week ago he only met with the people whom he himself appointed, he
never got to the people who were protesting . And that's where the current authorities in Kiev need to be now, If they really pretend
to represent the entire country.
SS: But here's the thing – people in the West, and I'm not even talking about the American political establishment, just people
who watch TV – for them what's going on in the south and in the east of the country right now, is very similar to what was going
on in Maidan, because they see self-defense forces, like they were seeing the Right Sector in Maidan, chaos, people occupying government
buildings, not willing to put down arms…now, they are saying that these people are pro-Russian, so why Russia is not so outraged
of what's going on there, I mean the chaos, like in Maidan, why doesn't their influence calm them down?
SL: I don't think we can say that we are negligent of their problems, we are in solidarity with them, we insist
politically that their interests must be taken into account. That's why we went to Geneva, that's why we negotiated the paper which
demands an equal treatment of whoever is engaged in illegal activities on the understanding that the government, the interim government
whatever they call themselves, must set the example and they must stop the illegal things which continue to happen in Kiev and in
other parts of the country, not other than east and south. And yes, in the east and the south, the leaders, elected by the people
said that they would be ready to surrender arms, to vacate the buildings, provided the government stops illegal orders to use the
army and does what it is committed itself to do with the Right Sector, other extremists and with the buildings which have been taken
over and still are occupied in Kiev. You know what, the Americans said, Victoria Nuland, I think, when we insisted on the Geneva
agreement to be implemented in full, beginning with the liberation of the buildings in Kiev - she said those building were occupied
legally because the Kiev authorities issued a license to the people who occupied the buildings and they now are legal owners or legally
present in these buildings. It is absolutely unbelievable that they can seriously put forward such arguments.
SS: So, you're saying the agreement that was reached on the 21st February by the Western powers was kind of ignored by those
who signed it. Now you're saying that Geneva agreement is also being ignored…
SL: Absolutely!
SS: So what's the point of all these agreement if you can't come to a practical solution to this problem?
SL:The point of the February 21st agreement was to have Yanokovich sign up to commit himself not to use
the police – which he did; to commit himself not to declare a state of emergency – which he did and that was basically an act of
capitulation. Everything he committed himself to do – has been done. People say that he did not sign the law, bringing back
the previous constitution, but this law was promulgated anyway, so what ever was needed by the opposition was done. Whatever the
opposition committed itself to do – they never did. And the Geneva agreement, the Geneva meeting was actually designed to try and
bring the process back on track, including the need to start the constitutional process, with full involvement of all regions. Yes
the deal has been struck, but it is not being honored by those who have to make the first step.
SS: So they have to make the first step?
SL: Absolutely.
SS: Russia cannot pressure these self-defense forces to put down arms unless…
SL: Yes, and we do not have any moral authority to pressure the East or the South to do something unilaterally
in front of the army, being ordered to go against them, in front of the Right Sector who should have been, must have been disarmed
long ago and in the face of the political prisoners who continue to be taken.
SS: You've also said many times that Russia has no intention of moving its troops inside Ukraine, and just recently, Dmitry
Peskov, the Russian president's press-secretary confirmed that there is a military contingent that is reinforced on the Russian-Ukrainian
border; There must be a worst-case scenario in which this contingent will be used?
SL: If we are attacked, we would certainly respond. If our interests, our legitimate interests, the interests
of Russians have been attacked directly, like they were in South Ossetia for example, I do not see any other way but to respond in
full accordance with international law. Russian citizens being attacked is an attack against the Russian Federation. The only
thing I would like to highlight at this stage is that the Russian troops are on the Russian territory. The request for inspections
under the so called Vienna Document of 2011 and under the treaty of the Open Sky, they have all been granted. The inspectors visited
the areas of deployment of the troops who are participating in training exercises. Planes flew over the areas where the exercises
and no one who participated in the inspections, including the Americans, Ukrainians and Europeans ever brought up any fact that would
indicate that Russia was engaged in some dangerous military activity. So we are on our territory and we are doing nothing which is
prohibited by any obligation of us. The Ukrainian troops are also on their territory, but the difference is the fact that they have
the order from Turchinov to use weapons against civilians and this is a criminal order.
SS: You've mentioned John Kerry many times during this interview, and it does seem like the two of you, regardless of diplomatic
differences, communicate and see each other more than you see your families. Do you feel like on a personal level this is someone
that you can come to an agreement with?
SL: We came to an agreement on Syria, we came to an agreement on Iran, we came to an agreement on Ukraine in
Geneva on the 17th April; personally we have very good chemistry but we also understand there are superiors and advisors which sometimes
does not help. But, I told Kerry several times that we do not believe it is a real partnership - if they speak about a partnership
– when in fact whatever issue we discuss, they try to put the onus on us completely. And by the way, had it not been Ukraine, then
it would have been something else, like it was Iran, originally, when the Americans were saying "you must.. you must.. you must…'
If only the Russians tells the Iranian's, if only Russia doesn't sell weapons to the Iranians – they would cry 'uncle' and everything
would be fine, this nuclear issue would be resolved."Then Syria happened and they were telling us – they still do – "if
only Russia tells Assad to go then everything would fall into place, democracy would prevail and so on and so forth." So the
Iranian issue depends on Russia alone, Syria depends on Russia alone – they also say Russia and Iran. Now Ukraine depends entirely
on Russia. I would say, it is an absolute 'egoistic' and 'unrealistic' approach and an attempt to hide your own responsibility.
By the way, speaking about Syria, they said recently and unfortunately the United Nations spokesman picked up the tune, the Americans
said recently that the elections which have been announced for the 3rd June by President Assad, would be illegitimate, because first
there must be a transitional governing organ on the basis of a new constitution and so on and so forth. Ok, the Geneva communiqué
on Syria did say there must be a transitional governing organ, which would develop constitutional reform and on the basis of this
reform there would be general elections. Fine, but the same sequence was mentioned on the Ukrainian crisis, signed on the 21st February.
First the government of consent, then the constitutional reform and only after the new constitution is promulgated – elections.The
people who staged the coup and toppled the legitimate president, and took power, declared themselves a government, they didn't speak
originally about constitutional reform at all. They said there would be presidential elections on May 25 and the constitutional reform
- when we reminded them that this was the obligation and unless they do this the east and the south would not recognize the legitimacy
of what is going on - they recalled this obligation but said "this would be done later". And the West believes that this
is entirely legitimate. The same people who say the Syrian presidential elections without constitutional reform would be illegitimate
are accepting even today the legitimacy of the May 25 presidential elections in Ukraine without any constitutional reform.
SS: So, you meet a lot of American politicians, besides John Kerry, and the rhetoric from their side is pretty harsh. Do you
feel the Americans are ready for a real confrontation with Russia over Ukraine?
SL: Well, I already said that it is not about Ukraine. Ukraine is just one manifestation of the American
unwillingness to yield in the geopolitical fight.Americans are not ready to admit that they cannot run the show in each
and every part of the globe from Washington alone. They cannot impose ready-made solutions on everyone and they cannot understand,
I mean they begin to understand I think, but they still have the instincts that they shouldn't really take on board what others believe
should be done. They are moving, slowly, that's why we managed to make some compromises on Syrian chemical weapon, on the Iranian
nuclear program, the compromise on Ukraine in Geneva, but after a deal they tried to pocket whatever they got and they try not to
deliver what they promised to do. Maybe this is a natural manifestation of those who want to get the result that would be in their
interests but on Iranian nuclear issue, for example, the deal was very blunt but as the deal started to be implemented, the Americans
began to load it with new demands. The missile program of Iranians was never part of the discussions, never. And it was not part
of the deal signed in Geneva last November. But as the deal of November started to be implemented, the Americans threw in the missile
proliferation problem which could have derailed the process.
On Syria, we signed the deal of chemical disarmament of Syria and the process has been going and still goes very well, there's
a satisfactory assessment by UN personnel participating in the process by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The Americans almost from the first very day started to ring alarm bell, saying that the government is dragging on this, it's not
delivering on its commitments and they were fully ignoring the facts which were the need for the government to get more armed vehicles,
which we and the Chinese were helping them with, the need for the people who influenced the armed extremists and jihadists to absolutely
control them and not to allow them to stage provocations as the chemical weapons are being moved from storages to the port, and so
on and so forth. So every time we sign a deal the Americans start to put the blame for any delay on others or, even worse, they start
to throw in new demands which absolutely contradict the reached consensus. So that is what they are doing now on the Geneva agreement
on Ukraine, but I do hope very much that they act responsibly and they do not think of their geopolitical initiatives, geopolitical
interests, unilateral interests, but they would think about the future of Ukraine which is our biggest neighbor, closest neighbor
and the people of which are brothers and sisters to the Russian Federation population. So if we all think about Ukraine and not about
who takes it, but about how the Ukrainians themselves want to live, then it shouldn't be very difficult to help the Ukrainians find
the national compromise and national reconciliation.
SS: Sergey Lavrov, Russia's Foreign Minister, thank you very much for this interview.
SL: Thank you.
democracygone 23.04.2014 23:50
The US/UK/EU Leaders and their 'appointed' senior bureaucrats bellow continuous propaganda and false expletives about current
international affairs with the gratuitous support of most of the western mainstream media 'so called' news outlets.
The overall objective of this propaganda is to 'placate and fool' the public into supporting/approving their agenda for increased
dominance across the world, thereby achieving the goals of 'a New World Order' - which is a term that has been dogmatically bellowed
to us by those in power (especially by the Clintons/Bush's/Obam a and /current/previous UK political leaders).
Tyler Kent 23.04.2014 23:28
Author John Perkins substantiates his "American Empire" label by asserting that the U.S. is run by a big group who collectively
act much like a king. They run our largest corporations, and through them, our government.
They cycle through the "revolving door" back and forth between businesses and government, fund political campaigns and the
media - resulting in a great deal of control over elected officials and the information we receive, regardless of who is elected.
Nigel Howard 23.04.2014 23:17
Actually, Americans dislike Obama and his perpetual warmongering. They thought they heard him criticize Bush for that
same thing, so they elected him. The vast majority of Americans like Russia and think Putin is quite a cool guy, notwithstanding
the two countries 'differences over Ukraine. The American people, by and large, want peace. The tiny ruling minority of Neo-Cons/Zionists
think differently and beat the drums of war and war profiteering. The American people have nothing to gain whatsoever in a war
with Russia. They know that. Americans who speak of it are not speaking for the majority. I know, I live here.
pedropt 23.04.2014 22:57
The Problem is not Americans , because actually the U.S. people are tired of that corrupt government controlled by the globalists
.
But how to take down the globalists in U.S. and other countries if the people know what is happening and they do not do nothing
to avoid a global war ?!! This is a very complicated subject .
It looks to me that people will only face the reality of this subject when the bombs start falling at their feet. But when
that time arrive it will be already too late .
Nigel Howard 23.04.2014 22:50
US diplomats Samantha Power and Susan Rice, the twin pillars of contemporary, hawkish, Russiaphobic, right-wing, Machiavellian,
uber-feminist, Alpha-dog power at the service of empire, are the reason why moisturizing hair conditioner retail sales have recently
bolted skywards.
Either American men like them or they don't want their wive's hair at least, to end up looking like Dr. Suess's "Thing One
and Thing Two." Clearly this is a case of life imitating art.
Vlada 23.04.2014 22:49
This was a very balanced and real assessment of Mr Lavrov of the current US activity in international affairs. The US is
pursuing for the position of global domination, and its policy as for the particular issues (Syria, Ukraine, etc.) is way too
often in contradiction with its moves in many other cases (Iran, Iraq, Kosovo, etc.). This blatant inconsistency of the US
policy is one of the major causes of its rapidly deteriorating reputation internationally (add to that the huge US debt, the crisis
of the US middle class, ...).
The todays world differs very much from that of 90s, when the US was the only superpower.
Read below and you will se that commenter in Guardian demonstrate discussion skills that you can only envy :-). Probably the best
reader forum that I know of.
That was quick...they only went today. What is notable is the Slovyansk separatists have barred entry to any journalists othe
than the approved ones from Russia.
Ukraine's new prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who is hosting the US vice-president, Joe Biden, this week, told US television
that he wanted greater support from America in the face of Russian aggression.
And the best way to achieve that is to raise the tension.
What is your problem? Ukraine is sovereign country. We want to be with the EU, so where is the problem? Because you hate EU
that doesn't mean that we also. Do you think that Putin agression to Crimea and west Ukraine is good? So Ukraine should do nothing?
WTF?
Silly Brits, you are brainwashed by UKIP & Putin propaganda.
errr......the problem is that the US and EU have bought Ukraine, it has no sovereign elements left nor a democratic
government. It's been used as a pawn to further Imperial aims and to increase Russophobia. Open your eyes. BTW I am not European
and have never heard of UKIP.
We want to be with the EU, so where is the problem?
The EU is broadly speaking, an anti-nationalist organisation - it was founded on the basis that nationalism was at the
root of many wars in Europe. One of the reasons why the EC president recently stated that Ukraine is not fit for EU membership
is the prominence of right wing extremism and the inclusion of Nazis in the interim government.
Ukraine is unlikely to be offered accession until Right Sector and Svoboda are out of the picture and Ukraine has a government
which doesn't idolize Nazis like Stepan Bandera.
I'm not British but am an EU citizen who is generally as passionate an EU federalist as they come!
"My problem" is that I don't think we should be having anything to do with an illegitimate government which deposed a freely
and fairly elected - albeit corrupt - president through force with the aid of out and out neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, and with
no regard for the views of the majority/large minority of the population. Especially when said government has placed out
and out neo-fascists and neo-Nazis in office. Especially when forces - either within or outside of the government, it's hard to
tell - are not only openly intimidating but physically attacking those with opposing views. Especially when said "government"
was clearly hand-picked by the U.S. State Department in the same breath as the words "fuck the EU"!
I love the EU precisely because it stands for political and cultural pluralism, for protection and respect of
minorities, for democratic norms, for the belief that problems and conflicts of interest are to be resolved through dialogue and
at the ballot box, not through demonstrations/threats of force and at the barrel of the gun!
You may want to be with the EU. It is patently clear that many of your compatriots don't- That is for you to sort out
amongst yourselves.
But I can tell you one thing - as someone who lovesthe EU, I no longer want you to be a part of it, the
way I still did a year ago! Because the actions and rhetoric of those you support demonstrate a contempt for the values the EU
is supposed to stand for!
If you're able to comprehend most of the posts you'll see we are on the whole not Putin supporters. Most of us are merely highlighting
the breath-takingly double standards of the WEST.
It's healthy to see posters here are free thinkers and not willing to succumb to Western propaganda. They question it and rightly
so! I just wish more people did so.
It's only YOUR opinion, NOT Ukrainian. Is United Kingdom want be in Russia? We can swap. Ukraine in EU, UK in Russia. Great
idea! Be with EU is better option than be Russian federation in Putin country. EU is great, family of European countries.
You talked about Ukraine joining the EU. I simply pointed out why Ukraine is not being offered accession and only has an association
agreement. It isn't just my opinion, you can read the resolutions of the EU parliament on Ukraine....
8. Is concerned about the rising nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine, expressed in support for the Svoboda Party, which,
as a result, is one of the two new parties to enter the Verkhovna Rada; recalls that racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views
go against the EU's fundamental values and principles and therefore appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada
not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party;
5. Calls on the Ukrainian authorities, while recognising that Ukraine has ratified the Council of Europe Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, to make greater efforts
to reach out to minority communities in Ukraine by further integrating these communities in the political developments of the
country and promoting adequately the right to education in minority languages;
....
20. Deeply deplores the decision by the outgoing President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, posthumously to award Stepan Bandera,
a leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) which collaborated with Nazi Germany, the title of 'National Hero
of Ukraine'; hopes, in this regard, that the new Ukrainian leadership will reconsider such decisions and will maintain its
commitment to European values;
I love the EU precisely because it stands for political and cultural pluralism, for protection and respect of minorities,
for democratic norms, for the belief that problems and conflicts of interest are to be resolved through dialogue and at the
ballot box, not through demonstrations/threats of force and at the barrel of the gun!
I would also point out that, as a citizen and resident of a country where neo-fascists political parties regularly take over
a quarter of the vote, I see the EU as a power which, when push comes to shove, will guarantee and enforce those values I hold
dear! (Many of my friends from post-communist EU countries feel the same way, regarding the hard-core communists.)
When, a decade and a half ago, our centre-right party agreed to go into coalition with the neo-fascists (who were at the time
also leaning far more openly towards neo-Nazism; in the interim they have jettisoned old-fashioned anti-semitism in favour of
the far more popular and populist Islamophobia) the other EU members responded by slapping sanctions on us and suspending our
voting rights!
Rather than viewing this as a dictatorial assault on our sovereignty, the 50% give or take of us who were horrified enough
by this turn of events to protests in the streets every week until the government fell took succor. And the "corrective" measure
had its effect. Under an even more charismatic new leader, the neo-fascists, have, if anything, increased their vote share over
the past decade, but even the centre-right will never dare go into coalition with them again, even if it means making common cause
with the left or centre-left Greens.
I despise our domestic far-right with every fibre of my being - but they are nowhere near as bad as Svoboda. The idea that
I should support the latter, especially when in a government that can't even claim democratic legitimacy, is galling beyond
belief! It is a betrayal of every last value the EU is supposed to stand for!
And I don't honestly think this is what the EU wanted either - they wanted the February 21st agreement they brokered which
the Ukrainian "government" shredded before the ink on it was dry! Since then the - fuck the EU - State Department has been calling
the shots. And I despair at how "we" continue to dance to their tune, against our own interests!
If only we had anyone but Ashton nominally in charge of our foreign policy! It was utter madness to select someone from the
country which has always been little more than America's Trojan horse in Europe for that post!
News for ukraine europe dont want ukraine. Ukraine was being used as a stick to poke russian with. Do you really beleive europe
want a meaningful relationship with ukraine. Europe offer ukraine a memorandum of association which is nothing. Nato would quite
like to the ukraines as an airforce base. Whats that I hear another nato jet buzzing donesk to highten tensions a bit.
What the nato and the US have being doing is grooming Ukraine as a dirty old man grooms a teenager on the internet. The EU
and the USA are political pedifiles. Wake up ukraine!
If Ukraine is a sovereign nation, why do they entertain visits from John McCain and Victoria Nuland, patting those that overthrew
the democratically elected government on the back? Do you have ANY idea how a visit from Putin or the Russian foreign minister
Sergey Lavrov to protestors in the USA would have been received here in the USA? I am an American but my roots and family are
in Ukraine and those in Ukraine that support US and Western meddling are supporting nothing other than the financial goals of
Western corporate oil interests who are absolutely fine with Ukrainian blood being spilled in order to obtain dominance there
in the global market. A small handful of misguided extremists in Kiev supported by the West do NOT speak for all of Ukraine and
can not expect the rest of the nation to go along with their foolish, misguided efforts that are not in the best interests of
ALL of Ukraine.
You are the one that is silly. If Ukraine is a sovereign state, why did the American "lady" - "F..k the EU" installed the bunch
of foreign agents and neo fascists to govern your country?
Not everyone has swallowed the Kool-Aid, but enough to make me despair. They happily criticize the US from the left and
the EU from the right, while applauding Putin for the invasion of Ukraine. People in this country, with a few exceptions, have
collectively lost their wits.
There is no reason to despair, Sir. I think you have to agree, that the opposite would have been much worse: a British
majority brainwashed by White House war rhetoric's, bent to fight the "good fight" against those evil Russians, stirring up a
new world war. You should be grateful that there are many people in your country who don't share your views.
Especially when forces - either within or outside of the government, it's hard to tell - are not only openly intimidating
but physically attacking those with opposing views.
It's rather disconcerting to read such a comment and lots of similar ones here when we are fed up with Russian propaganda already.
And here it is, thanks to the superficial coverage of Ukraine and all the more superficial understanding of it, we have discussions
revolving around "neo-Nazis" and "the views of the majority/large minority of the population" which nobody have a clue what are
all about. People in eastern regions were systematically pauperised when Yanukovych whom you call "a freely and fairly elected
- albeit corrupt - president", and his Party of Regions were in power (strangely enough, members of his family were among the
richest in the country). Actually, this so-called party which is now using all means to keep its grip on power, has been universally
despised in western and eastern regions alike because of the most outrageous corruption (literally).
Have you ever been in Ukraine? Have you ever watched Ukrainian TV and actually listened to those people whom you call Nazis
here? Have you ever read one single interview with Dmytro Yarosh? Mr. Adam Paryż is way too emotional but he's got a point. Making
ill-informed assumptions like that, you show your ignorance about the whole matter.
I think you will find that most Brits support Ukraine - though we are wary also of a right wing government - human rights,
particularly for gay people, have not been high on Ukraine's agenda.
However I suspect most people in Britain do not believe the Russian version of events
Yanukovych was for joining the EU from before he was elected in 2010. The parliament of Ukraine elected in 2012 was almost
unanimous in voting for the Association agreement with the EU. There was strong support for this in every region of Ukraine including
in Crimea. When faced with threats from Putin that Ukraine would be bankrupted if it signed the association agreement with the
EU Yanukovych went against a very popular decision that had evolved in Ukraine over nearly a decade.
The people of Ukraine want to live in a normal country that can make its own decisions and not be merely a corrupted appendage
of Russia, which is the reality of the option that Putin offered Ukraine. It is no wonder that the majority of the people turned
against Yanukovych with his sudden change of policy after meeting Putin in late 2013.
Silly ucrainian, you think western gov.s love Ukraine? wait until the IMF suck your blood like they're doing in Ireland,
Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal! in fact you did not deserve the Russian cheap gas, now you will see that western institutions
don't love anything but money. Get readdy to be ripped off, your gold is already taken to USA while you were beasy hating russians.
you have a simplistic view ...the world is not black or white...it has many colours. Most of european are solidary with all
the Ukraine's people, but that's not the same as to be solidary with rufians in Kiev's "government" or just western Ukraine. We
do not have to be Putin lovers to see the wholew picture. And yes, we're aldo tired of the western leaders lies and the western
fake democracy. We did not ask IMF to come to South European countries and Ireland. If you think they'll will help you just wait
and you'll see! they just love money, they will sell your country ti the big finantial powers, everything: resources, profitable
enterprises will be soo in the hands of those that you call "friends" and "alies" . The USA as already stolen your golden reserves
while you were busy hating the russians! kiss it good bye, you will never see it again!
We want to be with the EU, so where is the problem?
And why do you want "to be with the EU"? You just want our money. You want to steal German tax money. You don't even ask
if we want to pay for your busted, corrupt country. You are an imperialist.
Yanukovych was for joining the EU from before he was elected in 2010. ..... Yanukovych went against a very popular decision
that had evolved in Ukraine over nearly a decade.
Yes - but.....
The EuroMaidan protests were based on the pretext that Yanukovych made the wrong choice and was preventing Ukraine from joining
the EU. They were wrong.
Events now show that Yanukovych made the right decision. He did not have much choice: The EU were only offering an
association agreement, not accession and membership and they also offered only about €600 million in aid. Russia was offering
hugely discounted gas and an interest free $15 billion loan. He had postponed the association deal with the EU, not refused it.
He had not committed Ukraine to joining Russia's trading bloc. He was trying to get the best economic deal for Ukraine. None of
this was bad - it was the blatant corruption of his group that was bad.
Now - Ukraine has the association agreement and have been told they are not fit for EU membership. They no longer have the
Russian deal and instead, have a deal with the IMF for an interest paying $18 billion loan - which comes with requirements for
severe fiscal policy.
(Yanukovych and his backers were corrupt but the new lot are no better. All of these bastards and especially the oligarchs
are responsible for the appalling state of the Ukrainian economy.)
It was a good thing the Donetsk rebels hadn't handed in their weapons, else they wouldn't have been able to beat off those
armed neo-nazi Right Sector scum who first shot at unarmed civilians on the barricade.
What's so naive about finding personal effects at crime scčnes? I imagine you are the type of person who believed that an Al-Qaede
member hijacker's passport was found amidst the rubble of the twin towers seeing as you appear to be the kind that believe anything
the Washington machine says.
So some of your ultra-right 'friends' got shot up and you're sad - breathe it in breathe it in.
Just to add... The captured Right Sector thug is from Vinnitsa. Although he claims that he didn't know they would be shooting
anyone, he and his Nazi friends brought plenty of weapons, ammunition and apparently, explosives. Clearly, he knew they were not
on a shopping trip.
If there is no violence, Russia ends up with an effective control of eastern Ukraine and a powerless and broke Kiev.
If there is no violence, Right Sector disappears and the current neo-liberals in Kiev lose power.
That suggests that any violent provocations are lot more likely from Kiev and the neo-Nazis than from the eastern Ukrainian
Russians. Right Sector has under 1% support, the east Ukrainian pro-Russians have received between 45-55% in each election for
20 years (check Wikipedia). So who benefits from the continued mayhem?
Ukraine PM asks US for 'real support' to prevent further Russian hostility
That explains it. Right Sector attacks. Yatsenuk whines to US about sending army or something like that to protect Ukraine
against Russian forces in Ukraine which are not there.
Right now-now, but they are not there as was confirmed today by OSCE.
Or would have a legitimate reason to enter the territory, e.g. to protect Russian speakers from "fascists"?
If Right Sector and illegal regime of Kiev (via Right Sector) will be killing protesters in East and since US or EU doesn't
give a damn how many people die in East, somebody must protect those people.
Also if US sends its forces under cover to Ukraine, Russia also will need to send theirs.
The main problem is that EU and US sources have no credibility whatsoever. Having openly encouraged the overthrow of an elected
government, they cannot possibly maintain that the new unelected government has any more legitimacy than the separatists - who
are pushing for referenda. Furthermore, there is abundance evidence that the US and their allies have done this type of covert
and false flag operation before, and clear obvious evidence for this type of thing recently with the leaked
phone conversation.
So why should anybody believe a word they say?
Surely it would be a reasonable default position to believe the opposite is true.
Time for the list of US covert regime change operations since the war...
1.1 Russia
2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
The main problem is that EU and US sources have no credibility whatsoever. Having openly encouraged the overthrow of an
elected government, they cannot possibly maintain that the new unelected government has any more legitimacy than the separatists
- who are pushing for referenda. Furthermore, there is abundance evidence that the US and their allies have done this type
of covert and false flag operation before, and clear obvious evidence for this tyep of thing recently with the leaked phone
conversation.
oh, btw. yo've forgotten about american tanks on the streets of Budapest in '56, fraternity assistance in Czechoslovakia in
'68 and also invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Bloody CIA.
Some evidence, please. Independent reports on the Sakhalin production sharing agreements created by western governments and
companies in the 1990s were very unfair to Russia. Exxon and Shell got a guaranteed 17.5% profit over and above their expenses.
Russia was entitled to only 10% after expenses were paid out, i.e. never. Even Forbes magazine and the Economist have stated that
these were unfair agreements imposed when Russia was very weak. Putin tore these up in 2004 and Russian revenues and living standards
increased. So who are/were the looters? Poverty has decreased by half during Putin's time in power and GDP has increased under
both Putin and Medvedev. It's more accurate to state that Russia was looted during the 1990s privatization period, and the oil
wealth has been more equally shared since 2004. Your comment is mere ideology, unsupported by evidence.
Russian channels claimed that a business card belonging to Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far-right Right Sector, had been
left by the "attackers". Also discovered were crisp new $100 bills, a satellite map of the area, and a second world war German
gun, they reported======== was a cuddly toy on the list?
The self-defense forces in Ukraine's Donetsk region are expecting assaults on checkpoints and administrative buildings they're
holding in the town of Slavyansk at 18:00 GMT, Itar-Tass reports.
The anti-government activists are on high alert, with preparations to repel the attack underway, said Vyacheslav Ponomarev,
the "people's mayor" of Slavyansk.
According to Ponomarev, unidentified armed men were spotted gathering outside the town.
The self-defense forces failed to establish their belonging to any units of the Ukrainian military and say they are militants
from the radical Right Sector movement.
18:09 GMT:
Machine gun fire has been heard in the center of Slavyansk, a city in Ukraine's Donetsk Region, a RIA Novosti correspondent reported
from the scene.
18:09 GMT:
Anti-government demonstrators in Odessa have demanded the resignation of the head of the regional administration, Vladimir Nemirovsky,
Vesti.ru reports.
Hundreds marched the streets of Odessa on Sunday, with the demonstration concluding with a rally at the city's Kulikovo Field.
Protesters also showed their support to the idea of referendum on the federalization of Ukraine and urged the coup-imposed
authorities to end political repressions.
18:09 GMT:
The self-defense forces in Ukraine's Donetsk Region said that three of their checkpoint in the suburbs of the town of Slavyansk
came under fire by unidentified gunmen, Interfax news agency reports.
So these people are foreign-paid mercenaries. I should hope that their actions therefore do not affect the Geneva peace deal
unless one of the parties was involved.
The deal itself seems to be good for Ukraine provided that the separatist action eventually fizzles out, and that is the best
hope.
I do not have feeling that people in Ukraine really want to kill each other off.
It is just a show to provoke Russia. However Russia is way too smart to just react without seeing far in the future. And they
have the upper hand almost from the beginning of this crisis. And nobody ever dares to mention Crimea anymore.
All they can rant is how Russian pensions are close to nothing, but still much higher than Ukrainians. With 50% higher price
in Ukraine of Russian gas, luckily here comes the summer. In a winter we will have yet another stories.
This just shows us how shortsighted EU/US are in their visions.
"Divide et impera" times have been long time gone.
I do not have feeling that people in Ukraine really want to kill each other off.
That's probably true for most Ukrainians but Nazis of Right Sector and Svoboda often express their desire to "kill Moskali
scum". Anti-Russian nationalism is at the core of the current crisis.
That's probably true for most Ukrainians but Nazis of Right Sector and Svoboda often express their desire to "kill Moskali
scum". Anti-Russian nationalism is at the core of the current crisis.
The key is to recognise that the Right Sector appeals only to a small minority of Ukrainians. They can be easily contained by
a legitimate government. It will take sometime for a legitimate government to be in place in Kiev, but there will be one in short
order.
At the bridge into the town, one commander armed with a pistol told the Guardian to leave. He punched the car with his fist,
leaving a dent. "Get out of here," he screamed.
Many UK readers feel much the same: The Grauniad's right-wing extremism increasingly has that effect.
Not exactly right-wing extremism, more like triangulation:
(1) The Scott Trust has adopted a no-paywall business model which requires it to max out English language advertisements to
survive, now its paid-for print sales are plummeting. That means repositioning the Guardian/Observer as world media and screwing
for dollars. (At a lower level the Kardashian-besotted Mail is doing the same.)
(2) The Guardian (all credit to it) broke the Snowden revelations which angered the US political and corporate establishment
and humiliated lamestream Yank hacks by showing them up for the cowardly conformist mouthpieces most are.
(3) To prevent itself being tarred as indiscriminately anti-American and risking the boodle, the paper distinguishes editorially
between its anti-surveillance coverage and a fairly faithful echo of the 'western' line on foreign policy flashpoints such as
Ukraine.
It can be summed up as 'Yes, Putin is a menace to world peace and these are very, very dangerous times, but we don't need to
live in a goldfish bowl to keep ourselves safe.'
This reminds me of the Sudeten German excuse that like this had some constructed validity. Seems like the damp squib is going
to flare up after all into a new Soviet Union.
For brown shirt infiltrator, read Russian issue balaclava.
The new Soviet Union is America. The USSA. Filled with a nation of people like you who have betrayed your own country. I went
to UC Berkeley and UC Berkeley is a spawning tank for CIA/intel recruiting with the CIA openly recruiting at umbrella tables on
the campus. They target foreign students heavily, and send them back to their own countries for future overthrows funded by Soros
like Orange revolution (Georgia Russia), yellow revolution (Ukraine), Tulip revolution (Kyrgyzistan), Green revolution (Egypt)
etc etc. - and of course "Occupy" in N. America. So don't peddle this bullshit.
It was Poland actually, dead Polish "troops" killed during "attack" on German frontier base were actually German political
prisoners, dressed in Polish uniforms and then murdered by the SS
German tanks rolling into Sudetenland then it was Prague . German annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
The Gleiwitz incident was a false flag operation by Nazi forces posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, against the German radio
station in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany. The next day German forces invaded Poland.
The Soviet Red Army's invasion of Eastern Poland on 17 September, in accordance with a secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop
Pact.
If eastern separatist had travelled to the West killing people in the villages, the Western media would be going ballistic.
Troops from Kiev would be pouring into the East extracting retribution. However as it is the West that is committing the crimes
nothing happens. It is accepted as the normal behaviour expected from Kiev backed terrorist.
The Prime Minister is never directly elected by the people: he/she is chosen from within the ranks of the majority coalition
in parliament. Currently that is Yatsenyuk.
The Prime Minister is never directly elected by the people: he/she is chosen from within the ranks of the majority coalition
in parliament. Currently that is Yatsenyuk.
there we go, giorocks, fixed it for you.
Not so fast. The position must be ratified by the elected President. The elected President has never been impeached, according
to the Constitution of Ukraine. The elected President had his life threatened by a violent mob that had also murdered 17 police
officers. giorocks is correct, the 'interim' government and Prime Minister have no legitimacy.
I am seeing the words "Nazi" and "Fascist" banded around a lot.
The definition of fascism is "radical, authoritarian nationalism," which would certainly include the authoritarian Russian
regime propped up by nuclear weapons within it's boundaries.
I am seeing the words "Nazi" and "Fascist" banded around a lot.
The definition of fascism is "radical, authoritarian nationalism," which would certainly include the authoritarian Russian
regime propped up by nuclear weapons within it's boundaries.
It's been a long, hard day for this Kievbot, bashing away on the keyboard, his glue bag empty, and the corpse of the tortured
Party of the Region deputy beginning to honk. Time to throw open the reinforced door to his Right Sector dungeon-cum-work-station
and walk in the fresh air.
Yes, I agree. If RT is only doing propaganda, they are doing much better. Apparently, there were survivors from this incident,
why aren't they being interviewed?
Whitewash of dear old Luke again
"Russian channels claimed that a business card belonging to Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far-right Right Sector, had been
left by the "attackers". Also discovered were crisp new $100 bills, a satellite map of the area, and a second world war German
gun, they reported."
Conveniently forgot to mention sophisticated sniper rifle, plastic explosives, metallic token with Right Sector insignia and number
20, us made night vision goggles, and more.
Also - the machine gun is NOT world war era, but Yugoslavian copy of it, that was kept in Ukraines military storages, and recently
reported to be looted.
"People are scared. They don't want to come out," Viktor Oneskehnko, a 53-year-old doctor and Chernobyl survivor said, walking
with his wife and daughter towards the monastery's white and turquoise 19th-century church. Oneshenko said he supported Ukraine's
territorial integrity. He was contemptuous of the separatists who he said had hijacked Slavyansk. "They're opportunists and mafia",
he said"
Stuff about scared local guy is mandatory inclusion to every Luke's report. Is that necessary to embed this meme? Of course
some are scared.
Just give them referendum and they figure out for themselves
Yes - looks like the incident was manufactured by the Russians - the Russian military will be on the move soon - they have
no interest in peace or the fact that most people in eastern Ukraine don't want to be part of Russia
This report is very much "the story according to Kiev/the CIA". It quacks like propaganda. I just do not believe it. I think
the CIA and their tame Right Sector fascists are up to another "black op". They have form.
That said if it *is* a Russian black op - well they are playing according to the rules set by the CIA in Kiev.
"26 guys armed with nothing but bats man a checkpoint 6 km outside of Sloviansk. Four cars with at least 10 heavily armed guys
drive up to the checkpoint and stop 10 m before it. The armed men get out of the cars and open fire, killing two (10 armed men,
10 m distance and hitting only two… atrociously bad shooters).
The rest of the guys with bats run away and 20 armed men from Sloviansk are called to come and retake the barricade. Until
these 20 men arrive, the attackers do nothing but wait at the barricade; they don't leave, they don't advance, they don't set
up an ambush, they don't try to dismantle the barricades, nothing! They even don't move their cars…
The 20 armed men from Sloviansk arrive at the barricade and open fire on the attackers, who don't fire back but flee with just
two of their cars as the other two cars are shot up from the left side and the back… but not shot up from the front where the
barricade and Sloviansk is… so the attackers were attacked from behind and managed to escape exactly in that direction too…
More amazing: even under fire from behind and the side the attackers managed to load their injured into the remaining two cars
and drive off… while the Sloviansk men managed to get backpacks, guns, uniforms, a World War II era German machine gun, brand
new dollar bills, etc. out of the burning cars… with nothing of that stuff being scorched… and, wondrously, neither are the two
license plates of the burning cars scorched."
I think if Western media said Colonel Mustard did it, in the sitting room, with a candlestick, there would be some that would
suck that crap up and spew it forth in every direction they could.
Controlling the narrative just doesn`t work any more, does it.
Maybe we should try to establish some facts instead.
The US/EU began this by backing the overthrow of a democratic, if totally corrupt, government. They made it worse last Saturday
when they sent the CIA in to advise a lunatic bid to define the protesters in the east as "terrorists" and for the Kiev junta
to shoot at them. It now demands the protesters in the east all go home while tacitly supporting the continued occupation of the
Maidan.
Where does it think this absurdly confrontational and one-sided policy will end? Is this stupidity or policy or both?
Todorov – a supporter of Ukrainian statehood – said he was deeply pessimistic about his country's future. He said he doubted
presidential elections due to be held on 25 May would take place, at least not in the east. And in Kiev, he suggested, there was
a growing feeling that Ukraine would be better off dumping its troublesome eastern provinces and creating a modern European country
without them.
Igor Todorov, you know he is the professor of politics at Donetsk University who just happens to host NATO conferences on security
issues. Not an impartial source.
So are we really taking seriously the idea that Russian superspies killed two people to create a 'provocation' at a checkpoint?
If they were that desperate for a provocation, why not something more provocative, like killing civilians with a bomb or something?
It seems a bit desperate by the Kiev government, and rather hard to take seriously. They've produced plenty of bullshit before
like when they claimed to have captured loads of Russian saboteurs, it seems most likely this is the same. Wasnt't Tymoshenko
the other day boasting about her knowing Ukrainians ready to take on the separatists? Maybe these are some of hers.
And now we also have 'unconfirmed' reports of ethnic cleansing of Roma to go with the fake anti-semitic leaflet trumpted by
Yatsenyuk. And an extensive report in this article of one of Ukraine's supporters in the East with no apparent criticism of Kiev,
despite the fact that according to a Ukrainian poll apparently over 70% in the area regard the current Kiev government as illegitimate
and those who actually want to join Russia (very few according to this article) are according to the same poll, over a quarter
of the population in the area.
No, we're not taking it seriously. I don't know about some of the posters on here. I used to think that they were just naive,
but maybe it's me being naive by believing that. I'm starting to come round to the view that they must either be power whores
who get some kind of thrill from being (in their eyes) vicariously associated with US hegemonic ambitions, or they're simply mendacious
trolls. Because it's becoming utterly incredible that any sentient person could believe some of the nonsense they post.
Most important thing for the Eastern Ukrainians is their unity and integrity. As long as they have it they will win and will
get help. The West will try to break it, because it is the only way to defeat them.
There is not power in the world to defeat the real power of the people. Those federalists should be maintained very good relationship
with their people. They should be very careful of their discipline at work with the people too.
The reality looks more like Ukraine being split in two. I am not sure how that pans out in geopolitical terms, but it doesn't
look so good for the people of Ukraine, assuming members of families might live in both parts.
It is really insane of the Junta in Kiev to state that the Russians undertook this terrorist action against their own people.
C'mon, Fascists in Kiev, pull the other one its got bells on it.
Some improvement in reporting by the Guardian....at least they tried to independently meet the pro-Russian side, but were turned
away. The BBC didn't even try to do that, but accepts wholeheartedly that the Ukrainian government line that these were 'criminal
elements' and that the incident was probably staged by Russia. Meanwhile, over at RT, there are detailed reports, plus videos
showing the Right Sector paraphernalia and membership cards. So I'd have to say, if this is only Russian propaganda, RT is doing
a more credible job than Ukraine's government and John Kerry. There are apparently survivors from both sides, so why are they
not being interviewed? Hopefully, the OSCE will be able to talk to both sides, but that may be wishful thinking, since they say
they are underfunded and undermanned, er, underpeopled.
I believe the Ukraine government is unable to rein in Right Sector, even if they wanted to. At the moment, they are afraid of
them and need them. Indeed a few of the new government even belong to Right Sector, so why would they disarm them?
If the Russian version is true, at least these fellows were carrying identity documents, unlike the heroic Russian military
who remove their insignia, wear balaclavas and pretend to be "local defense forces."
I don't know that they were genuine 'terrorist thugs'. Looking at the kid from Vinnitsa that was captured, he looked to be
more like a not very bright specimen who'd got himself in way beyond his depth. Just a stupid pawn.
Never mind that no side is or was meeting their side of the deal before the shoot out. I expect the US will still try and blame
Russia for a deal despite not even their allies in Kiev fulfilling their side of the deal, people are still camping out in Maidan
Square, something the Guardian exempted from the article.
An international agreement to defuse the crisis in Ukraine was all but shredded on Sunday after a shootout in the separatist
town of Slavyansk in which three people were allegedly killed.
RT says the protesters ere unarmed and ambushed:
They approached with their high beam headlamps on. Our man went to them and asked not to blind us, show IDs and open the
trunk for inspection. Then an assault rifle got stuck out of the window and he was gunned down," an eyewitness, Vladimir, told
RT....He added some of the people trying to flee the attackers were shot in their backs.The checkpoint was in the control of 26
civilians armed with bats. Their lack of firearms was due to a so-called "Easter truce" announced by both the Kiev authorities
and the protest leaders to de-escalate tension.
The propaganda continues, this time with additional help from a Washington based "reporter" to make sure all the Empire's talking
points are covered.
Never will they use the word fascist to describe those huggable Ukrainian "nationalists" even when they're armed and parading
in SS regalia.
When conclusive proof is offered that "nationalists" attacked and killed "separatists" at a check point, it is blamed on Russia
for the sin of reporting it first.
One can only imagine what Orwell would write about the state of English media today if he were still around.
The Guardian isn't even going through the motions of pretending to be impartial anymore in their support for the US installed
Nazi regime in Kiev.
This Kiev's regime hardly controls anything even in Kiev itself...
The people were killed by Right Sector, and one of attackers was captured.
These Nazis are incredibly stupid:
1) Now ALL people in East and South Ukraine consider them (after this attack) as their enemies,
2) The US won't send its Army to Ukraine (because it doesn't want to be turned into radioctive ash), and wouldn't give them any
money as well (because they don't have any),
3) Russia will deal with these Nazis for good, when a proper time comes.
Yet there Parubiy was on Tuesday bragging that some of his neo-Nazi storm troopers – renamed "National Guard" – were now being
sicced on rebellious eastern Ukraine as part of the Kiev government's "anti-terrorist" operation.
The post-coup President Oleksandr Turchynov also warned that Ukraine was confronting a "colossal danger," but he insisted that
the suppression of the pro-Russian protesters would be treated as an "anti-terrorist" operation and not as a "civil war." Everyone
should understand by now that "anti-terror" suggests extrajudicial killings, torture and "counter-terror."
Yet, with much of the Ukrainian military of dubious loyalty to the coup regime, the dispatch of the neo-Nazi militias from western
Ukraine's Right Sektor and Svoboda parties represents a significant development. Not only do the Ukrainian neo-Nazis consider the
ethnic Russians an alien presence, but these right-wing militias are organized to wage street fighting as they did in the February
uprising.
Historically, right-wing paramilitaries have played crucial roles in "counter-terror" campaigns around the world. In Central
America in the 1980s, for instance, right-wing "death squads" did much of the dirty work for U.S.-backed military regimes as they
crushed social protests and guerrilla movements.
The merging of the concept of "anti-terrorism" with right-wing paramilitaries represents a potentially frightening development
for the people of eastern Ukraine. And much of this information – about Turchynov's comments and Parubiy's tweet – can be found in
a New York Times' dispatch from Ukraine.
Whose Propaganda?
However, on the Times' front page on Wednesday was
a bizarre story
by David M. Herszenhorn accusing the Russian government of engaging in a propaganda war by making many of the same points that you
could find – albeit without the useful context about Parubiy's neo-Nazi background – in the same newspaper.
In the article entitled
"Russia Is Quick To Bend Truth About Ukraine," Herszenhorn mocked Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev for making a Facebook posting
that "was bleak and full of dread," including noting that "blood has been spilled in Ukraine again" and adding that "the threat of
civil war looms."
The Times article continued, "He [Medvedev] pleaded with Ukrainians to decide their own future 'without usurpers, nationalists
and bandits, without tanks or armored vehicles – and without secret visits by the C.I.A. director.' And so began another day of bluster
and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about
the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled
Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week."
This argumentative "news" story spilled from the front page to the top half of an inside page, but Herszenhorn never managed to
mention that there was nothing false in what Medvedev said. Indeed, it was the much-maligned Russian press that first reported the
secret visit of CIA Director John Brennan to Kiev.
Though the White House has since
confirmed
that report, Herszenhorn cites Medvedev's reference to it in the context of "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories." Nowhere in
the long article does the Times inform its readers that, yes, the CIA director did make a secret visit to Ukraine last weekend. Presumably,
that reality has now disappeared into the great memory hole along with the on-ground reporting from Feb. 22 about the key role of
the neo-Nazi militias.
The neo-Nazis themselves have pretty much disappeared from Official Washington's narrative, which now usually recounts the coup
as simply a case of months of protests followed by Yanukovych's decision to flee. Only occasionally, often buried deep in news articles
with the context removed, can you find admissions of how the neo-Nazis spearheaded the coup.
A Wounded Extremist
For instance, on April 6, the New York Times published
a
human-interest profile of a Ukrainian named Yuri Marchuk who was wounded in clashes around Kiev's Maidan square in February.
You have to read far into the story to learn that Marchuk was a Svoboda leader from Lviv, which – if you did your own research –
you would discover is a neo-Nazi stronghold
where Ukrainian nationalists hold torch-light parades in honor of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.
Without providing that context, the Times does mention that Lviv militants plundered a government weapons depot and dispatched
600 militants a day to do battle in Kiev. Marchuk also described how these well-organized militants, consisting of paramilitary brigades
of 100 fighters each, launched the fateful attack against the police on Feb. 20, the battle where Marchuk was wounded and where the
death toll suddenly spiked into scores of protesters and about a dozen police.
Marchuk later said he visited his comrades at the occupied City Hall. What the Times doesn't mention is that City Hall was festooned
with Nazi banners and even a
Confederate battle flag as a tribute to white supremacy.
The Times touched on the inconvenient truth of the neo-Nazis again on April 12 in
an article
about the mysterious death of neo-Nazi leader Oleksandr Muzychko, who was killed during a shootout with police on March 24. The article
quoted a local Right Sektor leader, Roman Koval, explaining the crucial role of his organization in carrying out the anti-Yanukovych
coup.
"Ukraine's February revolution, said Mr. Koval, would never have happened without Right Sector and other militant groups," the
Times wrote. Yet, that reality – though actually reported in the New York Times – has now become "Russian propaganda," according
to the New York Times.
This upside-down American narrative also ignores the well-documented interference of prominent U.S. officials in stirring up the
protesters in Kiev, which is located in the western part of Ukraine and is thus more anti-Russian than eastern Ukraine where many
ethnic Russians live and where Yanukovych had his political base.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was a cheerleader for the uprising, reminding Ukrainian business
leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European aspirations," discussing who should replace Yanukovych
(her choice, Arseniy Yatsenyuk became the new prime minister), and literally passing out cookies to the protesters in the Maidan.
(Nuland is married to neoconservative superstar Robert Kagan, a founder of the Project for the New American Century.)
During the protests, neocon Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, took the stage with leaders of Svoboda – surrounded by banners honoring
Stepan Bandera – and urged on the protesters. Even before the demonstrations began, prominent neocon Carl Gershman, president of
the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, had dubbed Ukraine "the biggest prize." [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com's
"What's the Matter with John Kerry?"]
Indeed, in my four-plus decades in journalism, I have never seen a more thoroughly biased and misleading performance by the major
U.S. news media. Even during the days of Ronald Reagan – when much of the government's modern propaganda structure was created –
there was more independence in major news outlets. There were media stampedes off the reality cliff during George H.W. Bush's Persian
Gulf War and George W. Bush's Iraq War, both of which were marked by demonstrably false claims that were readily swallowed by the
big U.S. news outlets.
But there is something utterly Orwellian in the current coverage of the Ukraine crisis, including accusing others of "propaganda"
when their accounts – though surely not perfect – are much more honest and more accurate than what the U.S. press corps has been
producing.
There's also the added risk that this latest failure by the U.S. press corps is occurring on the border of Russia, a nuclear-armed
state that – along with the United States – could exterminate all life on the planet. The biased U.S. news coverage is now feeding
into political demands to send U.S. military aid to Ukraine's coup regime.
The casualness of this propaganda – as it spreads across the U.S. media spectrum from Fox News to MSNBC, from the Washington Post
to the New York Times – is not just wretched journalism but it is reckless malfeasance jeopardizing the lives of many Ukrainians
and the future of the planet.
... ... ...
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its
connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
I'm confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing.
These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were 'pro-democracy protestors'.
The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according
to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing
up statues and setting fire to buildings.
Now, just a few weeks later, we're told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not 'pro-democracy protestors'
but 'terrorists' or 'militants'.
Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why
was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I'm
confused. Can anyone help me?
The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received visits from several prominent Western politicians, including
US Senator John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who handed out cookies. But there have been very large
anti-government protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support, either from such
figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State Department.
Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of 'democracy',
McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I'm confused. Can anyone
help me?
A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John Kerry who said, "You just don't invade another country
on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests." But I seem to recall the US doing just that on more than one occasion in the
past 20 years or so.
Have I misremembered the 'Iraq has WMDs claim'? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits
came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal?
Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq –
an invasion which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
We were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and media 'experts' that the Crimea referendum wasn't valid because
it was held under "military occupation." But I've just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation,
which have been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a "historic moment for Afghanistan"
and a great success for "democracy." Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I'm confused. Can anyone
help me?
Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security
and our 'way of life' in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless
'War on Terror' against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical groups in their war against a secular
government which respects the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.
When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our
leaders: their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders
and elite media commentators are desperate to have toppled. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Then there's gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and backward country because it has passed a law against promoting
homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where homosexuals
can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.
Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors?
Why, if they are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and not countries that imprison or execute gay
people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a
cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold
positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right
played a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government in February, a 'revolution' cheered on by the West.
Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable in Ukraine? I'm confused. Can anyone
help me?
We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO's concerns are about opposing the Russian 'threat'.
But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of
NATO, the US-led military alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any
countries close to America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military bases or missiles situated in foreign
countries bordering or close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the 'aggressive one'. I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
Read below and you will se that commenter in Guardian demonstrate discussion skills that you can only envy :-). Probably the best
reader forum that I know of.
That was quick...they only went today. What is notable is the Slovyansk separatists have barred entry to any journalists othe
than the approved ones from Russia.
Ukraine's new prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who is hosting the US vice-president, Joe Biden, this week, told US television
that he wanted greater support from America in the face of Russian aggression.
And the best way to achieve that is to raise the tension.
What is your problem? Ukraine is sovereign country. We want to be with the EU, so where is the problem? Because you hate EU
that doesn't mean that we also. Do you think that Putin agression to Crimea and west Ukraine is good? So Ukraine should do nothing?
WTF?
Silly Brits, you are brainwashed by UKIP & Putin propaganda.
errr......the problem is that the US and EU have bought Ukraine, it has no sovereign elements left nor a democratic
government. It's been used as a pawn to further Imperial aims and to increase Russophobia. Open your eyes. BTW I am not European
and have never heard of UKIP.
We want to be with the EU, so where is the problem?
The EU is broadly speaking, an anti-nationalist organisation - it was founded on the basis that nationalism was at the
root of many wars in Europe. One of the reasons why the EC president recently stated that Ukraine is not fit for EU membership
is the prominence of right wing extremism and the inclusion of Nazis in the interim government.
Ukraine is unlikely to be offered accession until Right Sector and Svoboda are out of the picture and Ukraine has a government
which doesn't idolize Nazis like Stepan Bandera.
I'm not British but am an EU citizen who is generally as passionate an EU federalist as they come!
"My problem" is that I don't think we should be having anything to do with an illegitimate government which deposed a freely
and fairly elected - albeit corrupt - president through force with the aid of out and out neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, and with
no regard for the views of the majority/large minority of the population. Especially when said government has placed out
and out neo-fascists and neo-Nazis in office. Especially when forces - either within or outside of the government, it's hard to
tell - are not only openly intimidating but physically attacking those with opposing views. Especially when said "government"
was clearly hand-picked by the U.S. State Department in the same breath as the words "fuck the EU"!
I love the EU precisely because it stands for political and cultural pluralism, for protection and respect of
minorities, for democratic norms, for the belief that problems and conflicts of interest are to be resolved through dialogue and
at the ballot box, not through demonstrations/threats of force and at the barrel of the gun!
You may want to be with the EU. It is patently clear that many of your compatriots don't- That is for you to sort out
amongst yourselves.
But I can tell you one thing - as someone who lovesthe EU, I no longer want you to be a part of it, the
way I still did a year ago! Because the actions and rhetoric of those you support demonstrate a contempt for the values the EU
is supposed to stand for!
If you're able to comprehend most of the posts you'll see we are on the whole not Putin supporters. Most of us are merely highlighting
the breath-takingly double standards of the WEST.
It's healthy to see posters here are free thinkers and not willing to succumb to Western propaganda. They question it and rightly
so! I just wish more people did so.
It's only YOUR opinion, NOT Ukrainian. Is United Kingdom want be in Russia? We can swap. Ukraine in EU, UK in Russia. Great
idea! Be with EU is better option than be Russian federation in Putin country. EU is great, family of European countries.
You talked about Ukraine joining the EU. I simply pointed out why Ukraine is not being offered accession and only has an association
agreement. It isn't just my opinion, you can read the resolutions of the EU parliament on Ukraine....
8. Is concerned about the rising nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine, expressed in support for the Svoboda Party, which,
as a result, is one of the two new parties to enter the Verkhovna Rada; recalls that racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views
go against the EU's fundamental values and principles and therefore appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada
not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party;
5. Calls on the Ukrainian authorities, while recognising that Ukraine has ratified the Council of Europe Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, to make greater efforts
to reach out to minority communities in Ukraine by further integrating these communities in the political developments of the
country and promoting adequately the right to education in minority languages;
....
20. Deeply deplores the decision by the outgoing President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, posthumously to award Stepan Bandera,
a leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) which collaborated with Nazi Germany, the title of 'National Hero
of Ukraine'; hopes, in this regard, that the new Ukrainian leadership will reconsider such decisions and will maintain its
commitment to European values;
I love the EU precisely because it stands for political and cultural pluralism, for protection and respect of minorities,
for democratic norms, for the belief that problems and conflicts of interest are to be resolved through dialogue and at the
ballot box, not through demonstrations/threats of force and at the barrel of the gun!
I would also point out that, as a citizen and resident of a country where neo-fascists political parties regularly take over
a quarter of the vote, I see the EU as a power which, when push comes to shove, will guarantee and enforce those values I hold
dear! (Many of my friends from post-communist EU countries feel the same way, regarding the hard-core communists.)
When, a decade and a half ago, our centre-right party agreed to go into coalition with the neo-fascists (who were at the time
also leaning far more openly towards neo-Nazism; in the interim they have jettisoned old-fashioned anti-semitism in favour of
the far more popular and populist Islamophobia) the other EU members responded by slapping sanctions on us and suspending our
voting rights!
Rather than viewing this as a dictatorial assault on our sovereignty, the 50% give or take of us who were horrified enough
by this turn of events to protests in the streets every week until the government fell took succor. And the "corrective" measure
had its effect. Under an even more charismatic new leader, the neo-fascists, have, if anything, increased their vote share over
the past decade, but even the centre-right will never dare go into coalition with them again, even if it means making common cause
with the left or centre-left Greens.
I despise our domestic far-right with every fibre of my being - but they are nowhere near as bad as Svoboda. The idea that
I should support the latter, especially when in a government that can't even claim democratic legitimacy, is galling beyond
belief! It is a betrayal of every last value the EU is supposed to stand for!
And I don't honestly think this is what the EU wanted either - they wanted the February 21st agreement they brokered which
the Ukrainian "government" shredded before the ink on it was dry! Since then the - fuck the EU - State Department has been calling
the shots. And I despair at how "we" continue to dance to their tune, against our own interests!
If only we had anyone but Ashton nominally in charge of our foreign policy! It was utter madness to select someone from the
country which has always been little more than America's Trojan horse in Europe for that post!
News for ukraine europe dont want ukraine. Ukraine was being used as a stick to poke russian with. Do you really beleive europe
want a meaningful relationship with ukraine. Europe offer ukraine a memorandum of association which is nothing. Nato would quite
like to the ukraines as an airforce base. Whats that I hear another nato jet buzzing donesk to highten tensions a bit.
What the nato and the US have being doing is grooming Ukraine as a dirty old man grooms a teenager on the internet. The EU
and the USA are political pedifiles. Wake up ukraine!
If Ukraine is a sovereign nation, why do they entertain visits from John McCain and Victoria Nuland, patting those that overthrew
the democratically elected government on the back? Do you have ANY idea how a visit from Putin or the Russian foreign minister
Sergey Lavrov to protestors in the USA would have been received here in the USA? I am an American but my roots and family are
in Ukraine and those in Ukraine that support US and Western meddling are supporting nothing other than the financial goals of
Western corporate oil interests who are absolutely fine with Ukrainian blood being spilled in order to obtain dominance there
in the global market. A small handful of misguided extremists in Kiev supported by the West do NOT speak for all of Ukraine and
can not expect the rest of the nation to go along with their foolish, misguided efforts that are not in the best interests of
ALL of Ukraine.
You are the one that is silly. If Ukraine is a sovereign state, why did the American "lady" - "F..k the EU" installed the bunch
of foreign agents and neo fascists to govern your country?
Not everyone has swallowed the Kool-Aid, but enough to make me despair. They happily criticize the US from the left and
the EU from the right, while applauding Putin for the invasion of Ukraine. People in this country, with a few exceptions, have
collectively lost their wits.
There is no reason to despair, Sir. I think you have to agree, that the opposite would have been much worse: a British
majority brainwashed by White House war rhetoric's, bent to fight the "good fight" against those evil Russians, stirring up a
new world war. You should be grateful that there are many people in your country who don't share your views.
Especially when forces - either within or outside of the government, it's hard to tell - are not only openly intimidating
but physically attacking those with opposing views.
It's rather disconcerting to read such a comment and lots of similar ones here when we are fed up with Russian propaganda already.
And here it is, thanks to the superficial coverage of Ukraine and all the more superficial understanding of it, we have discussions
revolving around "neo-Nazis" and "the views of the majority/large minority of the population" which nobody have a clue what are
all about. People in eastern regions were systematically pauperised when Yanukovych whom you call "a freely and fairly elected
- albeit corrupt - president", and his Party of Regions were in power (strangely enough, members of his family were among the
richest in the country). Actually, this so-called party which is now using all means to keep its grip on power, has been universally
despised in western and eastern regions alike because of the most outrageous corruption (literally).
Have you ever been in Ukraine? Have you ever watched Ukrainian TV and actually listened to those people whom you call Nazis
here? Have you ever read one single interview with Dmytro Yarosh? Mr. Adam Paryż is way too emotional but he's got a point. Making
ill-informed assumptions like that, you show your ignorance about the whole matter.
I think you will find that most Brits support Ukraine - though we are wary also of a right wing government - human rights,
particularly for gay people, have not been high on Ukraine's agenda.
However I suspect most people in Britain do not believe the Russian version of events
Yanukovych was for joining the EU from before he was elected in 2010. The parliament of Ukraine elected in 2012 was almost
unanimous in voting for the Association agreement with the EU. There was strong support for this in every region of Ukraine including
in Crimea. When faced with threats from Putin that Ukraine would be bankrupted if it signed the association agreement with the
EU Yanukovych went against a very popular decision that had evolved in Ukraine over nearly a decade.
The people of Ukraine want to live in a normal country that can make its own decisions and not be merely a corrupted appendage
of Russia, which is the reality of the option that Putin offered Ukraine. It is no wonder that the majority of the people turned
against Yanukovych with his sudden change of policy after meeting Putin in late 2013.
Silly ucrainian, you think western gov.s love Ukraine? wait until the IMF suck your blood like they're doing in Ireland, Greece,
Spain, Cyprus and Portugal! in fact you did not deserve the Russian cheap gas, now you will see that western institutions don't
love anything but money. Get readdy to be ripped off, your gold is already taken to USA while you were beasy hating russians.
you have a simplistic view ...the world is not black or white...it has many colours. Most of european are solidary with all
the Ukraine's people, but that's not the same as to be solidary with rufians in Kiev's "government" or just western Ukraine. We
do not have to be Putin lovers to see the wholew picture. And yes, we're aldo tired of the western leaders lies and the western
fake democracy. We did not ask IMF to come to South European countries and Ireland. If you think they'll will help you just wait
and you'll see! they just love money, they will sell your country ti the big finantial powers, everything: resources, profitable
enterprises will be soo in the hands of those that you call "friends" and "alies" . The USA as already stolen your golden reserves
while you were busy hating the russians! kiss it good bye, you will never see it again!
We want to be with the EU, so where is the problem?
And why do you want "to be with the EU"? You just want our money. You want to steal German tax money. You don't even ask
if we want to pay for your busted, corrupt country. You are an imperialist.
Yanukovych was for joining the EU from before he was elected in 2010. ..... Yanukovych went against a very popular decision
that had evolved in Ukraine over nearly a decade.
Yes - but.....
The EuroMaidan protests were based on the pretext that Yanukovych made the wrong choice and was preventing Ukraine from joining
the EU. They were wrong.
Events now show that Yanukovych made the right decision. He did not have much choice: The EU were only offering an
association agreement, not accession and membership and they also offered only about €600 million in aid. Russia was offering
hugely discounted gas and an interest free $15 billion loan. He had postponed the association deal with the EU, not refused it.
He had not committed Ukraine to joining Russia's trading bloc. He was trying to get the best economic deal for Ukraine. None of
this was bad - it was the blatant corruption of his group that was bad.
Now - Ukraine has the association agreement and have been told they are not fit for EU membership. They no longer have the
Russian deal and instead, have a deal with the IMF for an interest paying $18 billion loan - which comes with requirements for
severe fiscal policy.
(Yanukovych and his backers were corrupt but the new lot are no better. All of these bastards and especially the oligarchs
are responsible for the appalling state of the Ukrainian economy.)
It was a good thing the Donetsk rebels hadn't handed in their weapons, else they wouldn't have been able to beat off those
armed neo-nazi Right Sector scum who first shot at unarmed civilians on the barricade.
What's so naive about finding personal effects at crime scčnes? I imagine you are the type of person who believed that an Al-Qaede
member hijacker's passport was found amidst the rubble of the twin towers seeing as you appear to be the kind that believe anything
the Washington machine says.
So some of your ultra-right 'friends' got shot up and you're sad - breathe it in breathe it in.
Just to add... The captured Right Sector thug is from Vinnitsa. Although he claims that he didn't know they would be shooting
anyone, he and his Nazi friends brought plenty of weapons, ammunition and apparently, explosives. Clearly, he knew they were not
on a shopping trip.
If there is no violence, Russia ends up with an effective control of eastern Ukraine and a powerless and broke Kiev.
If there is no violence, Right Sector disappears and the current neo-liberals in Kiev lose power.
That suggests that any violent provocations are lot more likely from Kiev and the neo-Nazis than from the eastern Ukrainian
Russians. Right Sector has under 1% support, the east Ukrainian pro-Russians have received between 45-55% in each election for
20 years (check Wikipedia). So who benefits from the continued mayhem?
Ukraine PM asks US for 'real support' to prevent further Russian hostility
That explains it. Right Sector attacks. Yatsenuk whines to US about sending army or something like that to protect Ukraine
against Russian forces in Ukraine which are not there.
Right now-now, but they are not there as was confirmed today by OSCE.
Or would have a legitimate reason to enter the territory, e.g. to protect Russian speakers from "fascists"?
If Right Sector and illegal regime of Kiev (via Right Sector) will be killing protesters in East and since US or EU doesn't
give a damn how many people die in East, somebody must protect those people.
Also if US sends its forces under cover to Ukraine, Russia also will need to send theirs.
The main problem is that EU and US sources have no credibility whatsoever. Having openly encouraged the overthrow of an elected
government, they cannot possibly maintain that the new unelected government has any more legitimacy than the separatists - who
are pushing for referenda. Furthermore, there is abundance evidence that the US and their allies have done this type of covert
and false flag operation before, and clear obvious evidence for this type of thing recently with the leaked
phone conversation.
So why should anybody believe a word they say?
Surely it would be a reasonable default position to believe the opposite is true.
Time for the list of US covert regime change operations since the war...
1.1 Russia
2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
The main problem is that EU and US sources have no credibility whatsoever. Having openly encouraged the overthrow of an
elected government, they cannot possibly maintain that the new unelected government has any more legitimacy than the separatists
- who are pushing for referenda. Furthermore, there is abundance evidence that the US and their allies have done this type
of covert and false flag operation before, and clear obvious evidence for this tyep of thing recently with the leaked phone
conversation.
oh, btw. yo've forgotten about american tanks on the streets of Budapest in '56, fraternity assistance in Czechoslovakia in
'68 and also invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Bloody CIA.
Some evidence, please. Independent reports on the Sakhalin production sharing agreements created by western governments and
companies in the 1990s were very unfair to Russia. Exxon and Shell got a guaranteed 17.5% profit over and above their expenses.
Russia was entitled to only 10% after expenses were paid out, i.e. never. Even Forbes magazine and the Economist have stated that
these were unfair agreements imposed when Russia was very weak. Putin tore these up in 2004 and Russian revenues and living standards
increased. So who are/were the looters? Poverty has decreased by half during Putin's time in power and GDP has increased under
both Putin and Medvedev. It's more accurate to state that Russia was looted during the 1990s privatization period, and the oil
wealth has been more equally shared since 2004. Your comment is mere ideology, unsupported by evidence.
Russian channels claimed that a business card belonging to Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far-right Right Sector, had been
left by the "attackers". Also discovered were crisp new $100 bills, a satellite map of the area, and a second world war German
gun, they reported======== was a cuddly toy on the list?
The self-defense forces in Ukraine's Donetsk region are expecting assaults on checkpoints and administrative buildings they're
holding in the town of Slavyansk at 18:00 GMT, Itar-Tass reports.
The anti-government activists are on high alert, with preparations to repel the attack underway, said Vyacheslav Ponomarev,
the "people's mayor" of Slavyansk.
According to Ponomarev, unidentified armed men were spotted gathering outside the town.
The self-defense forces failed to establish their belonging to any units of the Ukrainian military and say they are militants
from the radical Right Sector movement.
18:09 GMT:
Machine gun fire has been heard in the center of Slavyansk, a city in Ukraine's Donetsk Region, a RIA Novosti correspondent reported
from the scene.
18:09 GMT:
Anti-government demonstrators in Odessa have demanded the resignation of the head of the regional administration, Vladimir Nemirovsky,
Vesti.ru reports.
Hundreds marched the streets of Odessa on Sunday, with the demonstration concluding with a rally at the city's Kulikovo Field.
Protesters also showed their support to the idea of referendum on the federalization of Ukraine and urged the coup-imposed
authorities to end political repressions.
18:09 GMT:
The self-defense forces in Ukraine's Donetsk Region said that three of their checkpoint in the suburbs of the town of Slavyansk
came under fire by unidentified gunmen, Interfax news agency reports.
So these people are foreign-paid mercenaries. I should hope that their actions therefore do not affect the Geneva peace deal
unless one of the parties was involved.
The deal itself seems to be good for Ukraine provided that the separatist action eventually fizzles out, and that is the best
hope.
I do not have feeling that people in Ukraine really want to kill each other off.
It is just a show to provoke Russia. However Russia is way too smart to just react without seeing far in the future. And they
have the upper hand almost from the beginning of this crisis. And nobody ever dares to mention Crimea anymore.
All they can rant is how Russian pensions are close to nothing, but still much higher than Ukrainians. With 50% higher price
in Ukraine of Russian gas, luckily here comes the summer. In a winter we will have yet another stories.
This just shows us how shortsighted EU/US are in their visions.
"Divide et impera" times have been long time gone.
I do not have feeling that people in Ukraine really want to kill each other off.
That's probably true for most Ukrainians but Nazis of Right Sector and Svoboda often express their desire to "kill Moskali
scum". Anti-Russian nationalism is at the core of the current crisis.
That's probably true for most Ukrainians but Nazis of Right Sector and Svoboda often express their desire to "kill Moskali
scum". Anti-Russian nationalism is at the core of the current crisis.
The key is to recognise that the Right Sector appeals only to a small minority of Ukrainians. They can be easily contained by
a legitimate government. It will take sometime for a legitimate government to be in place in Kiev, but there will be one in short
order.
At the bridge into the town, one commander armed with a pistol told the Guardian to leave. He punched the car with his fist,
leaving a dent. "Get out of here," he screamed.
Many UK readers feel much the same: The Grauniad's right-wing extremism increasingly has that effect.
Not exactly right-wing extremism, more like triangulation:
(1) The Scott Trust has adopted a no-paywall business model which requires it to max out English language advertisements to
survive, now its paid-for print sales are plummeting. That means repositioning the Guardian/Observer as world media and screwing
for dollars. (At a lower level the Kardashian-besotted Mail is doing the same.)
(2) The Guardian (all credit to it) broke the Snowden revelations which angered the US political and corporate establishment
and humiliated lamestream Yank hacks by showing them up for the cowardly conformist mouthpieces most are.
(3) To prevent itself being tarred as indiscriminately anti-American and risking the boodle, the paper distinguishes editorially
between its anti-surveillance coverage and a fairly faithful echo of the 'western' line on foreign policy flashpoints such as
Ukraine.
It can be summed up as 'Yes, Putin is a menace to world peace and these are very, very dangerous times, but we don't need to
live in a goldfish bowl to keep ourselves safe.'
This reminds me of the Sudeten German excuse that like this had some constructed validity. Seems like the damp squib is going
to flare up after all into a new Soviet Union.
For brown shirt infiltrator, read Russian issue balaclava.
The new Soviet Union is America. The USSA. Filled with a nation of people like you who have betrayed your own country. I went
to UC Berkeley and UC Berkeley is a spawning tank for CIA/intel recruiting with the CIA openly recruiting at umbrella tables on
the campus. They target foreign students heavily, and send them back to their own countries for future overthrows funded by Soros
like Orange revolution (Georgia Russia), yellow revolution (Ukraine), Tulip revolution (Kyrgyzistan), Green revolution (Egypt)
etc etc. - and of course "Occupy" in N. America. So don't peddle this bullshit.
It was Poland actually, dead Polish "troops" killed during "attack" on German frontier base were actually German political
prisoners, dressed in Polish uniforms and then murdered by the SS
German tanks rolling into Sudetenland then it was Prague . German annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
The Gleiwitz incident was a false flag operation by Nazi forces posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, against the German radio
station in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany. The next day German forces invaded Poland.
The Soviet Red Army's invasion of Eastern Poland on 17 September, in accordance with a secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop
Pact.
If eastern separatist had travelled to the West killing people in the villages, the Western media would be going ballistic.
Troops from Kiev would be pouring into the East extracting retribution. However as it is the West that is committing the crimes
nothing happens. It is accepted as the normal behaviour expected from Kiev backed terrorist.
The Prime Minister is never directly elected by the people: he/she is chosen from within the ranks of the majority coalition
in parliament. Currently that is Yatsenyuk.
The Prime Minister is never directly elected by the people: he/she is chosen from within the ranks of the majority coalition
in parliament. Currently that is Yatsenyuk.
there we go, giorocks, fixed it for you.
Not so fast. The position must be ratified by the elected President. The elected President has never been impeached, according
to the Constitution of Ukraine. The elected President had his life threatened by a violent mob that had also murdered 17 police
officers. giorocks is correct, the 'interim' government and Prime Minister have no legitimacy.
I am seeing the words "Nazi" and "Fascist" banded around a lot.
The definition of fascism is "radical, authoritarian nationalism," which would certainly include the authoritarian Russian
regime propped up by nuclear weapons within it's boundaries.
I am seeing the words "Nazi" and "Fascist" banded around a lot.
The definition of fascism is "radical, authoritarian nationalism," which would certainly include the authoritarian Russian
regime propped up by nuclear weapons within it's boundaries.
It's been a long, hard day for this Kievbot, bashing away on the keyboard, his glue bag empty, and the corpse of the tortured
Party of the Region deputy beginning to honk. Time to throw open the reinforced door to his Right Sector dungeon-cum-work-station
and walk in the fresh air.
Yes, I agree. If RT is only doing propaganda, they are doing much better. Apparently, there were survivors from this incident,
why aren't they being interviewed?
Whitewash of dear old Luke again
"Russian channels claimed that a business card belonging to Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far-right Right Sector, had been
left by the "attackers". Also discovered were crisp new $100 bills, a satellite map of the area, and a second world war German
gun, they reported."
Conveniently forgot to mention sophisticated sniper rifle, plastic explosives, metallic token with Right Sector insignia and number
20, us made night vision goggles, and more.
Also - the machine gun is NOT world war era, but Yugoslavian copy of it, that was kept in Ukraines military storages, and recently
reported to be looted.
"People are scared. They don't want to come out," Viktor Oneskehnko, a 53-year-old doctor and Chernobyl survivor said, walking
with his wife and daughter towards the monastery's white and turquoise 19th-century church. Oneshenko said he supported Ukraine's
territorial integrity. He was contemptuous of the separatists who he said had hijacked Slavyansk. "They're opportunists and mafia",
he said"
Stuff about scared local guy is mandatory inclusion to every Luke's report. Is that necessary to embed this meme? Of course
some are scared.
Just give them referendum and they figure out for themselves
Yes - looks like the incident was manufactured by the Russians - the Russian military will be on the move soon - they have
no interest in peace or the fact that most people in eastern Ukraine don't want to be part of Russia
This report is very much "the story according to Kiev/the CIA". It quacks like propaganda. I just do not believe it. I think
the CIA and their tame Right Sector fascists are up to another "black op". They have form.
That said if it *is* a Russian black op - well they are playing according to the rules set by the CIA in Kiev.
"26 guys armed with nothing but bats man a checkpoint 6 km outside of Sloviansk. Four cars with at least 10 heavily armed guys
drive up to the checkpoint and stop 10 m before it. The armed men get out of the cars and open fire, killing two (10 armed men,
10 m distance and hitting only two… atrociously bad shooters).
The rest of the guys with bats run away and 20 armed men from Sloviansk are called to come and retake the barricade. Until
these 20 men arrive, the attackers do nothing but wait at the barricade; they don't leave, they don't advance, they don't set
up an ambush, they don't try to dismantle the barricades, nothing! They even don't move their cars…
The 20 armed men from Sloviansk arrive at the barricade and open fire on the attackers, who don't fire back but flee with just
two of their cars as the other two cars are shot up from the left side and the back… but not shot up from the front where the
barricade and Sloviansk is… so the attackers were attacked from behind and managed to escape exactly in that direction too…
More amazing: even under fire from behind and the side the attackers managed to load their injured into the remaining two cars
and drive off… while the Sloviansk men managed to get backpacks, guns, uniforms, a World War II era German machine gun, brand
new dollar bills, etc. out of the burning cars… with nothing of that stuff being scorched… and, wondrously, neither are the two
license plates of the burning cars scorched."
I think if Western media said Colonel Mustard did it, in the sitting room, with a candlestick, there would be some that would
suck that crap up and spew it forth in every direction they could.
Controlling the narrative just doesn`t work any more, does it.
Maybe we should try to establish some facts instead.
The US/EU began this by backing the overthrow of a democratic, if totally corrupt, government. They made it worse last Saturday
when they sent the CIA in to advise a lunatic bid to define the protesters in the east as "terrorists" and for the Kiev junta
to shoot at them. It now demands the protesters in the east all go home while tacitly supporting the continued occupation of the
Maidan.
Where does it think this absurdly confrontational and one-sided policy will end? Is this stupidity or policy or both?
Todorov – a supporter of Ukrainian statehood – said he was deeply pessimistic about his country's future. He said he doubted
presidential elections due to be held on 25 May would take place, at least not in the east. And in Kiev, he suggested, there was
a growing feeling that Ukraine would be better off dumping its troublesome eastern provinces and creating a modern European country
without them.
Igor Todorov, you know he is the professor of politics at Donetsk University who just happens to host NATO conferences on security
issues. Not an impartial source.
So are we really taking seriously the idea that Russian superspies killed two people to create a 'provocation' at a checkpoint?
If they were that desperate for a provocation, why not something more provocative, like killing civilians with a bomb or something?
It seems a bit desperate by the Kiev government, and rather hard to take seriously. They've produced plenty of bullshit before
like when they claimed to have captured loads of Russian saboteurs, it seems most likely this is the same. Wasnt't Tymoshenko
the other day boasting about her knowing Ukrainians ready to take on the separatists? Maybe these are some of hers.
And now we also have 'unconfirmed' reports of ethnic cleansing of Roma to go with the fake anti-semitic leaflet trumpted by
Yatsenyuk. And an extensive report in this article of one of Ukraine's supporters in the East with no apparent criticism of Kiev,
despite the fact that according to a Ukrainian poll apparently over 70% in the area regard the current Kiev government as illegitimate
and those who actually want to join Russia (very few according to this article) are according to the same poll, over a quarter
of the population in the area.
No, we're not taking it seriously. I don't know about some of the posters on here. I used to think that they were just naive,
but maybe it's me being naive by believing that. I'm starting to come round to the view that they must either be power whores
who get some kind of thrill from being (in their eyes) vicariously associated with US hegemonic ambitions, or they're simply mendacious
trolls. Because it's becoming utterly incredible that any sentient person could believe some of the nonsense they post.
Most important thing for the Eastern Ukrainians is their unity and integrity. As long as they have it they will win and will
get help. The West will try to break it, because it is the only way to defeat them.
There is not power in the world to defeat the real power of the people. Those federalists should be maintained very good relationship
with their people. They should be very careful of their discipline at work with the people too.
The reality looks more like Ukraine being split in two. I am not sure how that pans out in geopolitical terms, but it doesn't
look so good for the people of Ukraine, assuming members of families might live in both parts.
It is really insane of the Junta in Kiev to state that the Russians undertook this terrorist action against their own people.
C'mon, Fascists in Kiev, pull the other one its got bells on it.
Some improvement in reporting by the Guardian....at least they tried to independently meet the pro-Russian side, but were turned
away. The BBC didn't even try to do that, but accepts wholeheartedly that the Ukrainian government line that these were 'criminal
elements' and that the incident was probably staged by Russia. Meanwhile, over at RT, there are detailed reports, plus videos
showing the Right Sector paraphernalia and membership cards. So I'd have to say, if this is only Russian propaganda, RT is doing
a more credible job than Ukraine's government and John Kerry. There are apparently survivors from both sides, so why are they
not being interviewed? Hopefully, the OSCE will be able to talk to both sides, but that may be wishful thinking, since they say
they are underfunded and undermanned, er, underpeopled.
I believe the Ukraine government is unable to rein in Right Sector, even if they wanted to. At the moment, they are afraid of
them and need them. Indeed a few of the new government even belong to Right Sector, so why would they disarm them?
If the Russian version is true, at least these fellows were carrying identity documents, unlike the heroic Russian military
who remove their insignia, wear balaclavas and pretend to be "local defense forces."
I don't know that they were genuine 'terrorist thugs'. Looking at the kid from Vinnitsa that was captured, he looked to be
more like a not very bright specimen who'd got himself in way beyond his depth. Just a stupid pawn.
Never mind that no side is or was meeting their side of the deal before the shoot out. I expect the US will still try and blame
Russia for a deal despite not even their allies in Kiev fulfilling their side of the deal, people are still camping out in Maidan
Square, something the Guardian exempted from the article.
An international agreement to defuse the crisis in Ukraine was all but shredded on Sunday after a shootout in the separatist
town of Slavyansk in which three people were allegedly killed.
RT says the protesters ere unarmed and ambushed:
They approached with their high beam headlamps on. Our man went to them and asked not to blind us, show IDs and open the
trunk for inspection. Then an assault rifle got stuck out of the window and he was gunned down," an eyewitness, Vladimir, told
RT....He added some of the people trying to flee the attackers were shot in their backs.The checkpoint was in the control of 26
civilians armed with bats. Their lack of firearms was due to a so-called "Easter truce" announced by both the Kiev authorities
and the protest leaders to de-escalate tension.
The propaganda continues, this time with additional help from a Washington based "reporter" to make sure all the Empire's talking
points are covered.
Never will they use the word fascist to describe those huggable Ukrainian "nationalists" even when they're armed and parading
in SS regalia.
When conclusive proof is offered that "nationalists" attacked and killed "separatists" at a check point, it is blamed on Russia
for the sin of reporting it first.
One can only imagine what Orwell would write about the state of English media today if he were still around.
The Guardian isn't even going through the motions of pretending to be impartial anymore in their support for the US installed
Nazi regime in Kiev.
This Kiev's regime hardly controls anything even in Kiev itself...
The people were killed by Right Sector, and one of attackers was captured.
These Nazis are incredibly stupid:
1) Now ALL people in East and South Ukraine consider them (after this attack) as their enemies,
2) The US won't send its Army to Ukraine (because it doesn't want to be turned into radioctive ash), and wouldn't give them any
money as well (because they don't have any),
3) Russia will deal with these Nazis for good, when a proper time comes.
I just have to paste this riposte off a commenter before it goes down the black hole:
THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO SAVE, MR. HARDING
I guess the Ukrainian soldiers can not have been more demoralised than the writer of this piece. Perhaps it has rather been his
own mood, which guided his perception.
Soldiers are no killers, Mr. Harding, and it is highly satisfactory, that they acted responsible and did not kill civilians. No
reason for regret on the side of these soldiers. No defeat, rather a victory of reason and humanity, which they have been cheered
for by the crowds. Might they enjoy their day in the feeling of having done the right thing.
Indeed it is a defeat for the warmongering, bloodthirsty western MSM, which had loved to report the one or the other massacre,
if only they would have been able to endorse the victory of the fascist coup government. What a disappointed gesture: "Was victory
close?"
No, never, and it will not become closer, if more self contradictory texts of this kind will appear. What message could be delivered
by such helpless attempts to discredit the restive and federalist mood in Eastern Ukraine, – like assuring the public they were "Russian",
"Russian militia", "possibly drunk", "suspicious", "murky", "separatist", "linked with organised crime" and – of course – "took orders
from Moscow" – when in the end it has to be admitted, that …..
"This febrile anti-Kiev mood has acquired a momentum that increasingly seems unstoppable. A vocal section of the population appears
to support the protesters' key demand for a referendum on Ukraine's federalisation."
So whoever might be "Russian", "drunk", "murky" or "take orders from Moscow", the protesters, occupants and their armed protection
are obviously with the people, which alone is relevant for "dedicated western democrats", is not it, Mr. Harding.
• So why defaming them, when truth "seems unstoppable".
• Why dealing with the procedure of the appointment of a "peoples' governor", when his message is supported by hundreds of people
in every settlement, where Ukrainian military shows up, lining in front of the tanks. I do not know any 'democratically elected'
politician commanding a similar kind of legitimacy. Anyone just ask your MP to rally a few hundred supporters of his constituency
to block a tank column!
• Why not speak about their demands, which have been presented today, instead of all this futile attempts to discredit the movement
in Eastern Ukraine. Here are the questions for the planed referendum in Donetsk Oblast.
"1) Do you support the creation of an independent Donetsk Republic?
2) Of which state should a Donetsk Republic be part of: Ukraine or the Russian Federation?"
Is anything "undemocratic" or racist about them?
Not only have "Russian channels … consistently called Kiev's new rulers fascists", THEY ARE FASCISTS. The longer they rule, the
clearer it becomes, that this Junta does not only include fascists, but acts as a whole, including all its components, in a fascist
way.
Only yesterday…..
• ….. "Saint Yulia" announced here party is going to create an armed militia too.
• ….. security officials confirmed that vigilantes have been established in 19 provinces and been equipped with automatic weapons
to defend the country from "separatists".
• ….. Klitschko had asked for the prosecution of the presidential candidate Tsarev, who only recently has been heavily beaten
by a Right Sector mob, when trying to enter a TV building, and was hospitalized, …..
….and already today under the lead of a fascist prosecutor general Tsarev has been charged with "actions promoting changes within
the national borders". What vicious division of labour between the politician, the storm troops and legal prosecution?
The day is not far, when even Mr. Harding will have to admit, that the truth about the fascist character of the Western protégés
in Kiev "seems unstoppable".
As well as APCs, Ukraine has lost control of another crucial weapon in its losing battle with the Russian Federation: television.
On Tuesday the Donetsk prosecutor turned Russian state TV back on again, weeks after Kiev pulled the broadcasts on the grounds
they sowed lies and Kremlin propaganda. Since President Viktor Yanukovych fled in February Russian channels have consistently
called Kiev's new rulers "fascists".
In summary, Donetsk people get to watch their Russian soap operas again.
Wait a sec, did he just admit that mass media can be used as a weapon? Anyone else wonder why the Russians are experiencing
a sharp deficit of popcorn?
Moscow Exile, do you know whether Luke Harding speaks Russian? I ask because he seems to do very little interviewing and
those he interviews don't seem to be a representative sample of the people in whatever area he's reporting from. The comments
to the article, at least the ones I've read, reject the picture painted in western MSM which is very heartening. My favourite
was by StevieFinn: "I am waiting for MSM to accuse Putin of sending his mum to stop the first APV".
He does.
Like you, I too once suspected that he didn't speak Russian – or only had a very rudimentary knowledge of it. Others felt the
same way as well. It wasn't only because, as you have rightly observed, he does very little interviewing, but because there
were little linguistic giveaways in what he wrote as well.
He didn't seem to get place names right, for one thing (declension or non-declension thereof), and the Russian way of naming
people; he sometimes used patronymics as if they were surnames and diminutives when one wouldn't normally.
As regards diminutives, he seemed rather fond of Sasha (for Alexander and Alexandra). I remember how he once reported on
how awful life in the country was for pensioners. He went out of Moscow into what he thought were the sticks and found a suitable
run-down place and an old village drunkard called "Sasha", of course, who ranted on about how awful his life was and how meager
his pension.
There is no way you would address an old villager as "Sasha" and no way an old villager would allow himself to be addressed
so, either, to say nothing of the fact that his interlocutor was a foreign journalist. And even though calling such a person
as "Dyed" (granddad) would be allowed, there's no way a foreigner could or should be allowed to do this.
Anyway, there were a few that commented in Comment is Free about his apparently not knowing Russian, until Harding at last
bounced back and gave a link to an interview he'd done at Ekho Moskvy concerning his persecution in the Evil Empire and his
"expulsion" from Russia, which really was a short lived refusal of entry because of his own cocky negligence concerning his
documentation.
He spoke it right enough: in the same mumbling, bumbling way as he speaks his mother tongue, his posh English accent coming
through loudly and clearly. But he spoke it all right – or he had rehearsed his answers to the Ekho Moskvy questions that he
had already been informed would be asked of him.
I sometimes suspect that the whole "expulsion" thing was just PR for his book "Inside The Mafia State", in which, according
to the Amazon site, "Harding gives a unique, personal and compelling portrait of today's Russia, two decades after the end
of communism, that reads like a spy thriller".
However according to some of the readers' reviews on the same site, we have:
"... Although Luke Harding draws attention to real and important issues in Russia, he's also very focused on himself
and telling us which billionaires he met and what they ate at which restaurant … He frequently reminds us that he speaks Russian,
emphasizing this by including comments such as "he used the Russian word for deputy, zam". Why do we need to know that someone
speaking Russian used a random Russian word? … The impression left is that his main aim is to boast about being considered
a threat by the FSB …"
and:
"Luke Harding represents the epitome of hack journalism. And despite being an ad hominum attack, it is one based in fact.
An interesting thing happened on August 20 2007, when the daily he works for (the Guardian) was forced to apologize for Harding's
blatant plagiarism of a popular and well respected alternative weekly the Exile. The article in question was entitled 'The
richer they come', which serves as doubly ironic in Harding's case. Firstly, the Exile was actually targeted by the Russian
Federal Service for Mass Media, Telecommunications and the Protection of Cultural Heritage and shut down the following year.
Secondly, Harding's plagiarism of the Exile is less indicative of his dishonesty than it was an example of laziness on Harding's
part.
You see, Harding is of the trickle down school of foreign correspondents. That is to say, being an individual with a poor
grasp of Russian, he fed off of the regurgitated bits of news that had first passed through the Russian press, only to be translated
by the English language press operating in Russia. Harding was three steps removed from every story he wrote, so he became
a cut and paste warrior. That is to say, Harding needed Google to do his job, living in Russia was superfluous in real terms.
Except of course, for the re-fried turd of a book with its tabloidesque title and its megalomaniacal blurb about becoming an
enemy of the Russian state. In that sense, this book is a complete work of fiction. To save myself the effort of doing what
Richard de Lacy already brilliantly did in his article for Spiked-online entitled 'Face it, the FSB is just not that into you,"
I'll quote de Lacy at length to discuss the paranoid fantasy Harding engaged in:
'For example, one very common 'welcome to Russia' phenomenon which often does drive us expats mad (albeit usually only figuratively)
is returning to your rented flat to find that the landlady has charged in uninvited to nose about, rearrange something, theatrically
move the ashtray outside to the balcony, etc. Fortunately, mine always telephoned the day before to give advanced warning,
but I can sympathize with Harding when in 2007, after just three months in Russia, he came home to find someone had been in
his tenth-floor flat. His reaction, however, invites comment. `Everything appeared normal… And then I saw it. The window of
my son's bedroom was wide open… almost provocatively, defiantly so… The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's
bedroom was not hard to decipher: take care, or your kids might just fall out.'
So his first thought is not of some overly fastidious landlady wanting some air in her flat, but of a threat from the Federal
Security Service (FSB) to throw his children to their deaths. And why does he think the FSB, the KGB's successor organisation,
would be after him? Because his paper, the Guardian, had carried an interview earlier that year with Russian fugitive oligarch
Boris Berezovsky.
Thankfully, it was only Harding's grip on reality which went hurtling out of the window.
Soon after, he says, `a middle-aged woman, casually dressed and with – I noted – a rather bad 1970s-ish haircut, appeared
outside my front door at 7am. When I opened it, she just examined me and left.' Now most of us would assume it was a typically
brusque Russian lady looking for someone, and deciding against having a tricky early-morning conversation with an obvious foreigner.
But no, Harding is convinced it's the evil FSB.
Then, after – sorry, because of – the Guardian's Berezovsky scoop, Harding even believes he is being targeted at the airport
on his way to London. That is, a man slaps his shoulder and tells him there is something wrong with his jacket. This behaviour
is familiar to everyone living in Russia. Whether it is a shoelace undone, stitching falling apart, ladders in ladies' tights,
dust or dirt, the Russians cannot help pointing it out.
Harding, however, claims that the man's leather jacket is `the unmistakable uniform of the KGB spook'. In that dull, boring
real world that the rest of us inhabit, leather jackets are as common in Russia as Manchester United shirts are in Surrey.
But this is when Harding really loses the plot: `After takeoff, I made my way to the loo. I took off my jacket and shirt. There
was nothing on them. But then, I wouldn't actually know what a bugging device looked like, I reflected.' Well, as a former
radio engineer, I can help him here: it needs an aerial, a power source, and you cannot place it invisibly on a target by slapping
it on to their shoulder.
There is a lot more of this manic conspiracy theorizing in Harding's piece. When his screensaver at work is changed, it
is the FSB. When his press accreditation is withdrawn, it is part of the FSB plot – despite his admission that he had broken
the terms. When the Russians show leniency and extend his visa to enable his children to finish school, he reflects that this
`was always part of the (FSB) plan'. Like the BBC attributing all possible weather conditions to climate change, one wonders
what combination of events would not constitute an FSB plot.
One side-effect of Harding's paranoia seems to be an aversion to facts. He launches into a lengthy rant about the nature
and recent history of the FSB, but does not even know the name of the organisation behind his torment, calling them the Federal
Security Bureau instead of Service (FSB is a transliteration from Russian, with the B standing for Bezopasnosti, or security).
There are other inaccuracies in Harding's piece. He says Russia's media covered the 2008 war in South Ossetia as a `peacekeeping
operation' when in reality they covered it, incessantly, as a genocide of innocent Ossetians by Georgians. I am told Harding
does not know Russian, which could explain a lot of his confusions. Less forgivable is his claim that many subjects – `corruption
in the Kremlin, activities of Russia's intelligence agencies… human rights abuses by federal security forces… speculation about
Putin's personal wealth' – are taboo in the Russian media. He may not be aware that such issues are frequently covered in Russian,
but he should at least know that the state-owned English language newspaper, the Moscow News, regularly touches on these themes,
since his wife was a regular contributor to the paper."
All in all, this is what I will say about Harding, he is a second-rate writer who pretends to be a fifth-tier journalist.
He has no interest in reporting the facts, rather he wants to tell a story, especially if he can put himself at the center
of that story. He came to Russia, did zero real investigative journalism that could have shed a fractured beam of light on
this dark corner of the human experiment we call Russia, and then went home after a few years to sell snake oil and wolf tickets
in the form of a spy thriller that he never lived. In fact, in a February 22 2012 article called 'Confessions of a KGB Spy',
Harding finishes as such:
"We part in Hyde Park. No one appears to have been tailing us. There are no figures skulking behind the trees. But I find
myself glancing over my shoulder, just in case."
Harding is turning the mundane into the strange through the power of his imagination. If this is your idea of journalism,
God be with you. But to those who have something new to say without egotistically putting themselves at the center of a paranoid
fairytale, Mafia state is little more than a pathetic joke on the reader. Harding doesn't deserve to make a cent off of this
thing, unless he rightly moves it to where it belongs: the fiction section.'"
Next:
"Similar to works by other 'experts' that lack language skills and base their polemics not on balanced and weighted analyses
that one, hopefully, is taught at graduate schools, but on personal biases, petty vendettas, and identity politics, all of
which are oozing through the pages the book. Journalism has rarely addressed the historical complexities, the socioeconomic
and political challenges faced by leaders. This book does not even attempt to break the stereotype, but is permeated by it.
A sordid attempt to make money off of gullible western audience brought up on foreign bogeymen, WMD, al-Qaeda freedom fighters,
and the like."
a constant theme spouting from Russian sources has been the Ukrainian revolution's alliance with "fascists" – a vague word that's
become a catchall for anti-Semites, terrorists, insurgents, anarchists and thugs.
Though there were nationalists and far-right nationalists among Kiev's protesters, and there are some in the new interim government,
there decidedly weren't and aren't many – if any – bona fide fascists. This line has been both taken up and debunked (thoroughly),
but any discussion of fascists at all is a Kremlin win.
... ... ...
Fear of fascists goes a long way in Ukraine, which suffered in the second world war. By definition, fear ("Fascists are coming
for your family!") and confusion ("Fascists? Are there fascists? What's a fascist?") matters much more in propaganda than truth (not
so many fascists). It doesn't have to make sense – in fact it's better if it doesn't.
... ... ...
Putin has also insisted that Yanukovych's ouster was not just illegal but a coup, and he has pointed fingers at the west for
orchestrating and backing the culprits. Again, slivers of truth work in Putin's favor: Kiev's parliament removed Yanukovych
on constitutionally murky grounds, though everyone else has now accepted them; because Senator John McCain and European leaders visited
Kiev, it looks like the west really did back those obstreperous radicals.
... ... ...
Skewed facts, half-truths, misinformation and rumors all work in the propagandist's favor. By playing up a law that would diminish
the Russian language's official status, Kiev looks like it's persecuting Russian speakers (though the vetoed bill does not ban Russian).
... ... ...
The one thing the Kremlin loves more than misinformation is when the western media pushes oversimplified stories. The
idea that Ukraine is evenly split between a pro-European west and a pro-Russian east actually fits with Putin's preferred version
of events; saying there's any "one map" you need to understand Ukraine's crisis" risks unwittingly spreading the Kremlin's story.
Peter Pomerantsev explains:
The big winner from the conceptual division of Ukraine into 'Russian' and 'Ukrainian' spheres may well be the Kremlin. The
idea that Russia is a separate political and spiritual civilisation, one which is a priori undemocratic, suits the Kremlin as
it looks to cut and paste together an excuse to validate its growing authoritarianism. So every time a commentator defines the
battle in Kiev as Russian language v Ukrainian, a Kremlin spin doctor gets in another round of drinks.
4. Bend the rules
... In short, it forces others – like Merkel or US secretary of state John Kerry – into engaging in a sparring match in which
no rules exist that can't be bent or broken. The more boundaries Putin pushes and lines he crosses, the more the west will accept
a more extreme version of "normal".
5. Follow your script
By spreading talk of fascists, of gangs of unknown armed men, of coups and self-determination and persecution – while sending
armed men into Ukraine, egging on real and staged protests, bribing politicians and blocking the media – the Kremlin is enacting
and realizing its propaganda on the ground. The Ukrainian government and military has shown remarkable restraint in not falling for
the ploy, but Putin appears prepared to increase the pressure, especially as protester clashes grow more violent.
James Meek sums up the motives:
The revolution on Maidan … is the closest yet to a script for [Putin's] own downfall. In that sense the invasion is a counter-revolution
by Putin and his government against Russians and Ukrainians alike.
Timothy Snyder explains the goal:
Propaganda is thus not a flawed description [of reality[, but a script for action … the invasion of Crimea was not
a reaction to an actual threat, but rather an attempt to activate a threat so that violence would … change the world.
Selected Comments
Thomas Wengraf
Brilliant propaganda move by the 'West' journalists in the USA. Can they do a similar one on the propaganda move by the West.
Yes, of course they could. Will they? Not a chance!! Would the Guardian publish it? Very very unlikely.
hashlnx
Yeah, great job. You should also publish something like "How western propaganda push works."
Hypocrites
IrascibleOldGit
Lying to your own people never works. We've seen it many times before - Argentina claiming that the British aircraft carriers
had been sunk even as Harriers swarmed over Stanley, the Serbs appropriating the swastika to demonise Nato, Chemical Ali blithely
declaring that the Yanks were defeated while Allied tanks rolled into downtown Baghdad.
Putin is merely toying with the rope that will eventually hang him.
TruthIsPrivelege IrascibleOldGit
It is real funny.
Take a look into Kiev and take a look on Crimea..
Kiev - violence, beatings of people on streets, looting even banks..about 80 dead officially, God knows how many were murdered
in reality..Nazi gangs looted army stocks and ruining around with automatic army rifles..
Hundreds wounded - police officers.., people, intimidation is a norm of life.
Sending zonder commandos to Russian cities which refused to bow to unconstitutional coup to intimidate them and Force to accept
unlawful take over of power..
Crimea - No one shot, No one wounded, No one intimidated, No one robbed, No one looted.
People are safe, People are happy that got away from "democratic" "government" in Kiev.
You are delusional at best - open yourself to Real Life.
happytolive
A mountain of lies which carries a history of bloodshed and plunder, with the power of apocalyptic proportions is acting against
the people in Ukraine and Crimea. Unfavoured minorities are the first in danger. Ukrainians have been given the option to sell
out their country to multinational "investors" and its people as an army of cheap labourers spread across an already bankrupt
Europe. Those charlatans who were dreaming of gaining power are now in that position making a fool of themselves. The empire needs
them to act as political pimps who can facilitate the sell-off in return for temporarily obtaining a position in the government.
The empire calls the result of the vote illegal. Legality has always been defined by the rules and terms set by the powerful.
They made many countries out of Yugoslavia through wars and votes. All were called the victory of the people. Now the vote of
Crimea becomes illegal. For the same reasons the elected Palestinian group Hamas was called illegal and terrorist and again for
the same reasons many elected presidents were removed from power through a covert operation supported by the empire. And recently
the same operation managed to remove the elected president of Ukraine, which is the main reason why Crimea was forced to go to
the polls.
Passionate in resistance and willing to seek unity with their fellow citizens; that is what Crimeans showed during the election
and that is the key to their victory. People acting is the real power, it is so huge and beautiful. And that is the heart of the
matter. If Russia and Crimea want to sustain their victory they must mobilise their people, in the streets and their workplace
and this is what the west is not able to do. A united people cannot be defeated. The west's favourable fighting ground is away
from the public locked in with their corrupt executives, they have lost their place amongst their people.
irishinrussia
For God's sake, talk about rank hypocrisy, the Guardian, aka Maidanskay Pravda accuses the Kremlin of Propaganda. From an earlier
post of mine;
Words used in connection to Russia, Putin and pro-Russians by Sky News, France 24 and the Guardian - "rambling speech", "Russian
propaganda" "sinister troops without insignias" "militants" "extremists" "Russians are sharply divided" "Crimea/South/East are
divided, not everyone supports the Russians" "threats to gas supplies" "Putin has lost the plot" "ominous" "provocation" "provocateurs"
"Russian pressure" "violent" "separatists" "brutal"
Language used with regards to new Ukrainian Government/West - "peaceful demonstrators" "revolutionaries" "legitimate" "moderate"
"civilians" "unarmed" "victims" "heroes" "democratic" "respect for human rights" "diplomatic" "innocent" "popular"
irishinrussia
Russia Today had one journalist rail against the Kremlin's actions and another resign in protest - sounds to me like RT is
employing people with more integrity and independence of thought than the Guardian. Who'd have expected that?
The Kremlin's propaganda organ has more balance in its recruitment than the "independent" "free" Guardian and other Western
Media, my God, just take a look at France 24 coverage if you want to see blatantly biased and slanted reporting.
Laserlurk
You forgot an innovation in psy-ops all together.
Invisible troops, no drop of blood, nobody dies in quiet protective posture invasion.
And Western media is shocked. Where is our plane, guns, fire, hi-tech weapons, dead children and such? Scary indeed.
greatwhitehunter
hey I have just read a fine piece of propoganda in this article.
I watched 60 minutes last night more propoganda. Looked at the video on this sight re klitchko describing him as opposition
leader , he is the leader of nothing.Kitchko and the chocolate king are the acceptable face of the revolution because they appear
honest and dedicated to their cause but the reality is the are not in USA plans or anyones plans for the future of Ukraine. If
the protesters had of stuck to the agreement brooker by theese two and others ukraine would still be in possesion of crimea. Why
dont the gardian focus on the radical elements with in the protesters(I include usa in this) that hijacked the revolution and
destroyed what could have been a beautiful . Instead they have destroyed their own country
Caroline Louise
So I get it. The Russians do propaganda but we in the west just tell the truth.
Which I guess means the Iraqis really did throw infants out of incubators and really did have WMDs. The Gulf of Tonkin wasn't
a lie and Germans bayonetted babies in 1914.
And of course even thinking that Svoboda (whose founder admires Josef Goebbels), is a fascist party is playing Putin's game
for him.
Yup that all seems pretty clear. Thanks for the informed and nuanced view. Thank God we aren't getting fed that dumbed down
simplistic propaganda, hey?
hashlnx
More interestingly is that western media seems to approve sanctions against Russia and whatever state is the target. Ppl forget
that sanctions harm not the goverment. Putin is already very rich just like Obama, the ones who is are going to suffer are civilians
- the same ones western is now trying to make starve to death. Very good one for the Nobel peace prize (he won that for not being
Bush actually) and Merkel, her puppet in EU is just following the same path issue sanctions against Russia and forgets that Russia
can also issue sanctions againt the continent which is just leaving recession. Vey very very 'smart'
FranklyS obsteve
"Can we hear more about the West's "Propagandist's Playbook"? Or am Ito believe we don't have one?"
Just keep reading the Guardian and you'll get a birds-eye view of the playbook. This media organ pretends to be objective
albeit slightly left of centre, yet emits Neocon propaganda relentlessly. Should we laugh or cry?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element
in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is
the true ruling power of our country."-Edward Bernays, Propaganda
ElvisInWales
UK propaganda in regards to Syria.
1. Suppress news of AL-Qaeda operating inside Syria ignore all sources of information that verifies a large number of Al-qaeda
and other extremist groups operating inside Syria.
2. When it is overwhelming obvious that #1 has failed, explain that the majority of moderate rebels are only pretending to
be extremist.
3. Describe child soldiers as "little helpers"
4. Blame Assad for absolute everything and ignore evidence in regards to who actually fired CW's in Ghouta.
5. Demonise the Russians but not the Chinese whom also vetoed UNSC resolutions, its not their turn yet!
I could go on and on but I think everyone knows that our MSM is not in any position whatsoever to talk about Russian propaganda.
"little helpers" ffs how fucking sick is that!
someoneionceknew ElvisInWales
One of the authors of this little piece, Raya Jalabi, also did a particularly slimy hit job on the Syrian nun who was trying
to get the real story out.
Victor Chan
Right, one propaganda demystifies the other..heheheh
If there are no extremists, right wingers, neo Nazi running the interim govt, why the country is so divided throughout its
history. Its complex history with Russia. The West would like to have us believe that all Ukrainians have been living in harmony
and peace. In reality, there is a deep divide. This divide is so deep some Ukrainians would be wiling to die fighting against
the Russians.
RedMangos
The guardian itself as been doing some annexing itself, in it's clandestine way.
It's been busy annexing the United Kingdom into it's Soft- Atlanticism.
Using it's soft power to devastating effect in Libya, this method failed miserably in Syria, now it's determined not to fail
again with this wall to wall anti Russian coverage.
Is the back stage, privileged access to the Oscars and beyonce exclusives worth this shameless behaviour?
Khurram Khalid
If someone can find a difference between what the Western mainstream politicians and media are saying on Ukrainian crisis,
I will be grateful to him/her. Their self-righotusness even exceeds that of the religious fundamentalists from the lest developed
societies. They all are unanimous to safeguard Western interests under the pretext of ''international law, freedom and democracy''
not by deploying diplomatic means but by using threats, carrying out unscrupulous propaganda, imposting sanctions, overthrowing
governments, and inflicting wars.
Albert Lyubarsky
I live in Israel now. I was born in Donetzk. Propaganda or not, there is antisemitism in Ukraine. Very deep, congenital, non
rational hatered of Jews. I don't need Putin's propaganda to knew it.
The second issue: try to ask vast majority of Eastern Ukrainian people if they want to live in Ukraine. It is very easy for
you to judge what's good and what's bad, but you never where there.
Really I don't need Putin to tell me what I want. Russian culture, history, language is in my blood since I was a child ( as
well as for millions of people from Eastern part of Ukraine)
Bogdanich Albert Lyubarsky
Personally I do not see how pointing out another countries steadfast rejection of the universality of law and their opinion
that whatever they do is correct merely because they did it constitutes propaganda.
The rejection of universality and the belief that an action is correct and "legitimate" merely because they undertook it
is the hallmark of US "diplomacy." The examples are too numerous to cite but with respect to Crimea, Kosovo is right on point
as is the US orchestrated overthrow of the Ukrainian government and the installation of the Right Sector fanatics in the new government.
When we do it in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, not to mention Iraq where we used force, Russia chose not to do too much about
it. However when we tried it in Ukraine they said enough. I don't see what's illegitimate or propagandist about that position.
But then I am a person who believes in the supremacy of law and most Americans and certainly all American leaders do not.
Colin Ball
It is funny because a lot of the people here who are passionately agreeing with the author and re-stating how much propaganda
Russia distributes have never lived in Russia, nor do they have any friends or family there. They form their anti-Russian opinions
solely on the basis of what they have seen and heard ....
........... in western propaganda.
gloriousrevolution
As a piece of propaganda, no, sorry, as a piece about Russian propaganda, it fails because the balance is wrong. It's too obvious
and hits the easy targets.
If one had conceded at the beginning that the west has employed propaganda as well, and given some examples, and then gone
after the Russian's propaganda this would then have appeared far fairer and therefore believable and authentic.
Instead it's rather amateur and one-sided, whitewashing bar far the largest group inside the regime in Kiev, who resemble
the BNP, but not wholely successfully. If one is going to write propaganda one really does need to understand how it works.
" Mark Twain is credited with the phrase: Wars happen so that Americans can learn geography. Amazes me that many people on the (
American ) television could not pronounce the word" Crimea " , not to find it on the map. It's depressing ," - said a retired diplomat
John Evans, who in the 80s served as deputy chief of the Soviet Division in the State Department and was later Consul General in
St. Petersburg and then the ambassador to Armenia. According to Evans , an example of the mentality of the Cold War , he met in the
transfer of National Public Radio - one of the most respected media in the U.S. , where Russia was called " the Soviets ."
Recent ratings of news sites show that the public interest in the events in Ukraine decreased significantly. However , the overall
network activity remained at the same level - social networking, surfing, movies, games. Why ?
First, people are tired of politics. At least, in the form in which it exists from us. The same " talking heads " who repeat the
same , often frankly delusional messages, and thus the complete absence of any real designed for the benefit of society actions.
Secondly, news, paradoxically, have lost novelty . Why should I watch the news, if I already know that, for example, Yatsenyuk
beg for money today yet another rich country. They promised, and that's it ? Why the umpteenth time to read gossip about the nonexistent
war with Russia, the theme that might well become boring even to Americans, not to mention the Ukrainians. Radicals again robbed
and killed someone, but again acquitted and released. And that the Security Service of Ukraine again caught yet another bunch of
"pro-Russian activists."
You see, I did not open a single Internet news portal, but I know almoat all today's new from Ukraine.
And third, most important is that the majority of news portals of Ukraine become dull branches of this propaganda machine, competing
with dull encopmpassing and humiliating propaganda from TV.
Goverment is lieing, politicians lie, this f*n lying TV in below any comparison, and now most of the online editions try to compete
in the same old art. And the people are not fools they see the blatant discrepances between propaganda and reality, which they face
every day. And they begins to ignore MSM.
Yesterday my colleague journalist questioned a couple of dozen of Kievites about is a news for them. Fifteen people, with whom
he spoke, could not articulate a response. "Ukraine is f**en killed with fake new" - said one man with Khreschatyk .
Now temporary to "resurrect" interest in the news you need to report about the murder may be God forbid, the war with Russia.
There is a serious desire for the truthful presentation of news in society. People are teied of all this streams of lies and propaganda
from MSM.
Stuffy, pompous New York Times columnist forever Thomas Friedman begins his most recent offering – reprinted in the Kyiv Post,
where I saw it – thus: "One thing I learned covering the Middle East for many years is that there is "the morning after" and there
is "the morning after the morning after." Never confuse the two."
Generally speaking, if you are going to tell porkie pies ("lies", in the rhyming cockney slang which lends its name to The Porkie
Pies News Network, Kremlin Stooge slang for the mainstream media) in your opinion piece, doing so in the first four words of it is
starting a little early. Typically, you want to soften up your audience a bit before you trot out the whoppers. So, make yourself
comfortable – coffee? Tea, anyone? – while I demonstrate that in reality, Thomas Friedman has learned nothing at all.
Really, I would have been happy with just leaving a comment on "Putin and the Laws of Gravity", but the New York Times cuts off
commentary ridiculously early, so if you didn't see the piece come out (it's dated yesterday, or what was yesterday when I began
this post) chances are good that comments will be closed before you get the chance to make your own opinion known. So, that's why
we're going this route, which is all to the good because now I will get to hear your opinions as well.
Anyway, Thomas Friedman has the dubious honour of having a unit of time named after him - a "Friedman", which represents six months.
This unit got its name from his repeated assurances in his NYT columns that "the next six months" would surely see the United States
turning the corner in Iraq; the occupation which ground on and on like an Yngwie Malmsteen guitar solo would at last bear fruit,
the resistance and sectarian strife would subside and Iraq would settle down to becoming a prosperous, western-oriented market democracy.
Moscow Exile, April 5, 2014
The other day I unfortunately chanced upon a bloody awful US TV show called "Judge Jeanine" or whatever, in which the aforesaid
shill has a "Brit" – a former military pilot no less, "former adviser to the UK defense ministry" Michael Kay – educating the
US masses, or at least that part of it that is glued to this show, as regards Ukrainian history, something about which Kay apparently
needs to do a little more research.
In the clip below, Kay kicks off at 5:14.
He then states at 05.55 that the Crimea was "handed back to Ukraine in '56 by Khryshchev" [in '54 as a matter of fact, old
boy, and it wasn't "handed back" to anyone]; at 06:45 he says "what we know is that he has positioned a lot of troops on that
border". [Evidence?]
At 07:06 his interlocutor asks "Why put 80,000 troops here?" to which ex-pilot officer Kay replies "Ukraine don't have the
forces to fight Obama". [Letting your side down, aren't you old chap, talking like a prole in that way, not to mention your confusion
over the names of the protaganists?]
Jeanine then says at 07:46: "I mean, the Russian economy is nowhere near the United States' economy…" , to which Kay responds:
"That's a brilliant point…" [why is it "brilliant"?], before launching into a condemnation of what he believes is the present
parlous state of the Evil Empire's economy.
At 08:58 Kay states that "Belorus is a partner of Russia".
Yep, Lukashenko and Putin: veritable Twins of Evil.
yalensis, April 5, 2014 at 2:56 am
Technical glitch:
At 3:00 in, this pretty, but strident, lady sets up for the clip in which Obama sniffingly calls Russia a mere "regional power",
but then ends up showing the wrong clip, in which Obama sniffingly remarks that Russia is "on the wrong side of history"…
"Really?" she crows. "Just a regional power?"
A few seconds later, she is talking about the space station, and how Americans rely on the Russkies to get them up and down
safely. She cues the clip, and this Obama is sniffingly dissing Russia as "a mere regional power".
"You know," she resumes, "YOU [Obama] are the one who is on the wrong side of history."
This nice lady needs to have a serious conversation with her Technical Director, because her clips are not in synch with her
monologue! Egads!
marknesop, April 5, 2014 at 11:15 am
Sorry, I couldn't make it all the way through the "opening statement". While Obama "brags about reducing America's military",
Putin has "increased Russia's military by 79%"!!! Obama's failure to maintain sanctions on Iran "allowed them to continue their
nuclear buildup". Russia has "80,000″ soldiers on Ukraine's border (still inside Russia, and the number is totally fabricated
– much like the Russian liberal protest crowds, where they automatically double whatever more authoritative sources say).
This is Rupert Murdoch's FOX News, a hard-right conservative "News Service" that panders to the low-information American
voter who relishes being alternately scared and exalted by his government. They do simply make things up, and have occasionally
gone so far as to reverse the political affiliation of Republicans when they have done something terrible, as they did when they
deliberately misrepresented gay Republican sexual predator Mark Foley as a Democrat. Quite a few of their chinless-wonder regular
viewers must have hoisted it right in, because they did it again with disgraced Republican congressman from South Carolina Mark
Sandford when he tearfully admitted to an extramarital affair.
Old Rupert looks like he is about to coofer any day now, and has begun gradually bringing his sons Lachlan and James into the
top slots – the former as co-Chairman (with no executive powers) and the latter as co-Chief Operating Officer. You will remember
James as the chap who was implicated when Murdoch's News Of The World hacked the cellphone account of a murdered British teenager,
hoping for a "scoop" but leading her parents to hope that she might still be alive when they learned her messages had been checked.
However, the quality intervened on behalf of its own, and Lord Justice Leveson found that the Murdochs had been kept "completely
in the dark" by non-Murdoch executives.
yalensis, April 5, 2014 at 4:02 pm
I just find these "Fox" people hysterically funny.
The video clips don't synchronize with the dialogue.
The women are all good-looking but shrill and opinionated.
The men speak intensely, as if they think they are onto something important, but it's all nonsense, because they have no idea
what they are talking about.
It's like watching monkeys trying to solve quadratic equations!
Fern, April 5, 2014 at 5:47 pm
I was browsing around youtube the other day and came across a Fox News clip from 2008 – an interview with a young girl and
her aunt who'd had the misfortune to be visiting family in South Ossetia when it was attacked by Georgia. It's pretty clear that
the anchor thought that the two would be telling horror stories of 'Russian aggression' and was clearly stupefied when the young
girl said "we want to make it crystal clear to viewers that these were Georgian bombs – the Russians were trying to help us."
He was even more unlucky with the aunt who weighed in with statistics on the numbers of civilians killed and the numbers displaced
by the Georgian actions.
He cut to a commercial break with the words "there's a lot of grey areas in these things".
Muzychko was a member of the hardline Right Sector and the group's co-ordinator for western Ukraine, the country's nationalist
heartland bordering the EU. Police said he was wanted for hooliganism and an attack on a local prosecutor.
Russia, which cited the likes of Right Sector as justification for its move to annex Crimea and protect the peninsula's ethnic
Russian majority from Ukrainian "fascists", said this month that Muzychko was under investigation for fighting alongside rebels in
Chechnya in the 1990s.
Contradicting the police account, the independent MP Oleksander Doniy said on his Facebook page that Muzychko had been executed.
Muzychko had previously said he feared the police would kill him.
"Two vehicles cut off his car. He was dragged out and put in one of them. Then he was thrown on the ground, hands cuffed behind
his back, two shots to the heart," Doniy wrote, without saying where he got his information.
Yanukovych triggered peaceful street protests in late November by making a U-turn away from the EU and towards closer ties with
Russia. Right Sector raised the protests to a new level in January by attacking police vehicles with petrol bombs and bricks. It
provided much of the muscle as clashes with police grew more serious.
Yanukovych fled in February after two days of gun battles between police and protesters in which 95 people were killed.
The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh has said he plans to run for president in elections on 25 May, but he is a rank outsider.
DrHfuhruhrr
At last some reporting on the fascists who led the coup against Yanukovych and whose parties now hold many of the key ministerial
appointments in the government in Kiev.
DrHfuhruhrr
Maybe the reports of "protestors" shooting at police during the insurrection are not so incredible now?
Jeremn Gabacho
this for how propaganda works its subtle way, specifically on recent reporting on Ukraine:
Makes me wonder what the agenda really is, and who is coordinating with whom. I wouldn't be surprised if the disasterous leak
of the Danish Text during the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit was actually coordinated between the US Administration and certain
liberal media. Which begs the question: Why would the liberal press go out of its way to torpedo agreement on saving the planet
from the negative effects of climate change?
Strober
Yes, Guardian, you should have been reporting on these right wing groups a few months ago, at the very least. But, as your
great columnist Luke Harding wrote last week, these right wingers are just a figment of Putin's imagination.
In Greece, they made moves to ban the right wing 'Golden Dawn' because the party did not fit European ideals. So why is the
EU supporting a government in Ukraine with close connections to Svoboda and Pravoi Sektor, two fascist groups? I'd wager that
Poland and the US gave a bit more than moral support to these groups.
jgbg Strober
In Greece, they made moves to ban the right wing 'Golden Dawn' because the party did not fit European ideals. So why is
the EU supporting a government in Ukraine with close connections to Svoboda and Pravoi Sektor, two fascist groups?
In December 2012, the European parliament passed a resolution on this very topic. They deplored the rise of the extreme
right in Ukraine and stated that parties such as Svoboda should play no part in government, explaining that the policies of these
parties were at odds with core values and principles of the EU.
Only 15 months later, it seems that EU politicians across the board are happy to ditch their principles when it comes to Ukraine.
adognow
Aww, look at the Orweillian doublespeak on display again.
Far right "activist"?
Are you kidding me?
Oleksander Muzychko went to Chechnya to fight together with Saudi-funded Islamic terrorists and was responsible for the torture-murder
of 20 captured Russian soldiers.
Now, this reminds me of Omar Khadr, the 15 year old Afghan kid who threw a grenade at invading US soldiers and killed one of
them. Khadr was subsequently detained (at 15 years old) and sent to Guantanamo bay and he was branded a terrorist by the media.
So, does this mean that one man's terrorist is another man's activist?
The media sure is cynical.
Lucas Czarnecki adognow
How dare you call this spontaneous freedom fighter names ? You'll be banned from the EU and USA in no time !
jonni7 adognow
Yeah, what has The Guardian become?
Can't wait for the "Guardian backed wrong horse shock" headline, but I won't hold my breath
Jeremn
"A prominent Ukrainian far-right activist, part of a hardline nationalist movement that played a leading role in the overthrow
of President Viktor Yanukovych, has been shot dead by police."
Hang on, I thought the narrative was that there were no far-right groups involved in the coup?
Hey, shhhh! Don't give the plebs any cause to question the Media line on all these fluffy humanitarians running around Kiev
with guns and sticks, assaulting TV station chiefs and prosecutors! Clearly as the Revolution eats itself we have to take a side,
and that means when our corrupt moderate boys in Kiev are dealing with them these guys are far right radicals. When the Russians,
Eastern and Southern Ukrainians are dealing with them they are freedom loving democratic revolutionaries. So shh now and remeber
to stay on message, like Luke, where the message can volte face 1984 like as and when political propaganda expediency demands.
Jeremn irishinrussia
That's right. Videos of children being taught to sing "hang the Russians" only exist in the Russian imagination:
How long before we get an article from Luke altering the narrative to claim that "sources" have informed him it was actually
a Russian provocation, as a combined force of OMOH special forces and sacked Berkut were actually responsible, and are now roaming
Ukraine hunting for other "Heroes of Maidan"?
Chenoa irishinrussia
"How long before we get an article from Luke altering the narrative to claim that "sources" have informed him it was actually
a Russian provocation, as a combined force of OMOH special forces and sacked Berkut were actually responsible, and are now roaming
Ukraine hunting for other "Heroes of Maidan"?"
Good question.
Zenotaph
Hey Luke, one of your peaceful pro-democracy activist had just been liquidated. Can you please do the obits? Thanks.
Christopher Atwood dvdmartin
The far right in Ukraine isn't popular. They are respected for helping the protesters at Maidan fend off the police, but they
have no really influence politically, other than over some uneducated and rebellious young people.
Source: I lived in Donetsk for two years and visited earlier this month.
JimmySands Christopher Atwood
Source: I lived in Donetsk for two years and visited earlier this month.
That's all very well, but there are people here who read counterpunch and know the real truth.
JimmySands Christopher Atwood
Source: I lived in Donetsk for two years and visited earlier this month.
That's all very well, but there are people here who read counterpunch and know the real truth.
VladimirM
'A prominent Ukrainian far-right activist, part of a hardline nationalist movement that played a leading role in the overthrow
of President Viktor Yanukovych...'
Not the peaceful protesters anymore, those who played leading role? And Yanukovich was overthrown, not 'impeached legally'?
vazelas99 VladimirM
It's the Reuters text, apparently...don't get carried away yet!
VladimirM vazelas99
But it's in the Guardian anyway, unbelievable!
VladimirM
'Right Sector raised the protests to a new level in January by attacking police vehicles with petrol bombs and bricks.'
Berkut was not to blame for the outburst of violence?
MartynInEurope
Ukrainian far-right activist shot dead by police
Activist?
Is The Graun in a race to the bottom with Stormfront now?
terziev
far-right activist
Just a month ago these were called "peaceful protesters"! It is not Muzychko who died, it is the journalism. Actually it
was killed in February, now they are desecrating the corpse. It is such a shame there are no articles from Walker on the
snipers in Kiev, especially when the Kiev regime is getting rid of the evidences.
Purbachal
Why most of the "western " journalists from the free press do not write anything about the activities of the "right sector"
, "Svoboda" or other extreme right nationalist fractions, who are worse than BNP or EDL?
In fact these people turn the peaceful protest in Kiev's Maidan, in to a violent bloody battle by attacking and killing police
who were doing ther public duty. In any civilised country it would have been considered as crime but in Kiev they are the revolutionaries.
But why?
I am sure Cameron, Hague, Clegg would not agree to rule our country with BNP and EDL. Why then supporting the new Kiev regime
who are in coalition with "Right sector", Svoboda and the Nazi followers like Banderas supporters?
Well, now after Ms. Wahl has spat in the face of the network that made her, let's see where she next works. There's CNN, CNBC,
FoxNews, the (state-owned) BBC, and many other worthy news agencies with untarnished reputation, which have never engaged in low
propaganda, and have never cheered "military interventions."
Perhaps Ms. Wahl will also care to explain exactly how she expected an overtly Russian institution to fail to support the exceedingly
popular current Russian regime; how exactly pro-Russian media is supposed to respond to the insane bashing coming from the Western
"fifth estate"; and also how much she was paid for her services.
Because Ms. Wahl's behavior illustrates why the word "presstitute" is becoming a part of the English language.
By the way, if the major US networks happen to have hired an anchor who is a Russian citizen and patriot whose father defended
his nation's flag in Chechnya or in Afghanistan, please post that anchor's name.
The recent on-air resignation by former RT news anchor Liz Wahl was just the latest stunt orchestrated by a neo-conservative
think tank, according to a new investigative report shedding light on the group's role in an ongoing Cold War revival campaign.
An extensive
account of the days and minutes leading up to Wahl's remarks and public denunciation of "propaganda" tactics during her news
segment on March 5 by authors Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek via truthdig has revealed connections with the little known neoconservative
think-tank Foreign Policy Initiative.
FPI was founded in 2009 by a group of high-profile neo-conservative figures, including Robert Kagan and William Kristol, founder
of the Weekly Standard, who themselves were cofounders of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) -- an organization that
played a key role in advocating for the US invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration following the 9/11 terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda.
According to the authors, as well as evidence readily available online via the group's Twitter feed, FPI was privy to what would
take place at RT on-air that day.
Just twenty minutes prior to Wahl's last appearance on RT, FPI announced that "something big" would be "going down"
on RT, and directed followers to RT's live web feed.
The ensuing tweet-storm linking to RT's live web feed read like a countdown to a very well coordinated event which culminated
in Wahl's much publicized on-air resignation.
Just over an hour later, an exclusive
interview with Wahl was posted to The Daily Beast, authored by James Kirchick, a 31-year-old writer who had appeared regularly
on the pages of conservative publications such as Commentary and the Weekly Standard.
As the truthdig report points out, Kirchick, a senior fellow with FPI, considered by most beltway insiders as a rebrand of PNAC,
had been in contact with Wahl since last August.
But while Kirchick himself appears to be more of neo-con waterboy, the FPI has a deep bench when it comes to Washington insiders
at the heart of the current crisis in Ukraine.
It turns out that the husband of Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, is none other than Robert Kagan. Kagan not only
serves on the FPI Board of Directors, but was also John McCain's foreign
policy advisor during the Arizona senator's failed 2008 presidential bid. McCain, known for his harsh anti-Russian rhetoric,
appeared alongside Ukrainian opposition leaders in December, including
far right nationalist Oleh Tyahnybog.
The very same week McCain was meeting with Ukraine's opposition, Nuland was on Independence Square, the epicenter of the Kiev
protests, handing out cakes to protesters and riot police. The diplomat, however, sparked a media frenzy for a far less saccharine
gesture.
While discussing the situation on the ground with US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland criticized Europe's more cautious
Ukrainian policy with her now infamous "F*** the EU" remark. The US
State Department said at the time that if if Moscow had been responsible for recording and disseminating the conversation, it was
"a new low in Russian tradecraft".
"F*** with the Russians"
Kirchick, who has taken a less than amicable approach to Russia himself, had himself appeared on RT after accepting an invitation
to participate in a panel and discuss his recent op-ed calling for Bradley Manning's execution.
The panel was derailed when Kirchick took the opportunity to denounce recent "gay propaganda" laws ratified by Russia's government.
As Khalek and Blumenthal write, moments after the uncomfortable appearance Kirchick had removed his microphone and remarked "I only
go on that station to f*** with the Russians."
Several days after Wahl's resignation, after she appeared on a number of networks, Kirchick camped out outside of RT's DC studios,
apparently on a self-assigned mission to "find out more about RT."
Kirchick, after befuddling random office workers with questions on Pussy Riot, was approached by building security, who eventually
contacted local police. Though the resulting piece posted by Kirchick for the Daily Beast had denounced "the wannabe thugs" at RT's
DC headquarters who had contacted police, the piece was later quietly updated to clarify that it had been building security who had
contacted authorities, not RT staff members.
Beyond the extensive analysis of FPI and James Kirchick's political purpose, the investigation also delved into Wahl's tenure
at RT. Six employees were contacted by the authors, all of whom professed "qualms with the network's coverage of Russia-related
issues," though they also portrayed Wahl, who had previously been demoted from anchor to correspondent and suspended without
pay, as "apolitical and without any clear principles."
"Wahl expressed her outrage at co-workers, often berating them, according to her former colleagues, and by 'screaming' at
management," write Blumenthal and Khalek.
Other interviewed employees professed knowledge of Wahl's association with Kirchick.
[Kirchick's] obviously been trying to charm her into doing this for a while," said one, adding that Wahl had confided
that she had been approached by an unnamed individual to "take down RT."
Certainly Wahl's and Kirchick's behavior the day of her resignation alluded to a close relationship, evidenced by a photo posted
by Kirchick to his Twitter feed the day following her resignation entitled '#freedomselfie'.
Ultimately, Wahl's public outcry seemed to echo "the cold warrior themes familiar to neoconservatives like Kirchick"
and the FPI, write Blumenthal and Khalek.
The seemingly coordinated stunt appears to have met with some success, winning praise from MSNBC's prime-time pundit Chris Hayes,
who described Wahl as "remarkably badass," along with conservative writers such as Amanda Carpenter, who noted that the
former anchor was "proud to be an American."
NYT times is not Megaphone of Propaganda. It's simply a voice of State Department.
The story began at the New York Times (3/2/14),
where Peter
Baker reported German Angela Merkel's assessment:
The Russian occupation of Crimea has challenged Mr. Obama as has no other international crisis, and at its heart, the advice
seemed to pose the same question: Is Mr. Obama tough enough to take on the former KGB colonel in the Kremlin? It is no easy task.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure
he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. "In another world," she said.
So "people briefed on the call" delivered the verdict: Putin has lost touch with reality.
The line soon appeared everywhere; a Times' editorial (3/4/14)
turned it into a fact: "In a conversation with Mr. Obama, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said she was unsure whether Mr. Putin
was in touch with reality." A Washington Post editorial (3/4/14)
began: "Has Vladimir Putin lost touch with reality, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly suggested to President Obama?"
And the New Republic (3/4/14)
ran a piece by Julia Ioffe with the headline "Putin's Press Conference Proved Merkel Right: He's Lost His Mind."
But what if that's not what Merkel meant?
It's noteworthy that few if any of these pieces referencing Merkel's statement stressed the words actually attributed to Merkel
– that Putin is "in another world." That's because those words don't convey what the the White House spin did: that Putin was not
"in touch with reality." One phrase suggests that someone has an entirely different point of view, while the other suggests that
that person is delusional.
The attraction of the latter point was raised in a remarkable piece by McClatchy's Mark Seibel (3/5/14),
who noted that the Merkel remark "was too good to ignore and became the reporting line for every talking head and commentator for
the next several news cycles." A little too good, perhaps. Seibel writes:
Die Welt, the German newspaper, reported that "the chancellery was not pleased with the reporting on the conversation.
They claim that what the chancellor said was that Putin has a different perception on Crimea, which is why she is pushing for
a fact-finding mission on the matter."
He added:
So if Merkel didn't portray Putin as unhinged, why would the unknown Obama aide tell the New York Times she
did? Because in the world of propaganda, successfully portraying your adversary as being crazy, without any rational backing to
his actions, makes it unnecessary to try to understand the complexities or sensitivities of the issues. If Putin is crazy, then
that's enough. We needn't think any further about what he has to say. And if the New York Times says he's crazy,
that's good enough for the dozens of reporters who've come along since, repeating the comment to their millions of viewers and
readers as if it was a confirmed statement.
Good work.
It's unusual to see someone at a mainstream US media outlet write so clearly about how "it is so easy to become a megaphone for
propaganda" in this kind of crisis. It'd be nice to see the New York Times explain whether it thinks it acted as
such a megaphone.
...Unless you are willing to fight and re-fight the same battles until you go blue in the face, drive the people you work with
nuts going over every last detail to make certain you've got it right, and then take all of the slings and arrows directed at you
by the powers that be–corporate and political and sometimes journalistic–there is no use even trying. You have to love it and I do.
I.F. Stone once said, after years of catching the government's lies and contradictions, "I have so much fun, I ought to be arrested."
Journalism 101.
... ... ...
There are, fortunately, always exceptions to whatever our latest dismal collective performance yields. America produces some
world-class journalism, including coverage of the Iraq War by men and women as brave as Ernie Pyle. But I still wish we had a professional
Hippocratic Oath of our own that might stir us in the night when we stray from our mission. And yes, I believe journalism has a mission.
Walter Lippmann was prescient on this long before most of you were born. Lippmann, who became the ultimate Washington insider–someone
to whom I regularly leaked–acknowledged that while the press may be a weak reed to lean on, it is the indispensable support for freedom.
He wrote:
The present crisis of Western democracy is a crisis of journalism. Everywhere men and women are conscious that somehow they must
deal with questions more intricate than any that church or school had prepared them to understand. Increasingly, they know that
they cannot understand them if the facts are not quickly and steadily available. All the sharpest critics of democracy have alleged
is true if there is no steady supply of trustworthy and relevant news. Incompetence and aimlessness, corruption and disloyalty,
panic and ultimate disaster must come to any people denied an assured access to the facts.
So for all the blunders for which we are culpable; for all the disillusionment that has set in among journalists with every fresh
report of job cuts and disappearing news space; for all the barons and buccaneers turning the press into a karaoke of power; for
all the desecration visited on broadcast journalism by the corporate networks; for all the nonsense to which so many aspiring young
journalists are consigned; and for all the fears about the eroding quality of the craft, I still answer emphatically when young people
ask me, "Should I go into journalism today?" Sometimes it is difficult to urge them on, especially when serious questions are being
asked about how loyal our society is to the reality as well as to the idea of an independent and free press. But I almost always
answer, "Yes, if you have a fire in your belly, you can still make a difference."
One of the hallmarks of America, whether you talk about everyday people or our foreign policymakers is their inability to put
themselves in the shoes of non-Americans. By its tone, focus, and accent this is the sort of article I'd have expected from Powers
or Rice or Clinton, maybe the new Kerry.
If you had a Russian journalist who came to America and interviewed Bolton, McCain, and what's-his-name over at the Heritage
Foundation you'd have gotten EXACTLY this article with names changed. We would have screamed that it's Russian propoganda.
It's the level I expect from the Des moines Register, the Springfield News-Leader or the Farley Free Press. That the NYT should
express all sides of an issue involving something as important as the latest madness our government has created is vital to those
who still think the Times is a major source of news.
But State Dept. handouts posing as "news and views of the world" is scandalous and unacceptable. One might even say it's very
Russian.
It's a sad but familiar story. Bright-eyed kids make their way to the big city seeking fame and fortune. They think they get
a break in the business, only to find themselves caught up in a dark, nefarious world where they have to sacrifice their ethics to
get ahead.
New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait speculates on the thought process of someone who works for RT:
Their motives appear to be a mix of careerism, naivete and utter incuriosity. The modal career arc of an American RT reporter
appears to be an ambitious but not terribly bright 20-something aspiring journalist who, faced with the alternative of grim local-news
reportage, leaps at the chance to make two or three times the pay while covering world affairs, sort of.
And RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan has responded to the Buzzfeed piece, sort of.
In a post on the RT website, she sarcastically answers
five questions put to her by the Buzzfeed writer before the story's publication.
When asked if RT regularly has meetings at the Kremlin, for instance, she writes that she doesn't have to go because she already
lives there, with all other TV executives in Russia.
She also mocks the idea of getting information from former employees. "Are you sure?" she asks.
"It is highly unlikely you could reach actual former-RT employees as it is company policy to unleash the KGB on anyone who dares
to leave."
Zaid Jilani, of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee,
writes that for
all the criticism of RT, the type of moral dilemmas its young employees face are not unlike what most Washington journalists deal
with at one time or another.
"Working in Washington taught me we're all a little bit like the good folks who work at RT America - struggling against editorial
censors, doing our best to follow our conscience despite sometimes suffocating pressures from our publishers and sponsors," he writes.
To the casual observer, there may be some irony in Buzzfeed - best known for click-bait headlines and what-kind-of-X-are-you quizzes
- criticising another outlet's journalism.
The website has started to regularly turn out some serious political and social commentary, however.
For that matter, so has RT - accidentally, critics would say, and perhaps only on issues that paint the US in a bad light.
Slate's David Weigel writes
that all the recent attention has severely damaged RT's credibility, however:
It was Martin's on-air denunciation of the Ukraine incursion that woke up the media, again, to the strangeness of RT. It was
anchor Liz Wahl's on-air resignation and Martin's quick back-peddling that deepened the strangeness, and brought new media attention,
and will probably make it even harder for RT to book top guests. No secret here: D.C. (and New York) are in ready supply of pundits
who want to go on TV shows and collect clips of themselves to show bookers for other TV shows. RT was a possible stop along the way,
but some tanks in Crimea might have ended that.
lordBanners
No diff to how our Media operate. It's undeniable that our reporters who reflect Foright Policy get most exposure, fast promotion
& best postings. Anybody with a smidgen of Neutrality cannot help but determine that Reporters & NGOs have taken it upon themselves
to stoke propaganda & provoke hostile re-actions. Deceit aimed directly at us with No Consequences.
.Nadiia
I'm Ukrainian and unfortunately many things written here don't have much in common with the truth. RT provides mostly true
information as well as the majority of Ukrainians living in the eastern part of Ukraine don't support ultra-nationalism of new
authorities. Yes, we are pro-Russians and not because Putin makes us to do so. RT doesn't whitewash! You just don't want to beleive
that it's true
Rich
Whilst I stand my view that much of this lies at the feet of kids who want to be celebrities rather champions of integrity
and justice; I will grant that the BBC, Fox et al are just as blinkered and biased as RT when it comes to foreign policy or politics.
The BBC reporting on the EU makes RT reporting on Crimea look positively neutral.
bsalarm
I don't see BBC better than RT on international politics. Nazi or holocaust is in headline list nearly every day , Israel is
excluded from HYS, the BBC pushed invasion of Iraq, bombing Syria, aggressive stances on Ukraine, hoped for Sochi terrorism,
ungracious when Sochi succeeded, and has been uninformative about abuses of the GCHQ, negative about Snowden, and a neocon soapbox
provider. My taxes?
Rizwan
If there is one name for propaganda in the news media world, that is FOX News. Is there another name for propaganda in
news media? That is BBC. A spade is calling other a spade. Irony. Did any of you had any guts to question the bias in your media?
Those had guts left BBC. watched Outfoxed? Aren't you guys paid by Downing Street? How you guys get sound sleep while making a
living like this?
betterworld
I would like to know where else can you find serious, sharp discussions with the professionalism presented by Peter Lavelle,
or Tom Hartman, just to mention two of the hosts (not in their 20's) of this channel. By the way, where was the mainstream media
when Julian Assange had breaking news to report? or what about the mediocre coverage of occupy movement? Anthony, what do you
want us to watch?
Saintjoe
American journalists are not naive but they are petty, cynical and venal. Thy are a pox on the national discussion of meaningful
issues
quietoaktree
"Russia remains a warmongering uncivilized state that adores brute power that ought to be totally isolated from the rest
of the world as a backward unreconstructed nation incapable of normal behavior."
It is a Russian propaganda machine just as the western media is a propaganda machine for their respective countries. For instance,
when Iraq was invaded or any other country for that matter, the western media was all Hoorah for Bush. no media follows up on
the misery caused by the action of western countries. As someone said,'western media is herd driven'. BBC doesn't fair any better.
ukisstupid
The way the BBC is covering the events in Ukraine makes me think it's became the PR of NATO and the weapons lobby. No facts,
just the feelings of their so-called journalists. Never criticising the US, bashing the EU or all that does not fit in their frame.
Shame on you.
LeonS
You really couldn't make up just how self-righteous and sanctimonious the BBC is. The BBC is nothing more than a propaganda
mouth-piece for the British establishment.
RT may not be perfect but I am glad it counters the BBC lies.
Rizwan
How better is BBC? your media itself a propaganda machine for the downing street. Many of your own former journalists have
said it. Do you close your eyes to such report or you just going to censor my comments? I commend you to look at yourself first
before blaming others. It doesn't make anyway acceptable, but first correct yourself and then come out to blame others.
Vision Holder
"Bright-eyed kids ... have to sacrifice their ethics to get ahead."
I think all jobs in all industries require people to sacrifice their ethics... but not to get ahead -- just get and hold and
job. In my 16 years since college, I haven't held a job yet where I was required to check my ethics at the door. That includes
computer support, retail, and zoos. And Western media isn't any better.
quietoaktree
" Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company,
the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting
System, the Miami Herald ..."
If your argument is correct there would have been many BBC and VoA newsreaders that have resigned over the years. This appears
not to have occurred.
Journalists who cannot justify their prejudices --are the propagandists and the true danger to our societies.
-- They have a family to feed --and many would sell their soul to fulfill that aim.
bespokesman
Most neophyte journalists are naďve and idealistic; as are a majority of young professionals in virtually every field of endeavour.
However, despite their naiveté and idealism, or perhaps because of it, the RT newsreaders were able to distinguish fact from fiction
and exposed the lies. The truly naďve are those who still believe Putin will stop his aggression with Crimea and Ukraine.
The-pen-is-mightier
@ Diego Azeta.
So a lack of 'on air resignations' is indicative of suppression of journalistic integrity? Good grief.......
Diego Azeta
Omigosh! The BBC -the West's premier propaganda outlet- criticizing RT for broadcasting Russian propaganda. Come on, guys,
you can do better than that. RT did broadcast Liz Wahl's on-air resignation in full, uncensored. Never seen anything remotely
close at BBC.
WoeIsMe
I don't understand all this hatred of Russia Today. We don't have to agree with Putin/Russia's policies (and I don't), but
the country has a right to use a news network to disseminate its opinion (like the BBC or VoA.) These two women who quit on air
are noting but crass and unprofessional. They knew who the employer was, and chose to work there with free will. No network should
ever hire them!
Some Random American Guy
@Rich (comment 1)
I don't think that's what this is about, dude. The issue isn't with journalists becoming celebrity entertainers, here, but with
journalists becoming propaganda writers. And that was a problem long before the rise of entertainment news networks.
LucyJ
I have watched RT news many times here in USA
and it actually reminds me a lot of BBC
I don't always agree with the way RT or BBC slants things
but from both networks I have heard many valuable stories that I haven't heard elsewhere
It is educational to listen to multiple world channels talking about the same subject because you get a different viewpoint
from each one
The British press has a well-earned reputation for being preoccupied with sex, scandal and celebrities to the exclusion of reporting
on anything worthwhile. When it reports on a supposed affront to Britain's sovereignty – such as the passage of the Russian cargo
transport carrying helicopters for Assad's Syria which had been retrofitted in Russia – it struts and whoops and preens itself as
if the days of The Raj and Empire were still in full swing, when Britain's mailed fist made the earth tremble. It is reliably Russophobic,
with only the occasional startling article by the likes of Simon Tisdall bobbing like a carrot in the creamy chowder of hatred. When
it settles upon a foreign leader it admires, it is as mawkish and grating in its unabashed admiration as if it were a teenaged girl;
my dears, he's positively dench! But every once in awhile, the British press turns out an act of public fellatio so brazen, so sycophantic,
so…so…slutty in its self-abasement that it inspires a sort of grudging admiration for such a complete public abandonment of principles.
As a classic of disinformation, it's hard to beat the work of professional obfuscators, and the BBC does not disappoint.
Its maundering "Moscow's Ukraine Gamble" is a best-of-British effort
to wrench things back on track to where the west dictates to Russia rather than the other way round.
Before we dig into it, let's start from an anchor point few are exploring - the present government in Ukraine is illegal and
illegitimate. Thanks
to Natalie at Fluent Historian and a handful of other sites like
Moon of Alabama,
it is clear that the Patronage-Seats-to-the-Revolutionary-Soldiers "transitional Government" in Kiev did not come anywhere near following
the rules to impeach Yanukovych, and he is consequently still the legal and elected President of Ukraine. Therefore any moves by
the current McGovernment in Kiev to make bold decisions like
signing the EU Association Agreement before the Presidential elections take place are null and void and no international body
should be so foolish as to accept them as legally binding.
... ... ...
But wait; here comes my favorite part.
"Any economic solution must draw in international financial institutions and Western governments too. That is going to
involve some kind of partnership with Moscow and there is not currently going to be much good will towards the Kremlin."
Got that? If Moscow does not immediately stop this fanning about, which is impeding the global recognition of an illegal and illegitimate
government imposed by a violent coup, Moscow might not be invited to contribute financially to the goal of a united and Russia-intolerant
Ukraine as an EU and NATO member!!
I have to stop here, because I can't go on. I'm speechless.
kirill
March 2, 2014
There must be some belief amongst the elites and their media mouthpieces that chutzpah and wishful thinking will result in
reality bending their way. We had Karl Rove pretty much assert this during the Bush W. presidency. The Rovians make reality through
force of their will, while all of us in the reality based community just flail about. But reality fails to bend to their will.
The invasion of Iraq is now basically a failure (no more talk about pumping 12 million barrels per day of oil while Iraq buys
billions of dollars worth of Russian military equipment). Ukraine is also not working out. I get the sense that the coup was rushed.
We may yet see this illegal regime completely disintegrate.
Ladies and gentlemen, please have a small brown paper bag ready. Proof that British journalism is probably the worst in the world.
This is from one of the BBC's 'stars', Mark Mardell, displaying the informed, balanced tone demanded by the Beeb:-
'Putin and
Obama are such different characters.
One is a small, strutting hard man with a passion to re-create an old empire, the other the professorial president – concerned
not to repeat the mistakes that happen when America behaves like an empire – ever-hesitant to use the massive brute force his
country can muster.'
Such rhetoric would be absurd but understandable from the pen of an American but a Brit?
Al
Thinking about future career prospects?
Oana Lungescu, NATO spokeswoman formerly European Affairs correspondent at the BBC,
also Mark Laity was a NATO spokesman and former Defense correspondent of the BBC.
I could have sworn public fellatio was not allowed in the UK, but apparently I was wrong. Don't forget that Mr. Obama is a smoker;
I know it's not exactly post-coital, but if you really want the experience to be memorable you should go the extra mile.
Nice, Don Quixote style initiative. The blatant lying is an
immanent feature of western mass media ;-)
Mar 03, 2014 | NYT
In Crimea, a long caravan of cars drove through Simferopol throughout Tuesday, many with a slogan written on their rear windshields
saying, "Against the Lying Mass Media."
[Mar 03, 2014] Deconstructing elements of MSM smoke screen
Building unipolar world -- fighting for the USA global hegemony
Same people in two different places:
In Kiev -- Peaceful protesters
In Simferopol -- armed militants
...the way President Viktor Yanukovych's government was thrown out in Ukraine and hurriedly replaced with an interim team --
coup detat
...As a classic of disinformation, it's hard to beat the work of professional obfuscators, and the BBC does not disappoint. Its
maundering "Moscow's Ukraine Gamble" is a best-of-British effort to wrench
things back on track to where the west dictates to Russia rather than the other way round.
Before we dig into it, let's start from an anchor point few are exploring - the present government in Ukraine is illegal and
illegitimate. Thanks
to Natalie at Fluent Historian and a handful of other sites like
Moon of Alabama,
it is clear that the Patronage-Seats-to-the-Revolutionary-Soldiers "transitional Government" in Kiev did not come anywhere near following
the rules to impeach Yanukovych, and he is consequently still the legal and elected President of Ukraine. Therefore any moves by
the current McGovernment in Kiev to make bold decisions like
signing the EU Association Agreement before the Presidential elections take place are null and void and no international body
should be so foolish as to accept them as legally binding.
Well, let's take a look at it. This, we learned, is in many ways like the last time Russia launched a brutal invasion – against
peaceful Georgia, in 2008. They don't come straight out and say it exactly like that, instead drawing the comparison and leaving
you to conclude both actions were unprovoked invasions. The west, they say, was left largely on the sidelines in both instances.
Is that so? Ha, ha; no. In both cases the west was fully involved beforehand, stroking and cuddling with the leaders and urging them
on, which in Georgia's case was sufficient to convince the sociopath Saakashvili that the west would ride to support him if he only
got the ball rolling. In this case, too, the glorious revolutionaries who have awarded themselves plum postings in Kiev also appealed
to NATO right away, perhaps believing the rush of billing and cooing from Foreign Ministers, diplomats, U.S. State Department officials
and EU bigwigs to coax the revolution in to being and support its onjectives so vociferously in the press constituted a promise to
send in the tanks should their shooting their mouths off result in Russia throwing a beer in their face.
There can be little doubt that western and EU elites encouraged this from a long time back. When they were still sure that Yanukovych
was caught between a rock and a hard place and would sign the association agreement even though it meant freeing and pardoning Tymoshenko,
the west growled at Russia like a dog with a bone between its paws, and made a lot of high-minded freedom-to-decide statements to
the effect that sovereign nations must be left free from interference to make their own decisions, and that anything, anything
Russia did that might affect that, even to musing that it might have to impose tariffs on some Ukrainian products in order to discourage
dumping of products the EU would not buy would constitute bullying, and that if Russia knew what was good for it, it would just be
supportive or else the EU and USA would find ways of punishing it for its reluctance to accept the new world order.
Well. Then Yanukovych executed a complete reversal, squibbed the agreement and threw it in the trash, and went to Moscow to strike
a better deal, which he did in very short order. This was nothing more than a sovereign nation making its own decision,
but right away the western elites swung into action to undermine, sabotage and ultimately re-reverse it.
Which brings us to the deployment of an augmentation of Russian troops to the Crimea, and widespread pro-Russia revolt throughout
the East and South of Ukraine proper, while the Transition Circus Troupe in Kiev squeals belatedly for unity. The whole thing, according
to the Beeb, is a battle of wills between Moscow and Kiev (in which the USA and EU are apparently uninvolved and blameless) which
could turn into a civil war in Ukraine. Why, yes; it might. Whose fault is that? Russia's? Are you kidding me?
But the west so saw it coming, because Russia's moves were all right out of the "post-Soviet play-book".
Just as if the west has not engineered a series of regime changes in quick succession, using the "Regime-Change Play-Book".
Seize on an incident, blow it out of proportion and cast it as a rebel group struggling for freedom against an apocalyptic dictator,
promise the support of all those who love freedom while reminding all those people that freedom isn't free and it is their duty to
help their brothers achieve it, demonize the government beyond all recognition and blithely make up incidents of it firing into crowds
of peaceful protesters, announce the invocation of the Right to Protect Civilians and the imposition of humanitarian corridors –
which coincide with all the government's possible defensive moves – for the purpose of evacuating fleeing civilians and then let
mission creep do the rest. Badda-bing, badda-boom, new leader, new government, move on.
And now, although he has stuck to the letter of the law thus far and even gone along with all the ridiculous artificial anchors
the west has attempted to tie to his legs, Putin "risks losing all that goodwill" if he will not withdraw his forces and leave the
Crimea to the tender mercies of the phony government in Kiev, so that they can deliver a complete trussed package to the EU. Because
if he doesn't, the EU might, you know, find its oil and gas supplies somewhere else. Just sayin'.
Tell you what; you do that, Sunshine.
Anybody believe Russia has brought in additional forces until the total in the region surpasses 25,000 troops (remember, we're
just talking Russian forces; the some 50,000 troops loyal to the Crimean Autonomous Region do not count), 161 aircraft and 388 warships?
Oh, wait; do Ukrainian navy ships which have deserted and gone over to Russia count against their total?
I was being sarcastic – the total strength of the Russian navy including auxiliaries and submarines is less than 388 warships.
But wait; here comes my favourite part.
"Any economic solution must draw in international financial institutions and Western governments too. That is going to
involve some kind of partnership with Moscow and there is not currently going to be much good will towards the Kremlin."
Got that? If Moscow does not immediately stop this fannying about, which is impeding the global recognition of an illegal and
illegitimate government imposed by a violent coup, Moscow might not be invited to contribute financially to the goal of a united
and Russia-intolerant Ukraine as an EU and NATO member!!
I have to stop here, because I can't go on. I'm speechless.
The US media coverage has gone off the rails. While the BBC seems to be loosening up a bit on it's blackout of criticism of the
Banderite-orangist regime in Kiev, the US continues to peddle the most outrageous narrative and spin I've seen since the 2003 Iraq
invasion. I don't watch US cable news networks much because the mendacity is simply too much for me to stomach. But this is what
I'm being told.
Among the spin:
- They continue to deny that there are neo-Nazi's in the new regime or even in Ukraine for that matter. This is something widely
known by just about everybody in the world at this stage, but the US media continues to refer to Bandera (that's if he's even mentioned)
as a "controversial figure" and claims that Svoboda are simply radicalized Maidan youth fed up with corruption – a blatant lie.
- The US media continues to peddle the fiction that Russia has invaded Ukraine and broken international law – something the US
media generally doesn't seem too interested in when the US decides to bomb, invade and destabilize countries it doesn't like. They
fail to point out that the Russians haven't fired a single shot or killed anyone and that the troop levels presently in Crimea are
legal. It seems to me that Russia simply shuffles the military, issues a few stern warnings and gravity takes care of everything
else.
-They continue to falsely refer to Yanukovych as a "dictator" and his government as a "regime" while failing to remind viewers
that he was a democratically elected leader who was deposed in a coup.
-And most comically, they STILL continue to refer to the Maidan mob as "protesters" and that the protests we're seeing in the
East are paid for by the Russian government – naturally, no evidence whatsoever is offered to back this claim up but it's a meme
that's repeated over and over almost daily as fact. The idea that the east may very well be rejecting Washington's stooges is a completely
alien concept to the US media and hell would probably freeze over first before they reported or accepted the obvious.
The US is now the successor of the USSR in terms of totalitarianism. A pseudo one party state (no real difference between Repugs
and Demorats except how much crumbs they are will to throw US workers and no difference in terms of foreign policy) and a media that
sings in fully synchronized chorus that pushes the most ludicrous BS imaginable from the POV of anyone with a clue. To get any news
in the US that is not state mouthpiece BS one has to read samizdat (i.e. alternative internet sources) and listen to foreign news. All
the features of life in the USSR loathed in the west and trotted out to this day to bash Russians with.
Utilizing the techniques of the social and psychological "sciences," our "cyber-magicians," in waging their cyber-kulturkampf,
see their targets – us – the same way 19th century French colonialists viewed their Algerian helots. If you look through
the slides published by Greenwald the theme is crystal-clear: human beings are depicted as emotion-driven easily-manipulated idiots
who have to be fooled into behaving properly.
How to fool them? In 19th century Algeria it was Houdini awing the natives with magic tricks: in the online world of
the 21st century, it's "cyber-magicians" planting "false flags" – posts attributed to the target that were not written
by him or her. Or posts ostensibly by people who are members or sympathizers of a targeted group. This is what the FBI did to the
antiwar movement of the 1960s: entire "cells" of radical groups were set up and
controlled by the feds, who
then used them to divide, disrupt, and discredit rising antiwar sentiment.
Another GCHQ ploy: what Greenwald calls "fake victim posts," in which alleged victims of the target describe their victimization
at the hands of the targeted individual or group. This technique seems to have been used to great effect against Julian Assange and
WikiLeaks, who have racked up a
record number
of "tell-all" books and articles by former associates relating Assange's alleged sins.
Aside from the above, a number of other techniques are listed, most of which are fairly descriptive:
Ruse
Set piece
False rescue
Disruption
Sting
Anything is possible – and everything is permitted – with the kind of "cyber-magic" performed by our government sneaks: if you
want to discredit a target, you can "set up a honey-trap" – a sexual assignation – or if you're in a
juvenile mode you can "change their photo
on social networking sites." And there's always the old tactic of sending "emails/texts to their colleagues, neighbors, friends,
etc." Again, there's nothing new under the sun as far as the immorality and cheap vulgarity of our rulers is concerned: they did
the same thing in the 1960s to Martin Luther King and a host of
other civil rights and assorted "radical" figures, the only difference being they used the Post Office rather than email and texting.
The technology may change, but the venality is a constant.
Of particular interest to GCHQ and its
eager students at the NSA are techniques designed to "pull a group apart." Listed as likely points of rupture are issues of "personal
power," "preexisting cleavages," "competition," and "ideological differences." Again, these are old techniques empowered by new technology
and gussied up in the pseudo-"scientific" language of sociology and behavioral psychology.
What's new, however, is the nature of some of the targets: it's not only high profile political dissidents like
Assange (and Greenwald) alongside
criminal suspects who might find themselves in the sights of GCHQ/NSA, but also private companies, as explicitly stated in the new
documents. Suggested covert actions against these corporate targets include leaking confidential information to rival companies and
the media "via blogs, etc.", and posting "negative information in appropriate forums," resulting in stopping the target's business
deals and ruining business relationships.
Given the amount of purely
industrial espionage
detailed in previously released
documents, the scope – and cost – of this destructive rampage across the corporate landscape by our vaunted "cyber-magicians" is
absolutely mind-boggling.
The new documents describe a "cyber-offensive session" by two GCHQ officers on "Pushing the Boundaries and Action Against Hacktivism"
which does indeed push the boundaries very far beyond the ostensible purpose of "fighting terrorism." The fine line between "hacktivist"
and any sort of online political activism is not one likely to be precisely defined by these people: Julian Assange's and Edward
Snowden's defenders, as well as those two individuals themselves, are
fair game in this grand scale "cyber-offensive." And what
about the corporate entities enabling these revelations to come out in the first place?
Pierre Omidyar, the financial force behind First Look Media, which puts
out The Intercept, is a principal of eBay, and has a financial interest in other companies. Will those companies now find themselves
under attack? Will confidential information sucked up by the NSA "leak" onto various blogs and into the media?
Speaking of the media, this whole covert action program assumes easy access on the part of government agents to sympathetic contacts
in the "mainstream" news and opinion outlets: it posits a ready consumer base of "journalists" hungry for a constant diet of smears,
"false flags," and compromising material. And we can all
guess
as to who some of them might be….
Cass Sunstein, President Obama's close
advisor and head of a commission to "reform" the NSA, has long advocated infiltrating online communities devoted to supposedly dangerous
"conspiracy theories," and otherwise steering online discourse in a more
pro-government direction – and it looks like his ideas are being put into practice. The new documents promise a "full rollout complete
by early 2013," with "500+ GCHQ analysts" on the job – and how many from the NSA and US law enforcement agencies?
So let's be clear about this: individuals, groups, and private companies accused of no crime are having their reputations destroyed,
their private lives exposed and their financial affairs disrupted by a government-orchestrated smear campaign extending all across
the globe.
When democratizing start meaning killing (as in "the USA democratized half million of Iraqis") this is ultimate death of the word.
There are many criteria by which we in the West can assess what is good and what is bad about the events in these countries and
any others in which similar political change occurs. What happens to democracy is only one of those criteria. There are the various
issues of human rights and governmental integrity, and in this respect an end to the more thuggish and corrupt aspects of Yanukovych's
presidency may be a good thing. (Zbigniew Brzezinski describes Yanukovych as "a mendacious schemer, a coward and a thief.") And for
realist observers, the foreign policy orientation of a government may be at least as important as any of the internal considerations.
Each individual case is worthy of assessment in its own right. The two cases mentioned here are quite different in important respects.
Some of the cheering over Morsi's ouster reflected an ignoble Islamophobia that is not a factor in Ukraine. The alternatives to the
ousted leadership are also quite different; in Egypt it is a restored authoritarian military regime, while in Ukraine we can still
hope it will be something not just different but more to the benefit of the Ukrainian people.
In any assessment, we should be clear and honest about our concepts and terms. We should not apply the label of democracy where
it does not belong. We should not automatically apply it to phenomena that involve in some messy way "people power"-while bearing
in mind that people in the streets of a capital are not necessarily speaking and acting for most of their countrymen, or for people
in the streets of, say, Kharkiv or Donetsk.
Misuse of the term democracy exacerbates confusion in our own thinking about the criteria we are applying to assessments of foreign
situations and the reasons we do, or should, favor or oppose a particular development. It also cheapens the concept of democracy
itself and encourages cynicism about it.
"Advocatus Diaboli writes with this excerpt from an article by Glenn Greenwald on the pervasiveness of shills poisoning web
forums:
"One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are
attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It's time
to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.. … Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two
tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the Internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2)
to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable.
To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: 'false flag operations'
(posting material to the Internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim
of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting 'negative information' on various forums."
-
Remember, 'JTRIG'. I've looked at the Greenwald piece briefly and this news is massive. The ability to inject data into a user's
datastream makes the planting and falsification of evidence very, very easy (so it will be done) and adds another possibility
of blackmail/extortion by authorities who may not like certain dialogue. Simply, they can put stuff on your computer easily without
you knowing it, then bang you up, or at least threaten to drag you through the mud. Stunning.
[Feb 25, 2014] Molotov cocktails mow fell under the classification of "peaceful" means of resistance for Western MSM
Well, they didn't actually say that – they said they fell under the classification of "peaceful". But protesters should feel
themselves under no obligation, because we want to do things the democratic way.
CNN Cristiane Amanpour interviews Alexander Nekrassov
"Just caught the tail end of a 1on1 on CNN between Cristiane Amanpour & Alexander Nekrassov Kremlin advisor (1995-1996). Nekrassov
was good. That stupid bi8ch kept on cutting him off every time he countered her loaded questions with good arguments or facts.
I understand that a good interviewer should pose tough questions and try and throw their interviewee of balance (i.e. actual journalism),
but each time Ammanpour cut him off and kept on saying "OK, we should move on..".
I know I shouldn't be shocked (I was on the reporting of the breakup of ex-Yu so many years ago), but at what point did even
basic journalism go completely out the window in the US?
This is a rhetorical question."
That's a tactic journalists use to make it look like the interviewee feels guilty and is frantically trying to justify himself
or herself, although the brave emotionless journalist refuses to be taken in and mercilessly skewers him with another question.
But watch journalists interview John McCain sometime – he's even worse with geography than Yalensis, frequently not knowing which
countries share a common border, and wears slip-ons because tying shoes is beyond him now. Yet interviewers are polite to the
point of fawning and give him all the time he needs to make a fool of himself once more.
[Feb 25, 2014] Guardian in its standard Russophobic role...
None that they do not mention killing of innocent people by roaming neo-Nazi gangs. Quote from comments: Unfortunately it does
seem that anti-Putin sentiment is much more stronger than anti-nazi one.
"If the life and health of our compatriots is under threat, we will not stand to one side," the parliamentarian, Leonid Slutsky,
said after arriving in the regional capital of Simferopol for a one-day visit.
Slutsky, who leads the Russian Duma's committee for relations with former Soviet states, declined to say what sort of action
Russia might take.
AFP reported that two armored personnel carriers were deployed near Russian military installations in Ukraine's second port of
Sevastopol on Tuesday. One of the vehicles was on a base belonging to Russia's Black Sea fleet while another was parked in the courtyard
of a navy building in the city centre. A spokesman for the fleet in Sevastopol refused to comment on the deployment of the vehicles
but local media reported that they had been sent out in case of "terrorist attacks".
Ukraine's interim president warned on Tuesday that the country faced a "serious threat" from separatism amid fears that
the Kremlin – deeply unhappy about the revolution in Kiev – might be stoking pro-Russian sentiment in the Crimea peninsula.
"...The Kremlin - deeply unhappy with the violent overthrow of a democratically elected president- may act to protect Russians
in the East of the country from fascists backed by the EU."
There, fixed that for you.
joeyjojojunior joeyjojojunior
*South of the country. Whoops. Still more accurate than the crap above the line. What happened to the Guardian?! Are there
any honest commentators left? It's obvious from the comments below the line that everyone can see what's really happening,
thankfully.
terziev joeyjojojunior
Unfortunately it does seem that anti-Putin sentiment is much more stronger than anti-nazi one. Such a shame, plus it
makes Putin's Russia the sole champion of what is left from the international law and in case of Ukraine the only defender of
sanity.
Austin15
That's nice: 'Ukraine leader warns of separatism threat amid fears over Crimea'. How fast they become leaders there... He should
have being worried about it before flaring up all this mess...
Mikhail Babaev Austin15
Exactly! If you try to play to certain nationalistic interests and ignore the needs and wishes of 40% of the country's population
(ethnic Russians), the !!!! will hit the fan sooner or later. Almost nobody in Kiev even speaks Ukrainian.
Mikhail Babaev
The Crimean peninsula, which is the only region of Ukraine with a majority of ethnic Russians, was Russian territory until
1954. Moscow recently extended its lease on a large naval base in Sevastopol to 2042.
Nearly 80% of the population is Russian with a further 10-12% ethnical tatars. There are almost no ethnic Ukrainians in the
region, which was gifted to Ukraine by Khruschev in 1954, while all of the territory was part of the Soviet Union. Sevastopol
is also a strategic military location. Now, try telling the population is the Krimea that they are now all meant to be speaking
Ukrainian, which they never have. It's already creating issues there. The current Ukrainian government should really be a little
more sensitive to certain parts of the country's population and not play solely to the nationalistic tune, if they want to avoid
splitting the country. It's in their hands right now, not Russia's.
Beckow
Ukraine is divided. The West - and the partially scripted, partially ignorant Western media - pretend that only one half exists.
To that are added a few emotional simpletons with historical grudges and maybe some personal problems, and we get the coverage
we get. That's how you start crazy civil wars that in retrospect nobody wants and the guilty (in the media) pretend that they
were just swept up in the emotions of the moment.
Ignoring half of Ukraine's population (Russians and Russian-speakers) in the east and south is madness. It can only be done
if the goal is to demonize them, maybe suppress them, whatever. It happened before and it always start with media demonizations.
There will be elections: Yanukovitch won the last ones because what he at that time represented had (and maybe has) close to
50% of the population behind
them.
Does Western media want a civil war in Ukraine? Why? Who could possibly benefit, other than the arms lobbies in US-UK?
By the way, Ukrainian parliament is not in session. Majority of MPs left for east and south, so the remaining group has no
authority to legally pass anything. Normal journalism would at least note that, even if it is a contraversial point.
write2read AndreyP
When those peaceful protesters killing journalist and law enforcement officers the West never said anything else to the protesters
to stop it but warned to the elected govt. It was an insult to the whole world.
Beckow Vergilius78
Well not really, not "widely reported". The Russian half of the population is described as "separatist" or worse. The fact
that Yanukovitch won in a fair elections in 2010 (against Tymoshenko, who is now somehow again the "legal" part of government)
was almost never mentioned.
The sympathies, the spin, the script (nationalist Ukrainian half good, Russian half always bad) are dominant in the western
media. The article above didn't mention "outlawing" of the Russian language. It implied some heave meddling by Russia as if Russians
in Ukraine or Crimea had to be told that they were Russians. It called them separatists to be suppressed. What the hell were the
yahoo nationalists from Western Ukraine who occupied Kiev?
So no, the reporting is heavily biased and not truthful about half of Ukraine's population. It is half-reporting. And that
is really not journalism. Half-reporting of only one side is actually a definition of propaganda.
jb10001 Beckow
There are no excuses for the Press...they are criminally culpable....we see it time and time again, where one half (or more)
of a situation is deliberately obscured to push for some unlawful, evil, unjust hegemonic objective. we saw it in Iraq, Libya,
Syria, Sochi, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Ivory Coast...and more.
These guys who call themselves journalists, who should follow some professional code of ethics, have opted to ignore their
consciences and have signed up knowingly with the forces of duplicity and injustice.
When one or a few of them dares stand up and do the right thing, he/she is shunned/criticized, excoriated (case in point: David
Gregory vs Glenn Greenwald). The Press has blood on its hands.
Spinozist
When I read the statement by the "interim president" (elected by whom?) to the effect that the new government is "not allowing
any signs of separatism and threats to Ukraine's territorial integrity" I wonder how the support for this new government tallies
with the "Western" criticism of (for example) the Chinese refusal to engage with the Dalai Lama. The EU should insist that whatever
new Ukrainian government emerges from free and fair and properly conducted (under surveillance) elections, respects the linguistic
and ethnic diversity of Ukraine.
Brunotheface
If they want to be with Russia, why not?
Didn't we support Kosovo's independence? It wasn't that long ago. So what exactly is the difference?
westofoxford Brunotheface
None, if it comes about through peaceful fair referendum as in Kosovo and not through Putin sending his army in to 'protect'
people
Askel westofoxford
Paceful fair referendum as in Kosovo. You must be joking here!
VladK02
I am Ukrainian living in the West.
To give some perspective and info as I have relatives there:
1 - opposition is not unified. Majority are peaceful normal people, but 15-20% are hardcore ultra-right/fascist - incidentally
they are the ones with guns.
2 - current parliament is afraid of the ultra-right, and first law they passed was to abolish Russian as minority language
- very stupid mistake as normal people dont care one bit who speaks what language and it only antagonized Odessa
3 - normal average people are very very ambivalent towards the opposition politicians - all of them are tainted, and in private
people say that its better if all of them are disposed of, not just Yanukovich. problem is, there is nobody else except the ultra-right
4 - ultra-right militias are right now conducting pogroms on former officials and their families, similar to what Lenin did
in 1917 - basically they have a list of addresses and names, and they are breaking in and taking everything. Its not reported
in the west, but its happening. Danger is, it might spread into a general pogrom.
5 - police and army melted in the end because they are not paid. Guys that stood in uniform on the Maidan for 3 months with
no showers got paid 60$ per month roughly (they were promised 250$ per month). Standing with shields vs unarmed mobs is one thing,
but would you risk your life under live fire? A lot of police officers have fled by the way. No money in treasury to pay for anything
- not salaries, not police, not army, nothing.
So those are some interesting tidbits not widely reported.
Now to any normal person it is clear that the only future of Ukraine is with Europe, even if we have to be economic slaves
for a decade or two. People look at Poland and what Poles did in 2 decades. However, russia is not an enemy either, and thats
the dilemma. US meddling and financing unpopular opposition factions doesnt help.
Long-term, not only Ukraine should join the EU, but Russia as well. Peter the Great in 16th century already saw which way the
wind was blowing, Russia should swallow their pride and just apply to Nato and EU.
Tacty VladK02
in short, nobody knows why they were on the streets protesting...i wonder what is better, to have a little bit corrupt politicians
or lawless state running by nazi lunatics?
write2read
"We discussed the question of not allowing any signs of separatism and threats to Ukraine's territorial integrity and punishing
people guilty of this," Olexander Turchynov said after meeting with key officials." To whom the USA and EU warn now? When the
protesters captured weapons they warned to the govt not to use force.
AnarchoConservative
One thing US has taught us British the last two decades, There are good terrorists (Syrian opposition) and bad terrorists (Taliban).
Good (Turkey,Saudis) and bad (Ukraine,Syrian govts) corrupted leaders/regimes. Good disintegration called independence (Yugoslavia,
USSR) and bad one called separatism (Ukraine, Scotland,Basque,Catalonia)... I am more than sure there soon will be good Pedophilia
among many EU officials and bad practiced by many rogue regimes...
Mikhail Babaev AnarchoConservative
Your forgot to mention Ireland and the fact that the Taliban were considered 'freedom fighters' during the Soviet invasion. Otherwise,
spot on!
Here's a very possible scenario. Eastern and southern Ukraine become part of Russia again; Moscow would arguably accept
it. Western Ukraine is plundered, disaster capitalism-style, by the Western corporate-financial mafia – while nobody gets a single
EU passport. As for NATO, they get their bases, 'annexing' Ukraine, but also get myriads of hyper-accurate Russian Iskander missiles
locked in their new abode. So much for Washington's 'strategic advance'.
Vaska Tumir dion13
An optimistic scenario, imo, but not necessarily unrealistic.
What does worry me is the complete willingness of the EU and the US to "do business" with neo-Nazis -- and their populations'
apparent tolerance of such policies (and they are policies, viz. their readiness to play nice with Islamic versions of fascism,
too).
Askel Vaska Tumir
Why not. Not so long ago they created Al-Qaeda...
Venik
Ukraine's new national-socialist "government" will use the situation in Crimea as a distraction, to draw the people's attention
away from crumbling economy. Once the situation in Crimea escalates to an armed confrontation, Russia will intervene. That's what
they are waiting for in Moscow. And until then, the Russians will play nice (sort of).
pretendname
Stand by for a replay of south ossetia
Mikhail Babaev pretendname
South Ocetia was not (officially) Georgian territory. The US induced the Georgians to invade in order to test Putin. They simply
wanted to see what he would do, tolerate it or react. It was a research project. Russia reacted. Simple as that. Georgia was never
invaded by Russia, as the western press claimed at the time and the Hollywood film about it was disgraceful.
pretendname Mikhail Babaev
Yes.. this situation is almost identical. I think Putin probably should go all the way this time.
Last time Russia should have gone all the way into Tbilisi and taken Saakashvilli, and referred him to the Hague, before withdrawing
again.
This time I think Russia should go all the way to Kiev, take a few of the ring leaders, and then withdraw.
America would not suffer this kind of provocation on it's doorstep, I don't think Russia will either.
Russia has recalled its ambassador to Kiev. The newly appointed speaker of the Rada, who's also the acting President has announced
the main goals of the new administration are economic development and European integration. Obviously no need to consider a referendum,
based not on aspirational statements like 'integration' but on the terms of the EU Association Agreement that's actually on the
table, nor wait for an election.
News bulletins in the UK now seem to be reaching levels of hysteria not seen since someone
found an non-organic bath towel in Sochi – this time over the possibility that Ukraine might split. Cue lots of serious-looking
folk talking to camera saying this had to be prevented at all costs, Ukraine was just too important strategically. On every news
bulletin I've seen, this has been either preceded or followed by Susan Rice's 'warning', apropos of nothing, that it would be
a 'very bad idea' if Russia intervened militarily leaver the viewer with the impression that it's that b*****d in the Kremlin
who's ruining it for everyone – again.
Yeah, but as if we needed any more misdirection, the
Beeb reports that Mrs. Merkel called Mr. Putin today (yesterday for those in Russia) and that the two "agreed that the country's
[Ukraine] territorial integrity must be safeguarded". According to her spokesman, which might mean anything, because if Angela
Merkel told me my name was Mark Chapman I would check my ID card to see if she was lying, and if she shook my hand I would count
my fingers after she let go and make sure I still had my watch and ring. The same article even coyly holds out the possibility
that Russia will go on funding Ukraine's gradual movement into the EU in full partnership and doubtless NATO after that, although
both would be years away. What the hell is he playing at?
Is he going to allow Susan Rice to order him not to stir a step militarily without her and her country's permission, meekly
agree to disregard any pleas from the Southeast or Crimea to get involved in their own association agreement, and continue to
fund Ukraine's rebirth as a country that will spit on his grave when he's dead? The same country whose journalists reported the
capture and subsequent parading on the stage of a Russian Special Forces soldier, that a girl had been killed among the students
when the police were dispersing them, and no end of other lies?
What's next – orders to turn Ukrainian taxpayers who wish to emigrate back at the border, lest the newest EU country lose its
tax base?
I'm sure he must have a better plan than this indicates on its face, or else did not say anything of the kind and Mrs. Merkel's
spokesman is just putting words in his mouth.
Although it is perfectly true that Susan Rice knows bad ideas like few other people do.
The anti-Russia PR campaign in the prestige media reminds me a great deal of the anti-France campaign around and right after
the Iraq invasion. Remember cheese eating surrender monkeys, freedom fries, and "rifle for sale, never fired, only dropped once?"
The pattern here appears to be that countries that resist our foreign policy adventures then become a kind of acceptable
target in various bits of our media. I'm sure this isn't overtly coordinated anywhere, but media people are presumably pretty
good at inferring which way the wind is blowing….
The Daily Currant - a satire site that does well to mask the fact that it
is satire - has struck again ... It fooled this time even more people then usual including an army of Facebook lemmings.
The man responsible for operating the Olympic Rings during last night's Winter Olympics opening ceremony in Russia was found dead
today.
According to local reports the body of Boris Avdeyev was found his hotel room early this morning with multiple stab wounds....
Avdeyev was a technical specialist responsible for the Olympic Ring spectacle, which embarrassingly malfunctioned last night.
Five animatronic snowflakes were supposed to transform into Olympic Rings. The first four functioned properly but the fifth snowflake
failed to change shape.
Although his body was badly mangled and the wounds were consistent with a struggle, so far officials say they don't suspect foul
play.
"Sure there were stab wounds and bruises all over the body," admits the lead investigator on the case. "But who knows what caused
them. Maybe he tripped and fell on a set of knives. Right now we're ruling this an accidental death.
"It's terrible when accidents like this happen. But then again, maybe Mr. Avdeyev should have thought twice before he screwed
up the Olympics. Accidents tend to happen to people who betray Russia."
Despite the government's story, fellow hotel guests reported hearing a struggle in Avdeyev's room around 3 a.m. local time.
The Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security said Sunday that there is a "high degree of probability" of an explosion
during the Sochi Olympic games.
Speaking on Fox News [sic] Sunday, Rep. Mike McCaul said that an explosion or bomb of some sort is likely to go off during the
Olympics in Russia, although he suggested it would happen outside the Olympic Village itself.
"There's a high degree of probability that something will detonate, something will go off," McCaul said.
A nice sample of anti-Sochi propaganda from Grey Prostitute (former Gray Lady ;-)... Looks like they managed to beat the king of
"negative campaigning" the Wall Street Journal. By this standard that fact that sportsmen lived in the building that will be
used a prison is a sure sign of police state.
SOCHI, Russia - If anyone has a right to resent the Sochi Olympics, it is Andrei Martynov, whose house was seized by the Russian
authorities and then demolished without compensation to clear land near the hockey arena where Russia will play Slovenia on Thursday.
Mr. Martynov now lives in a dingy shelter for people dislocated by the reconstruction that transformed Sochi, and he is still
angry about losing his house. Yet, far from harboring bitterness, he expressed an emotion that has spread, perhaps unexpectedly,
across Russia since the Games began - unabashed pride in his country.
"This is a unique event, of worldwide interest, and it's happening in my town," he said in the communal kitchen of the shelter
not far away from the Olympic Park, where tea was served on a rough wooden table and a television with a perpetually yellow screen
was tuned, in spite of everything, to the Olympics.
The preparations for Sochi were so besieged by controversy here over excessive spending, poor planning and accusations of
corruption, labor abuses and ecological calamity, that the Games themselves seemed to many Russians to be preordained for failure.
President Vladimir V. Putin's lavishing of state funds to remake this subtropical resort to host the Olympics appeared to many
here to embody his increasingly autocratic style, out of touch with the day-to-day struggles of most Russians.
Instead, the elaborate
opening ceremony and the first week of events - including the country's first gold medal, in team figure skating - have melted
away some of the severest criticisms. Russians accustomed to upheaval and chaos, economic booms and busts, and the
simmering war
in the Caucasus since the collapse of the Soviet Union have seized on something to celebrate.
"Maybe it's the dust in my eye / maybe it's something else," a blogger, Ilya Romashkin, wrote in a poem published on the website
blogsochi.ru, which has chronicled in excruciating detail the myriad problems
with construction and corruption the city has endured since it was chosen as host nearly seven years ago. "But the tears are clear
not of sorrow / maybe I'm proud of my country."
There remain abundant issues with the Games, including
new complaints about the design of some of the venues and worries about the mild weather, even in the mountains. And then there
is the
continuing debate over the expense, estimated at roughly $50 billion, the highest ever and more than all 21 previous Winter Olympics
combined, at a time when poor roads, meager health care, the scourge of bribery and
a
slowing economy are realities that most Russians face.
For now, however, the focus of attention has shifted to the sports themselves, as Mr. Putin and his senior aides have insisted
all along that it should be.
In Sochi and other cities where the authorities have erected giant screens for those without tickets, the mood swing in the last
few days has been palpable. It has been all but impossible to find anybody who did not express renewed enthusiasm for winter sports
and, of course, for the Russian athletes, underscoring how the Olympics anywhere can tap deep reservoirs of patriotism.
"When our champions are on ice, we will let them know we love them, and we support them," said Mr. Martynov's wife, Natalya, who
plans to watch figure skating on the shelter's television.
Across Russia, the events have been broadcast by state television channels that have focused immeasurably less than critics at
home and journalists from abroad have on the problems that bedeviled the buildup to the Games. That positive, if limited, view is
what the overwhelming majority of Russians will have of the Olympics.
As with the sweeping, analgesic celebration of Russia's history and culture in the opening ceremony - sidestepping darker moments
like the Red Terror, the Gulag and even the Soviet collapse - it appears to have won over even some of the Kremlin's harshest critics.
"Even more than the opening itself, I like that everyone on this site is writing 'What a cool opening,' " Aleksei A. Navalny,
the anticorruption blogger, wrote on Twitter. (Mr. Navalny's organization recently published a
comprehensive, interactive website devoted to documenting the overspending,
corruption and cronyism of the Olympics, even as it welcomed the event itself.)
"It is so sweet, and so uniting."
It remains to be seen what the lasting legacy of Sochi will be, of course, but the warming welcome that greeted the Olympics so
far has rebounded politically to Mr. Putin, whose personal involvement in the Olympic preparations was arguably greater than that
of any other single political leader in decades.
The full measure of that has yet to be counted, but Stepan Lvov, an official with the Russian polling agency Vtsiom, said that
their initial surveys showed a bounce in Mr. Putin's personal approval ratings just since last weekend. "This sort of dynamic happens
very rarely," he said. (The results of the latest polling will be published after the Olympics.)
He added, "Looking at websites and social media networks, we can see that the amount of negative expressions has declined significantly
from before the beginning of the Games."
That in itself has infuriated some of Mr. Putin's critics.
After Russia's gold medal victory in team figure skating, led by the dazzling performance of Yulia Lipnitskaya, a budding 15-year-old
star, Viktor Shenderovich, a satirist and opposition commentator, compared the patriotic celebration that followed to those of German
athletes in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. He warned that the patriotic fervor would embolden Mr. Putin's authoritarian policies, prompting
a furious backlash.
One of the country's most famous writers, Grigory Chkhartishvili, who writes under the pen name Boris Akunin, responded to the
avalanche of criticism ahead of the Olympics with a plea for a respite from the "Facebook masochism" of complaints about the preparations,
which have included hastily finished hotel rooms, polluted tap water and the fate of Sochi's stray dogs.
He noted that he was not much of a sports fan himself, but that his hopes for Sochi were simple: no terrorist attacks, beautiful
sports, records and an event that "would not be a national disgrace."
Referring to Mr. Putin's opponents, Mr. Chkhartishvili wrote on Facebook, "I swear to God, I am not ready to live by the principle,
'If it's bad for Putin, it's good for us.' "
The cost of the Games, financed largely from state coffers, will ultimately affect every Russian taxpayer, especially as officials
seek to tighten spending to cope with dwindling revenues. But the most direct burden has been borne by the residents of Sochi.
In the last seven years, the city has been a construction site, and a still unfinished one, that caused uncountable delays and
disruptions for its 340,000 residents. The simmering anger has now turned more forgiving.
"When you remodel your house, it's uncomfortable," said Alla Guseva, a curator at Sochi's history museum, "but when it is done,
you are happy you did it. Yes, it was unpleasant, but thank God, it's done now."
The Martynovs lost their home nestled in a marshy, rural village in the Adler district, where migrating birds once thrived. Their
house stood on a spacious plot near mandarin orange groves. Palms and eucalyptus trees shaded the village. The pebbly beach of the
Black Sea was only a few steps away.
Although local and federal officials say that all those dislocated have received compensation, Mr. Martynov said they had not,
because officials found irregularities in their title to the property. "Before our eyes, the backhoe drove onto our property and
destroyed our home with its shovel," Mr. Martynov said. "Imagine that, watching your home be destroyed before your eyes."
Mr. Martynov, 55, is a lifelong hockey fan. He played as a teenager with enough talent to join a national competition called the
Golden Puck, before he was sidelined by a knee injury, the scar of which he rolled up his pant leg to display. All his life, he said,
he loved hockey, while the sport only tormented him in return - now by demolishing his home to make way for the two arenas where
the Olympic matches will be held.
So, how could he tolerate watching hockey on this spot?
How could he not, he answered.
"It's a once in a lifetime occurrence," he said of the Russian national team, whose prospects for a gold medal are close to a
national obsession here. "When the Russian team skates out, I will cheer. I have no other team and who else would I cheer for? I
will cheer for Russia."
Andrew E. Kramer reported from Sochi, and Steven Lee Myers from Moscow. Patrick Reevell contributed reporting from Moscow.
Sochi on my mind: It is hard to think of an issue more politicized in Western media than the topic of Russia. It is commonplace
to hear, read, and watch media reports claiming the worst possible things about Russia and Russians.
Criticisms are magnified even more when the subject is Vladimir Putin. While Russia does have a long list of issues to grapple
with (like just about every other country in the world), the kind of media coverage it receives in turn engenders a serious security
threat to the international system. Russia bashing is dangerous for us all.
Whether one likes it or not, Russia is an important power in the world. Having a seat on the UN Security Council confirms its
voice will be heard. In fact, Russia often represents the concerns of most of the globe on the Security Council, although this is
hardly ever pointed out by the western powers on the Council, particularly the United States. Russia is not a spoiler; rather it
holds back the unilateral tendencies held by those in Western capitals. It is almost unthinkable that anyone in the mainstream would
ever inform audiences of this reality.
It is quite remarkable, after the incessant demonization Russia gets from mainstream media, that the Kremlin continues to work
closely with the West on issues that impact geopolitical stability, i.e. Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, nuclear proliferation, terrorist
threats, food security, and the narcotics trade. Western publics rarely, if ever, learn about these kinds cooperation from their
media. This is truly regrettable.
The level of journalistic malpractice committed against Russia blinds Western electorates, poisons public opinion, and emboldens
the reckless political class. The denigration of the Sochi Games was to be expected. Cheap shots, lazy reporting and maniacal commentary
are a form of entertainment served up by Western mainstream media. The Games have come and will soon pass into history. But their
impact will be felt long after.
While the media spotlight is on Sochi, other places and events in the world demand our attention. Ukraine is in political deadlock
and is teetering on the brink of becoming a failed state. Western audiences are told it is all "Putin's fault." The fact
is we have irrefutable evidence ('Nulandgate') Washington is stoking the flames of division in Ukraine. Before the violence
in Kiev, Russia called for trilateral consultation involving Ukraine, the EU, and Russia.
Needless to say, mainstream media is very reluctant to inform its audiences of this. Instead, the narrative invented and spread
by the Western mainstream is how the West wants to save Ukraine from its "evil neighbor." This is a recipe for disaster
- and possible (though completely unnecessary) conflict involving the West and Russia.
There are many other issues, like Ukraine, that western media dwell on with a specific and intentional anti-Russia bias (such
as Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan). When publics are not informed or poorly informed, serious policy mistakes can be made. Russia has
its own geopolitical interests, often divergent from the geopolitical interests of the West. However, these differences should not
be reported as a binary of "good vs. evil." Doing so is irresponsible and a dereliction of journalistic duty.
The Sochi Games should be about athletic excellence and the sense of fair play, and not an exercise to bash Russia when it is
reaching out to the world in good faith. Western journalists should take a good look at themselves - where is their good faith?
Peter Lavelle is host of RT's "CrossTalk" and "On the Money."
On February 6, the XXII Olympic Winter Games began. A geopolitically tense atmosphere prevails.
Security is extremely tight. It's prioritized for good reason. Terrorist attacks are possible. Don't discount potential
Washington shenanigans.
Perhaps raining on Putin's parade is planned. Obama may want him embarrassed. False flags are a longstanding US tradition.
Will Sochi be Washington's next target? The fullness of time will tell.
It's a virtual armed camp. Measures in place are unprecedented. Around $2 billion was spent on security.
Ahead of February 6, around 23,000 personnel assured proper measures were in place as planned.
Tens of thousands of police officers are deployed. They're backed by helicopters, drones, gunboats, submarines, and
70,000 Russian troops.
Hundreds of Cossacks are involved. They'll check IDs. They'll detain suspects. Sochi's proximity to the North Caucasus
raised concerns.
Islamist jihadists named it a target. They're US assets. They're used strategically. Washington used likeminded ones
against Soviet Russia in Afghanistan.
Libya was targeted this way. They comprise America's anti-Syrian proxy death squads.
Russia raised concerns after December Volgograd bombings killed 34 people. Were Washington's dirty hands involved?
Is something similar planned for Sochi? Hegemons operate this way. America is by far the worst. Anything ahead is
possible.
According to Sochi Organizing Committee chairman Dmitry Chernyshenko:
"Terrorism is a global threat, and for terrorism there is no boundaries, no territories, but here in Sochi from the
very beginning of the construction phase the state authorities did their utmost to prepare special measures, starting
from the screening of raw materials, checking all the venues and preparing far-reaching security measures to provide
the safest ever environment here."
A controlled zone was established. It covers 60 kilometers. It runs along the coast. It extends 25 kilometers inland.
It includes all venues. They're heavily guarded. The entire area is for authorized visitors only.
Western anti-Russian sentiment persists. Cold War politics continues. Putin bashing is featured. He's not about to
roll over for Washington.
He wants rule of law principles respected. He opposes Western imperialism. He's against meddling in the internal affairs
of Russia, Syria, Ukraine and other nations.
He stresses Moscow's "independent foreign policy." He affirms the "inalienable right to security for all states, the
inadmissibility of excessive force, and unconditional observance of international law."
He and Obama disagree on fundamental geopolitical issues. Key is national sovereignty. So are war and peace. America
claims a divine right to fight. Putin prioritizes diplomatic conflict resolution.
Disagreements between both countries play out in dueling agendas. Washington notoriously plays hardball. Putin protects
Russia's national interests. They're too important to sacrifice.
US media scoundrels target him. They vilify him. They mischaracterize him. They call him a Russian strongman. They
make all kinds of baseless accusations.
Lies, damns lies and misinformation substitute for truth and full disclosure. They want him embarrassed. They're raining
on his Sochi parade.
On February 6, the Financial Times headlined "Putin gambles all on creation myth behind Sochi."
"I am particularly pleased to see what is happening here because I chose this place myself," he said.
"It must have been in 2001 or 2002," he added. "(W)e were driving around and arrived at this brook, and I said: 'Let's
start from here.' That's how it all began."
Putin staked much on the games, said the FT. George Washington University's Sufian Zhemukhov said "(i)f all goes well,
(he'll) be seen as the leader who resurrected Russia."
Failure perhaps won't be forgiven, he added. His forthrightness for peace "made him a force on the world stage," said
the FT.
A January Levada Center poll showed he'd be elected today by a wide margin. At the same time, his overall support
dropped.
Excluding undecided respondents, its "higher than ever."
He's taking no chances. He's going all out to make Sochi successful. FT comments were tame compared to America's media.
The Wall Street Journal headlined "The Putin Games." He wants them to "showcase...modern Russia."
"(H)e succeeded (but) not as he intended...What could go wrong?" Sochi is the most expensive Olympics in history.
Around $50 billion was spent. It's five times the original estimate. It's double what Britain's 2012 summer games
cost. It's a fourth more than China spent in 2008.
Much of Sochi's cost related to building vital infrastructure. It had to be done from scratch. Doing so added enormously
to costs.
Major projects are expensive. According to Journal editors, "(t)he games are proving to be a case study in the Putin
political and economic method."
They claim billions of dollars "lost to corruption." They provide no evidence proving it. They said "Russians call
this Olympiad the Korimpiad."
More Putin bashing followed. It's standard scoundrel media practice. Journal editors feature it.
They claim he "made it impossible to hold his regime accountable through free elections or media."
Fact check:
Russian elections shame America's sham ones. They're democratic. They not rigged. Monied interests don't control them.
Outcomes aren't predetermined. Russian voters decide. US ones have no say.
Don't expect Journal editors to explain. Or how Voice of Russia and RT (formerly Russia Today) shame America's corporate
media.
They feature news, information and opinion viewers most need to know. They do it forthrightly. They're polar opposite
America's managed news misinformation.
Truth is systematically suppressed. Demagoguery, propaganda, scandal, sleaze, junk food news, and warmongering substitute.
Journal editors ignore truth and full disclosure. Bias permeates their opinions. They betray readers. They shame themselves
doing so.
They claimed billions spent on Sochi left it unprepared. They cite "unfinished hotel rooms, incomplete road work and
now the famous photographs of two toilets in a single stall."
RT.com responded. On February 6, it headlined "Spread fear, toilet humor? MSM guide to 'Worst. Olympics. EVAR!" (Repeat:
EVAR!)
Even before the opening ceremony, MSM scoundrels drew conclusions "Sports? Not really," said RT. At issue is malicious
Putin bashing. It's longstanding practice.
It's MSM's "own Sochi 2014 moan-athon." Imagine claiming something yet to occur the "worst Olympics ever." They beat
up on Beijing the same way.
They "never believed in Sochi," said RT. They called its climate unfit for winter games. They cite corruption with
no substantiating evidence.
They claim lax security despite unprecedented measures in place. They discuss possible terrorist threats. They leave
unexplained what most worrisome - a possible disruptive US false flag attack.
It bears repeating. Perhaps Washington plans raining on Putin's parade.
On August 7, 2008, hours before Beijing's summer Olympics' opening ceremony, Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili invaded
South Ossetia. He did so at Washington's behest. Attacking was strategically timed.
After Soviet Russia's 1991 dissolution, South Assetia broke away from Georgia. It declared independence. It's home
to many Russian nationals.
Moscow responded responsibly. Conflict continued for days. Then President Medvedev was on vacation. Then Prime Minister
Putin was in Beijing.
In half a day before Russia intervened, 1,700 people were killed. Included were 12 Russian peacekeepers.
Moscow was blamed for Georgian aggression. Does Washington plan something similar this time? Will a false flag attack
occur?
Will Obama usurp a freer hand in Ukraine? Will he take advantage in Syria? Does he plan other mischief? Is disrupting
Sochi planned?
Hegemons operate this way. Washington's disturbing history gives Russia good reason for concern.
Preparations in Sochi aren't perfect, said RT. "(F)laws and problems" exist. "But what makes the Sochi Olympics 'the
worst' so far is...accommodation for the global media elite."
"See it, slam it," said RT. "Intrepid Olympic reporters, we thought, would get behind the scenes, unravel the PR."
"Nope. Not this time. Of global importance were rooms (if they were available), toilets, floors, and shower curtains."
"Oh - and a request to not flush toilet paper (it's rarely done in public toilets) had the press pack throwing up."
Washington Post reporter Kathy Lally was upset about "a tiny, tiny (hotel room) sink."
It "sits atop an exposed white plastic pipe, stuck to the wall and surrounded by an unruly gob of caulk," she said.
"The single room has two lamps - which don't have light bulbs, but that's okay because they aren't near any unused
outlets."
Other journalists reported missing shower curtains, lamps, chairs, inadequate heat and hot water, and whatever else
they wanted to cite to bash Putin.
Fox News called conditions "laughably bad." It warned about event coverage being just as dreadful.
MSM scoundrels feature daily "hotel horror stories." They regurgitate similar tweets to each other. They find new
reasons to complain.
BBC journalist Steve Rosenberg tweeted about two sit-down toilets shown side-by-side with no partition. It went viral.
RT calls it a "must have" for every Sochi story. Imagine toilet humor substituting for real journalism. It gets worse.
Whatever is happening in Russia multiple time zones away gets reported. A Moscow school shooting creates Sochi shudders.
So does a derailed gas-laden freight train exploding. It happened 500 miles northeast of Moscow. It made Sochi headlines.
CNN connected Sochi to the September 2004 Beslan school siege. Its February 5 report said:
"Amid the shrill noise of militant threats ahead of the Sochi Olympic Winter Games, the gym in Beslan is now steeped
in silence, a monument to the dead, untouched almost."
Trashing Sochi bashes Putin. MSM scoundrels are deplorable. They disgrace themselves before dwindling audiences.
CNN and other US cable news networks report increasing to fewer viewers. Maybe one day they'll all tune out.
RT called Sochi the "biggest construction site in the world over the past seven years."
"Everything there - most of the hotels, sport venues, high-speed rail links, highways, 50 bridges, even the Olympic
village itself - was built from scratch."
It's an extraordinary achievement in a short time. It's almost like building an entirely new city in record time.
Sochi deserves praise, not criticism.
Toronto Star reporter Rosie Dimanno wrote:
"Mounds of debris, parts of roads unpaved, mesh hoarding to hide the eyesore bits, lots of trash, unreliable power
- nothing upsets journalists more than an internet that goes up and down - these have all featured in Olympics over the
past three decades, as the Games have grown too big, too gaudy and too complicated."
"The Olympics are no (place) for old sissies," she added. "So I'll take my own advice: Just chill."
Most MSM scoundrels report as expected. They mock legitimate journalism. It's verboten in America. It's lacking in
Canada. It's largely absent in Western Europe. Managed news misinformation substitutes.
WSJ editors called Sochi "a shrine to authoritarianism." They bashed Putin relentlessly. One bald-faced lie followed
others.
"(T)he underbelly of Mr. Putin's regime (was) exposed," they claimed.
New York Times editors were just as bad. They headlined "A Spotlight on Mr. Putin's Russia," saying:
"(T)he reality of (his) Russia...conflicts starkly with Olympic ideals and fundamental human rights."
"There is no way to ignore the dark side - the soul-crushing repression, the cruel new anti-gay and blasphemy laws,
and the corrupt legal system in which political dissidents are sentenced to lengthy terms on false charges."
Fact check
NYT editors have a longstanding disturbing history. They one-sidedly support wealth, power and privilege. Whenever
Washington wages imperial wars or plans them, they march in lockstep.
They long ago lost credibility. They feature mind-numbing misinformation. They violate their own journalistic code
doing so.
They invented anti-gay law controversy. Russian gay propaganda law has nothing to do with persecuting people for their
sexual orientation.
Everyone's rights are respected. Russia wants its children protected from malicious anti-gay propaganda, illicit drugs,
alcohol abuse and whatever else harms them.
Responsible governance demands it. America leaves millions of children unprotected. Cutting food stamps alone denies
them vital nutrition.
Don't expect Times editors to explain. Or about thousands of political prisoners languishing in America's gulag.
About torture being official US policy. About rigged US elections. About impoverishing neoliberal harshness.
About destroying social America. About eliminating America's middle class. About waging war on freedom.
About unprecedented levels of public and private corruption. About kleptocracy masquerading as democracy.
About out-of-control corporate empowerment. About Washington being corporate occupied territory. About crushing organized
labor.
About commodifying public education. About ignoring international, constitutional and US statute laws.
About violating fundamental human and civil rights. About Obama's war on humanity.
Picking your way through Sochi's Olympic Park at night is like weaving through a giant car park in which a series
of jaw-dropping spaceships have landed at random.
The brightly lit ice palaces themselves are stunning, inside and out, and the sporting facilities have been rightly praised by
almost all the athletes. But, beyond them, there is little but concrete expanses, hastily planted grass verges and an incongruous
funfair.
To bring the Winter Games to his favourite holiday resort at a cost of $51bn, Vladimir Putin has had to build not only a series
of world-class sporting venues but an entire city. The scale of the construction is at once impressive and dizzily disconcerting.
Endless utilitarian apartment blocks and gigantic hotels sprawl seemingly at random in the so-called "coastal cluster". In the
mountains, ersatz approximations of a Swiss ski resort have sprouted. Even if you accept the argument that the Games can be used
as a catalyst for development, it is impossible not to wonder how they will be filled afterwards.
Lessons have been learned from previous Games, not least London 2012, in how to best frame the sporting action for maximum impact
– not only for those watching on television but those attending in person.
At Saturday's snowboarding, staged in a stunning setting under brilliant sunshine to a booming dance music soundtrack and cheering
crowds, it was even possible to feel the tingle of excitement in the cool mountain air.
Buried somewhere beneath the barrage of criticism of the huge cost of building the infrastructure to host these Games, the protests
about Putin's anti-gay laws and security concerns, is a sporting event struggling to get out. It might even be fun.
Not all of the criticism has been fair and there is a lingering undercurrent of bitterness from the Russian organisers, who believe
they are being unfairly targeted.
The Cold War may have been studiously avoided in an intelligent opening ceremony, but the simmering tension between the US and
Russia is at the heart of a tug of war over how these Games are presented to the world. American networks in particular have dwelled
on tales of unfinished media hotels and ramped-up security concerns.
By the same token, the Russian organisers have been needlessly defensive and slow to acknowledge genuine, and often comical, problems
with accommodation and, more seriously, prickly when it comes to criticism of their human rights record and anti-gay laws. Putin's
hopes for a flawless Games that would showcase his vision of Russian might to the world is already fraying at the edges.
Rightly or wrongly, it is also the Americans who have been most vocal in their criticism of some of the sparkling new sporting
facilities.
Shaun White pulled out of theslopestyle snowboarding over concerns about the safetyof the course and US downhill skier Bode Miller
on Saturday warned that the Rosa Khuta piste "could kill you" after watching team-mate Marco Sullivan narrowly escape a serious crash.
Shoddy hotel rooms and malfunctioning giant snowflakes aside, everything else appears to be working as it should. Inside the so-called
"ring of steel", security is surprisingly unobtrusive. Policemen are dressed down in purple tracksuits and volunteers are friendly
and helpful.
What is not yet clear is where the soul of these Games will lie. Russian organisers insist ticket sales have been strong and venues
have appeared fairly full so far. The extent to which ordinary Russians get behind an Olympics that, to date, have sometimes appeared
the obsession of just one man will be a key factor in determining how they are remembered.
What would Paddy think of American corporations skipping out on taxes by earning nearly half of their profits in tax-haven countries?
What would he think of the unholy alliance between Internet giants like Google and Facebook and the U.S. national security apparatus?
Chayefsky's dazzling satire "Network," with its unforgettable mad prophet of the airwaves, Howard Beale, blossomed from the writer's
curdled feelings about TV. What wouldn't the network suits do for ratings, he would ask lunch companions like Mel Brooks and Bob
Fosse at the Carnegie Deli.
But now America runs on clicks. Chayefsky's nightmare has been multiplied many times over, with the total media-ization and monetization
of everything, the supremacy of ratings and market share, the commercialization of all editorial decisions.
Now that they're armed with big data and science, corporate bosses are able to figure out how many people are watching which minute
of which segment.
An analytics service called Chartbeat gives webmasters instantaneous access to those on the other side of the screen by providing
real-time data on their mouse clicks, time spent reading or watching, and even their location.
In his fun upcoming book, "Mad as Hell: The Making of Network and the Fateful Vision of the Angriest Man in Movies," Dave Itzkoff,
a culture reporter at The Times, offers a vivid portrait of the charming and depressed curmudgeon.
Itzkoff has great anecdotes about Faye Dunaway's prima donna paranoia about the most brilliant love-work sex scene in movie history.
And he dishes up fun factoids, like how Howard Beale got his name from the mother-daughter duo, "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" Beale,
and how Peter Finch flubbed and added an extra "as" to one of the most famous lines in movie history, which Chayefsky wrote this
way: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."
The Bronx-born writer, who died of cancer in 1981, was bedraggled and "built like an office safe," as the director Joshua Logan
put it. He did exhaustive research into networks in New York, but then had to film the movie at a Toronto TV station once the American
networks realized the piece was a Strangelovey dirge.
Chayefsky said his 1976 masterpiece was "a rage against the dehumanization of people" addicted to "boredom-killing" devices -
a dehumanization that has gone to warp speed as we have entered the cloud. He said it was about "how to protect ourselves" from "the
illusion we sell as truth."
That illusion is ever more pervasive as people believe and spread wacky viral content like snow-covered Pyramids, a half-toilet
in Sochi and a story about Samsung paying Apple a billion-dollar fine in nickels.
Chayefsky warned against "comicalizing the news," noting "To make a gag out of the news is disreputable and extremely destructive."
But real news became so diminished that young people turned to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to learn about what was going on in
the world.
Colbert told Itzkoff that "Network" is his favorite movie. Although Howard Beale is not an inspiration for his bombastic TV alter
ego, Colbert said that the Beale character anticipated an attitude those types of broadcasters share, which is "I will tell you what
to think." Beale's approach, the comic said, was more "quasi-benevolent," as in "I'm going to remind you that you're being anesthetized
right now."
If Paddy, who used to say "truth is truth," could see how far beyond "Network" we've gone, he would not only be mad as hell. He'd
be scared as hell.
Earlier this week, NBC "reported" that journalists
and visitors to Sochi are being immediately hacked virtually as soon as they acquire a connection. [AUTOPLAY WARNING.] NBC presented
this as something completely inescapable in its report, which purportedly showed NBC journalist Richard Engel's cellphone and laptop
being compromised "before he even finished his coffee."
The story shows Richard Engel "getting hacked" while in a cafe in Russia. It is wrong in every salient detail.
They aren't in Sochi, but in Moscow, 1007 miles away.
The "hack" happens because of the websites they visit (Olympic themed websites), not their physical location. The results
would've been the same in America.
The phone didn't "get" hacked; Richard Engel initiated the download of a hostile Android app onto his phone.
...and in order to download the Android app, Engel had to disable a lock that prevents such downloads -- something few users
do [update].
While your average person might be lured to sketchy sites supposedly related to the Olympics, most of these people wouldn't have
disabled the default locks on their phone, as Robert Graham at Errata Security points out.
Pointing to the massive amounts of propaganda spewed by government and institutions around the world, observers have called our
era the age of Orwell. But the fact is that Orwell was a latecomer on the scene. As early as World War I, American historians offered
themselves to President Woodrow Wilson to carry out a task they called "historical engineering," by which they meant designing the
facts of history so that they would serve state policy. In this instance, the U.S. government wanted to silence opposition to the
war. This represents a version of Orwell's 1984, even before Orwell was writing.
In 1921, the famous American journalist Walter Lippmann said that the art of democracy requires what he called the "manufacture
of consent." This phrase is an Orwellian euphemism for thought control. The idea is that in a state such as the U.S. where the government
can't control the people by force, it had better control what they think.. The Soviet Union is at the opposite end of the spectrum
from us in its domestic freedoms. It's essentially a country run by the bludgeon. It's very easy to determine what propaganda is
in the USSR: what the state produces is propaganda.
That's the kind of thing that Orwell described in 1984 (not a very good book in my opinion). 1984 is so popular because it's trivial
and it attacks our enemies. If Orwell had dealt with a different problem-- ourselves--his book wouldn't have been so popular. In
fact, it probably wouldn't have been published.
In totalitarian societies where there's a Ministry of Truth, propaganda doesn't really try to control your thoughts. It just gives
you the party line. It says, "Here's the official doctrine; don't disobey and you won't get in trouble. What you think is not of
great importance to anyone. If you get out of line we'll do something to you because we have force." Democratic societies can't work
like that, because the state is much more limited in its capacity to control behavior by force. Since the voice of the people is
allowed to speak out, those in power better control what that voice says--in other words, control what people think. One of the ways
to do this is to create political debate that appears to embrace many opinions, but actually stays within very narrow margins. You
have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions--and that those assumptions are the basis of the propaganda
system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, the debate is permissible.
The Vietnam War is a classic example of America's propaganda system. In the mainstream media--the New York Times, CBS, and so
on-- there was a lively debate about the war. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks." The hawks said, "If
we keep at it we can win." The doves said, "Even if we keep at it, it would probably be too costly for use, and besides, maybe we're
killing too many people." Both sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. Doves and
hawks alike refused to admit that aggression was taking place. They both called our military presence in Southeast Asia the defense
of South Vietnam, substituting "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. In reality, we were attacking South Vietnam
just as surely as the Soviets later attacked Afghanistan.
Consider the following facts. In 1962 the U.S. Air Force began direct attacks against the rural population of South Vietnam with
heavy bombing and defoliation . It was part of a program intended to drive millions of people into detention camps where, surrounded
by barbed wire and armed guards, they would be "protected" from the guerrillas they were supporting--the "Viet Cong," the southern
branch of the former anti-French resistance (the Vietminh). This is what our government calls aggression or invasion when conducted
by some official enemy. The Saigon government had no legitimacy and little popular support, and its leadership was regularly overthrown
in U.S.-backed coups when it was feared they might arrange a settlement with the Viet Cong. Some 70,000 "Viet Cong" had already been
killed in the U.S.-directed terror campaign before the outright U.S. invasion took place in 1972.
Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we tried to establish a government in Saigon to invite us in. We had to overthrow regime after
regime in that effort. Finally we simply invaded outright. That is plain, simple aggression. But anyone in the U.S. who thought that
our policies in Vietnam were wrong in principle was not admitted to the discussion about the war. The debate was essentially over
tactics.
Even at the peak of opposition to the U.S. war, only a minuscule portion of the intellectuals opposed the war out of principle--on
the grounds that aggression is wrong. Most intellectuals came to oppose it well after leading business circles did--on the "pragmatic"
grounds that the costs were too high.
Strikingly omitted from the debate was the view that the U.S. could have won, but that it would have been wrong to allow such
military aggression to succeed. This was the position of the authentic peace movement but it was seldom heard in the mainstream media.
If you pick up a book on American history and look at the Vietnam War, there is no such event as the American attack on South Vietnam.
For the past 22 years, I have searched in vain for even a single reference in mainstream journalism or scholarship to an "American
invasion of South Vietnam" or American "aggression" in South Vietnam. In America's doctrinal system, there is no such event. It's
out of history, down Orwell's memory hole.
If the U.S. were a totalitarian state, the Ministry of Truth would simply have said, "It's right for us to go into Vietnam. Don't
argue with it." People would have recognized that as the propaganda system, and they would have gone on thinking whatever they wanted.
They would have plainly seen that we were attacking Vietnam, just as we can see the Soviets are attacking Afghanistan.
People are much freer in the U.S., they are allowed to express themselves. That's why it's necessary for those in power to control
everyone's thought, to try and make it appear as if the only issues in matters such as U.S. intervention in Vietnam are tactical:
Can we get away with it? There is no discussion of right or wrong.
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. propaganda system did its job partially but not entirely. Among educated people it worked very
well. Studies show that among the more educated parts of the population, the government's propaganda about the war is now accepted
unquestioningly. One reason that propaganda often works better on the educated than on the uneducated is that educated people read
more, so they receive more propaganda. Another is that they have jobs in management, media, and academia and therefore work in some
capacity as agents of the propaganda system--and they believe what the system expects them to believe. By and large, they're part
of the privileged elite, and share the interests and perceptions of those in power.
On the other hand, the government had problems in controlling the opinions of the general population. According to some of the
latest polls, over 70 percent of Americans still thought the war was, to quote the Gallup Poll, "fundamentally wrong and immoral,
not a mistake." Due to the widespread opposition to the Vietnam War, the propaganda system lost its grip on the beliefs of many Americans.
They grew skeptical about what they were told. In this case there's even a name for the erosion of belief. It's called the "Vietnam
Syndrome," a grave disease in the eyes of America's elites because people understand too much.
Let me gives on more example of the powerful propaganda system at work in the U.S.--the congressional vote on contra aid in March
1986. For three months prior to the vote, the administration was heating up the political atmosphere, trying to reverse the congressional
restrictions on aid to the terrorist army that's attacking Nicaragua. I was interested in how the media was going to respond to the
administration campaign for the contras. So I studied two national newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times. In January,
February, and March, I went through every one of their editorials, opinion pieces, and the columns written by their own columnists.
There were 85 pieces. Of these, all were anti-Sandinista. On that issue, no discussion was tolerable.
There are two striking facts about the Sandinista government, as compared with our allies in Central America--Honduras, Guatemala,
and El Salvador. One is that the Sandinista government doesn't slaughter its population. That's a well-recognized fact. Second, Nicaragua
is the only one of those countries in which the government has tried to direct social services to the poor. This too, is not a matter
of debate; it is conceded on all sides to be true.
On the other hand, our allies in Guatemala and El Salvador are among the world's worst terrorist states. So far in the 1980s,
they have slaughtered over 150,000 of their own citizens, with U.S. support. These nations do little for their populations except
torture, terrorize, and kill them. Honduras is a little different. In Honduras, there's a government of the rich that robs the poor.
It doesn't kill on the scale of El Salvador or Guatemala, but a large part of the population is starving to death.
So in examining the 85 editorials, I also looked for these two facts about Nicaragua. The fact that the Sandinistas are radically
different from our Central American allies in that they don't slaughter their population was not mentioned once. That they have carried
out social reforms for the poor was referred to in two phrases, both buried. Two phrases in 85 columns on one crucial issue, zero
phrases in 85 columns on another.
That's really remarkable control over thought on a highly debated issue. After that I went through the editorials on El Salvador
and Nicaragua from 1980 to the present; it's essentially the same story. Nicaragua, a country under attack by the regional superpower,
did on October 15, 1985, what we did in Hawaii during World War II: instituted a state of siege. There was a huge uproar in the mainstream
American press--editorials, denunciations, claims that the Sandinistas are totalitarian Stalinist monsters, and so on.
Two days after that, on October 17, El Salvador renewed its state of siege. Instituted in March 1980 and renewed monthly afterwards,
El Salvador's state of siege was far more harsh than Nicaragua's. It blocked freedom of movement and virtually all civil rights.
It was the framework within which the U.S.-trained and -organized army has carried out torture and slaughter.
The New York Times considered the Nicaraguan state of siege a great atrocity. The Salvadoran state of siege, far harsher in its
methods and it application, was never mentioned in 160 New York Times editorials on Nicaragua and El Salvador, up to now [mid-1986,
the time of this interview].
We are often told the country is a budding democracy, so it can't possibly be having a state of siege. According to news reports
on El Salvador, Duarte is heading a moderate centrist government under attack by terrorists of the left and of the right. This is
complete nonsense. Every human rights investigation, even the U.S. government in private, concedes that terrorism is being carried
out by the Salvadoran government itself. The death squads are the security forces. Duarte is simply a front for terrorists. But that
is seldom said publicly. All this falls under Walter Lippmann's notion of "the manufacture of consent." Democracy permits the voice
of the people to be heard, and it is the task of the intellectual to ensure that this voice endorses what leaders perceive to be
the right course. Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to totalitarianism. The techniques have been honed to a high art in
the U.S. and elsewhere, far beyond anything that Orwell dreamed of. The device of feigned dissent (as practiced by the Vietnam- era
"doves," who criticized the war on the grounds of effectiveness and not principle) is one of the more subtle means, though simple
lying and suppressing fact and other crude techniques are also highly effective.
For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms
and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the propaganda system
to which we are subjected and in which all too often we serve as unwilling or unwitting instruments.
For the next 20 years I would go on from war zone to war zone as a foreign correspondent immersed in military culture. Repetitive
rote learning and an insistence on blind obedience-similar to the approach used to train a dog-work on the battlefield. The military
exerts nearly total control over the lives of its members. Its long-established hierarchy ensures that those who embrace the approved
modes of behavior rise and those who do not are belittled, insulted and hazed. Many of the marks of civilian life are stripped away.
Personal modes of dress, hairstyle, speech and behavior are heavily regulated. Individuality is physically and then psychologically
crushed. Aggressiveness is rewarded. Compassion is demeaned. Violence is the favorite form of communication. These qualities are
an asset in war; they are a disaster in civil society.
Homer in "The Iliad" showed his understanding of war. His heroes are not pleasant men. They are vain, imperial, filled with rage
and violent. And Homer's central character in "The Odyssey," Odysseus, in his journey home from war must learn to shed his "hero's
heart," to strip from himself the military attributes that served him in war but threaten to doom him off the battlefield. The qualities
that serve us in war defeat us in peace.
Most institutions have a propensity to promote mediocrities, those whose primary strengths are knowing where power lies, being
subservient and obsequious to the centers of power and never letting morality get in the way of one's career. The military is the
worst in this respect.
In the military, whether at the Paris Island boot camp or West Point, you are trained not to think but to obey. What amazes me
about the military is how stupid and bovine its senior officers are. Those with brains and the willingness to use them seem to be
pushed out long before they can rise to the senior-officer ranks.
The many Army generals I met over the years not only lacked the most rudimentary creativity and independence of thought but nearly
always saw the press, as well as an informed public, as impinging on their love of order, regimentation, unwavering obedience to
authority and single-minded use of force to solve complex problems.
... ... ...
...Peace is for the weak. War is for the strong. Hypermasculinity has triumphed over empathy. We Americans speak to the world
exclusively in the language of force. And those who oversee our massive security and surveillance state seek to speak to us in the
same demented language. All other viewpoints are to be shut out.
"In the absence of contrasting views, the very highest form of propaganda warfare can be fought: the propaganda for a definition
of reality within which only certain limited viewpoints are possible,"C. Wright
Mills wrote. "What is being promulgated and reinforced is the military metaphysics-the cast of mind that defines international
reality as basically military."
RT: The US has already introduced sanctions against Ukraine's leadership - you've been covering this ongoing turmoil - why
is the West ignoring the level of violence by the opposition?
GP:In terms of that you have to look at who's reporting the actual actions taking place in Kiev. It's coming
filtered through the prism of organizations such as Radio Svoboda, Ukrainskaya Pravda and the Kiev Post. Their objectivity is
completely compromised by the fact they're effectively opposition activists organs. And they are functioning in that way - and they
are reporting the news to that ends, and so we get the news filtered through the opposition's lens. And that's how it is reported
to the wide world.
RT: What do you think is the driving force of the unrest?
GP: The driving force is clearly fundamental far right extremist neo-Nazi politics. Everyone knew that when
'Svoboda' achieved around 10% of the votes in the October, 2012 election there were going to be repercussions, and it didn't take
long. And this has been in the offing for a long time.
If you notice now, nobody is even talking about the Association agreement; nobody is even talking about Tymoshenko's release from
prison, which were supposedly the touch papers which lit this up. This was orchestrated from the beginning, and if you go to the
occupied City Hall now you'll see Svoboda's flags, Svoboda's banners flying, bedecked across the building. So make no mistake:
this is an attempt by a party strongly linked with far right neo-Nazi politics to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
... ... ...
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
Briefly, back to the Syrian crisis, I am sure we all remember the map that was circulated by the New York Times and Human Rights
Watch that purported to show the point of origin of the two missiles found by the UN inspectors in Ghouta following the sarin
attack of 21st August 2013? The map purported to show that the trajectories of the two missiles converged on a Syrian army base
in Damascus that was supposedly the launch point.
The map is a classic example of how disinformation is spread by drawing conclusions based on incomplete evidence.
As I repeatedly pointed out at the time the UN inspectors made no claims about the range of the missiles, their type, their launch
point or who launched them. There was no warrant for joining up the dots in the way that was being done and doing so was almost
bound to lead to a wrong conclusion.
Anyway a proper technical analysis of the two missiles has now been done. It has confirmed that they were both crude adaptations
that used BM21 Grad rocket engines. That presumably means that the claim that one of the missiles was a Russian made 140 mm missile
was wrong. Grad rocket engines are widely available in the Middle East and a report I read a short while ago (I have lost the
link) admitted that the making of both missiles would be well within the technical abilities of some of the Syrian rebel groups
such as the Al Nusra Front.
More pertinently the technical analysis has confirmed that the range estimates of the two missiles upon which the map circulated
by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch were based were wrong. The missiles could not have been launched from the Syrian
army base shown on the map because they simply lacked the range for this having a range of 2.5 km at most. The New York Times
has now published an article that acknowledges this and quietly retracts the claim even if the article still tries to insist that
the evidence points to the Syrian army as having launched the missiles.
I would suggest that on the contrary the new evidence showing that the missiles used were crude home made short range devices
that used an adaptation of a Grad rocket engine points clearly away from the government and towards the rebels. Surely if the
attack had been launched by the government it would have used more sophisticated weapons than this?
A Russian report I have seen says that the sarin used in the Ghouta attack in August 2013 is similar but of a higher quality
to sarin used in an earlier attack in March 2013. The Russians have provided the UN with a detailed report (which they have not
made public) that appears to identify the perpetrators of the March 2013 attack as the rebels (apparently the Al Nusra Front).
The Russians have said that the improvement in quality in the sarin used in the attack in Ghouta in August 2013 is simply because
rebel chemists after March 2013 were able to improve their sarin production process.
One way or the other it seems to me as if the claims of government responsibility for the sarin attack in Ghouta in August
2013 (on the basis of which let us not forget the US nearly went to war) are beginning to show cracks. I suspect we will know
the full truth before long. If it is conclusively proved that the rebels were responsible then coming after the debacle of the
chemical weapons in Iraq that didn't exist the political consequences might be severe.
marknesop:
I don't see much backing off, certainly not by Eliot Higgins (the famous "Brown Moses") and probably not by The Idiot Formerly
Known As Michael Weiss. On the contrary, the former asserts that the revised data tends to prove his theory that the government
was responsible. The position of the Assad-Dunnit crowd is, "Was a rocket or rockets fired that day? I rest my case; Assad dunnit."
I certainly hope there will be more information forthcoming, but the U.S. government has a skin allergy to egg, and is not going
to allow any on its face without a struggle. It is probably moot now, since the urgency to attack has slipped away and there have
been no further incidents, but it would still be nice to see that foolish fabrication conclusively refuted.
kirill:
This time around the hysterics around this false flag incident did not lead to a bombing campaign. In 1999, the Racak hoax
succeeded in its function of offering up a bombing pretext. The western media consumer is easily duped by such transparent ploys.
In the case of Syria it was patently absurd for the government to hold off bombing its people with chemical weapons just until
the point that NATO needed a pretext. The timing of Racak was just as contrived.
Something changed between 1999 and 2013. The western media would not have invested so much hysteria into this incident if there
was no plan to bomb Syria. In my view the Russian fleet in the eastern Mediterranean had something to do with this difference.
I really doubt that NATO was reluctant to attack based on its experience in Libya since Libya was a success for the regime changers.
Also, NATO is not so poor at the moment that it couldn't afford a bombing campaign. It is also possible that public opinion in
the west is not as pliable with these hoaxed events as it was in 2003 and earlier.
Jen:
The vote by British MPs against invading Syria had the effect of stopping the Cameron govt support for an attack dead in its
tracks. This probably took some of the momentum out of the US push. In the end, only Israel and Saudi Arabia supported the O'Bomber
govt and the three of them together (world police enforcer supported by genocidal ghetto state and barbarian kingdom) were definitely
not a good PR look to the rest of the world.
Then Putin stepped in with his piece in the New York Times and that helped erode what public support still existed in the Anglosphere
on both sides of the Atlantic for an invasion.
I don't know about France since France as well as the UK supports regime change in Syria. I do know the current Hollande govt
is hugely unpopular with the French public and the French military is stretched with failing interventions in Mali, the Central
African Republic and elsewhere in western Africa. The French public must be as war-weary as the public in the UK and US and their
mood is probably percolating up through their elected representatives into resistance against Hollande.
marknesop:
For a good look at one of the gun barrels the Hollande government is staring down, check out The Saker's post, the latest in
a series of updates on the situation. The gesture known as "La Quenelle" is sweeping France as ordinary people display their contempt
for and mockery of the Hollande government.
If a vote were held today, Hollande would be lucky to end up with a job sweeping out the stables, and the emergence of
a viable contender might even cause his government to fall early.
France looks due for a rude economic correction in 2014 as well, although it may be able to fend it off for another year until
2015. Nonetheless, it is not far from economic collapse. The trending political wave as described by The Saker is anti-anti-immigrant,
and if accurate it is astonishing how it has caught on considering the tendency of official French channels to blame Muslim immigrants
for all France's woes.
Supported by Canadian tax dollars to the tune of almost $1b per year, CBC-TV English language news has been crafted
to serve the same purpose as Joseph Goebbel's Ministry of Truth - a true propaganda organ. Below runs a letter of outrage sent
by author and activist Robert S. Rodvik to the news network. With Canada increasingly moving in lock-step with the United States
on virtually all issues, the letter shows that this mainstream outlet has sacrified its independence not to serve Canada's national
interests but the imperial agenda of a foreign nation. Gone are the days when U.S. Army deserters could find asylum under the maple
trees.
... ... ...
Back in 1953 the CIA (Kermit Roosevelt et al) overthrew the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Molhammad
Mosaddegh and the US then installed the puppet Reza Shah Palahvi, with the CIA and Mossad teaching the Shah's newly-taught torturerers,
SAVAK, the manner by which to control protests of the people. Tens of thousands were tortured and murdered in order that the US and
Britain continue their oil exploitation on the same pattern of theft that Mossaddegh had promised to reverse. Blood for oil was the
formula that ever after guided the poltroons of the West in their empire-driven goals.
In 1954 the CIA mounted a coup d'etat against
the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, installed their puppet Castillo Armas and thus ushered in a 50-year reign
of terror that was true genocide against the Maya indigenous peoples, hundreds of thousands dead thanks to US terrorism. Arbenz's
crime was to attempt to redistibute fallow land to landless peasants, an affront to United Fruit and the Dulles brothers; Alan running
the CIA and John Foster as Secretary of State. Socialist ideas were pegged as "communistic" and had to be halted immediately less
others in Latin America arrive at similar incentives for the masses.
The US also invaded the Republic of North Korea on behalf of their brutal, torturing puppet Syngman Rhee, (read I.F. Stone, The
Hidden History to see who really started that war) and as always, Canada's satrap government sent troops to kill and die in Korea,
while their puppet masters committed every war crime known to man and caused the deaths of some four million Koreans, the US even
gunning down civilian populations at places like No Gun Ri, Cheju, and Daejon. When an individual has a grade 12 education or less
and is brainwashed to kill, these massacres are but a byproduct of the system. This is why Americans will never be given a proper
education, the ill-informed bodies are needed for all the wars yet to come in a society of never ending wars.
Add in the invasions of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia - based on the fabricated Tonkin Gulf Incident - and we have another four million
deaths attributable to Yankee insanity and immorality. I cannot recall any condemnation of the US mass murder genocide by CBC television
throughout the decade of terror unleashed in those countries.
"Tricky Dicky" Nixon continued the devastation unleashed on Southeast Asia that had started under Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson
and which resulted in millions dead and toxic ruination of the countryside via the 2-4D defoliant
Agent Orange (just one of many war crimes),
and still found time to destroy the social experiment begun by president Salvador Allende Gossens in Chile. Especially reprehensible
to Nixon, Kissinger and the killers running US foreign policy was the fact that Allende had promised a daily cup of milk to poor
Chilean women with children; a horrific "communist" idea. And so it was that a CIA-fomented coup was undertaken resulting in the
bombing of the presidential palace, the death of Allende, the installation of the terror regime of Augusto Pinochet and the murder
and torture of tens of thousands by the US pal and his killer henchmen. No condemnation by CBC back then either.
Soon enough Ronald Reagan was running wars throughout Central America with his Death Squad pals in Guatemala, El Salvador and
Nicaragua. And, after these impoverished countries were brought to their knees with little left of their economies, Reagan had yet
another project ahead - Grenada.
Maurice Bishop and the New Jewell Movement had decided that the country's minimal water resources would better serve the island's
small farmer population than for the golf estates of the tourism industry. At the same time, however, he figured a new airport serving
larger planes would be good for the island's tourism industry and sought a Cuban company to construct it. Welcome Ronnie Reagan once
more. "The airport could be used for long-range Russian bombers," the President declared. So a massive invasion force attacked the
island, killed the Cubans building the runway, a small number of mental patients who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong
time and a number of cows roaming the fields.
The icing on the cake was the fact that "Russia's" runway was then completed - by US contractors. Water meant for family farmers
ended up on Golfing estates and soon planeloads of Yankee golfers were dogging the sunny fairways on Grenada. Nor did the Russkys
invade as Reagan suggested. All's well that ends well. CBC-TV uttered nary a word of condemnation.
Then came Bill Clinton and the Balkans. Slovenia and Bosnia decided to unilaterally separate (think Quebec and the FLQ) which
left Bosnian Serbs outnumbered and remembering WWII when Croat Nazi divisions and Nazi Bosnian Muslims massacred hundreds of thousands
of Serbs. One of the leaders of the Muslim SS Division Handzar was the then president Alia Izetbegovic, somehow elevated to head
the province of Bosnia. Although the opportunity to end the ethnic conflict was introduced early on by Britain's Lord Owen, Bill
Clinton secretly informed Izetbegovic that if he could produce enough Muslim victims, the Yankees would take over. Thus began a series
of marketplace bombings in downtown Sarajevo - later proved to be Muslim shellings of Muslim civilians - and the US killing machine
moved in. A supposedly "safe-haven" was created in the town of Srebrenica with Dutch troops manning the enclave. Among those gathered
in Srebrenica, however, were the ruthless, bloodthirsty paramilitary killers run by Islamist Naser Oric. This gang of murderers regularly
slipped out of Srebrenica and raided Serb towns in the vicinity, cutting off the heads of old women and men before retreating back
to the safe haven of Srebrenica, killing thousands in the process. Since this is a story in itself and takes too long to delineate,
I will leave it there; except to say that CBC-TV reports none of this reality to this day
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
