Distorting Russia

Putin’s A Game Changer!

How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine.

The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm.

There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two different political or “expert” views on major developments; or to publish opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.

The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted Washington’s narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did was a “transition from communism to democracy” and thus in America’s best interests. This included his economic “shock therapy” and oligarchic looting of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of a “presidential” Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which gave rise to terrorists in Russia’s North Caucasus; rigging of his own re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.

Since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts. (Was any Soviet Communist leader after Stalin ever so personally villainized?) If Russia under Yeltsin was presented as having legitimate politics and national interests, we are now made to believe that Putin’s Russia has none at all, at home or abroad—even on its own borders, as in Ukraine.

Russia today has serious problems and many repugnant Kremlin policies. But anyone relying on mainstream American media will not find there any of their origins or influences in Yeltsin’s Russia or in provocative US policies since the 1990s—only in the “autocrat” Putin who, however authoritarian, in reality lacks such power. Nor is he credited with stabilizing a disintegrating nuclear-armed country, assisting US security pursuits from Afghanistan and Syria to Iran or even with granting amnesty, in December, to more than 1,000 jailed prisoners, including mothers of young children.

Not surprisingly, in January The Wall Street Journal featured the widely discredited former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, branding Putin’s government as one of “deceit, violence and cynicism,” with the Kremlin a “nerve center of the troubles that bedevil the West.” But wanton Putin-bashing is also the dominant narrative in centrist, liberal and progressive media, from the Post, Times and The New Republic to CNN, MSNBC and HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, where Howard Dean, not previously known for his Russia expertise, recently declared, to the panel’s approval, “Vladimir Putin is a thug.”

The media therefore eagerly await Putin’s downfall—due to his “failing economy” (some of its indicators are better than US ones), the valor of street protesters and other right-minded oppositionists (whose policies are rarely examined), the defection of his electorate (his approval ratings remain around 65 percent) or some welcomed “cataclysm.” Evidently believing, as does the Times, for example, that democrats and a “much better future” will succeed Putin (not zealous ultranationalists growing in the streets and corridors of power), US commentators remain indifferent to what the hoped-for “destabilization of his regime” might mean in the world’s largest nuclear country.

Certainly, The New Republic’s lead writer on Russia, Julia Ioffe, does not explore the question, or much else of real consequence, in her nearly 10,000-word February 17 cover story. Ioffe’s bannered theme is devoutly Putin-phobic: “He Crushed His Opposition and Has Nothing to Show for It But a Country That Is Falling Apart.” Neither sweeping assertion is spelled out or documented. A compilation of chats with Russian-born Ioffe’s disaffected (but seemingly not “crushed”) Moscow acquaintances and titillating personal gossip long circulating on the Internet, the article seems better suited (apart from some factual errors) for the Russian tabloids, as does Ioffe’s disdain for objectivity. Protest shouts of “Russia without Putin!” and “Putin is a thief!” were “one of the most exhilarating moments I’d ever experienced.” So was tweeting “Putin’s fucked, y’all.” Nor does she forget the hopeful mantra “cataclysm seems closer than ever now.”

* * *

For weeks, this toxic coverage has focused on the Sochi Olympics and the deepening crisis in Ukraine. Even before the Games began, the Times declared the newly built complex a “Soviet-style dystopia” and warned in a headline, Terrorism and Tension, Not Sports and Joy. On opening day, the paper found space for three anti-Putin articles and a lead editorial, a feat rivaled by the Post. Facts hardly mattered. Virtually every US report insisted that a record $51 billion “squandered” by Putin on the Sochi Games proved they were “corrupt.” But as Ben Aris of Business New Europe pointed out, as much as $44 billion may have been spent “to develop the infrastructure of the entire region,” investment “the entire country needs.”

Overall pre-Sochi coverage was even worse, exploiting the threat of terrorism so licentiously it seemed pornographic. The Post, long known among critical-minded Russia-watchers as Pravda on the Potomac, exemplified the media ethos. A sports columnist and an editorial page editor turned the Olympics into “a contest of wills” between the despised Putin’s “thugocracy” and terrorist “insurgents.” The “two warring parties” were so equated that readers might have wondered which to cheer for. If nothing else, American journalists gave terrorists an early victory, tainting “Putin’s Games” and frightening away many foreign spectators, including some relatives of the athletes.

The Sochi Games will soon pass, triumphantly or tragically, but the potentially fateful Ukrainian crisis will not. A new Cold War divide between West and East may now be unfolding, not in Berlin but in the heart of Russia’s historical civilization. The result could be a permanent confrontation fraught with instability and the threat of a hot war far worse than the one in Georgia in 2008. These dangers have been all but ignored in highly selective, partisan and inflammatory US media accounts, which portray the European Union’s “Partnership” proposal benignly as Ukraine’s chance for democracy, prosperity and escape from Russia, thwarted only by a “bullying” Putin and his “cronies” in Kiev.

Not long ago, committed readers could count on The New York Review of Books for factually trustworthy alternative perspectives on important historical and contemporary subjects. But when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the NYRB has succumbed to the general media mania. In a January 21 blog post, Amy Knight, a regular contributor and inveterate Putin-basher, warned the US government against cooperating with the Kremlin on Sochi security, even suggesting that Putin’s secret services “might have had an interest in allowing or even facilitating such attacks” as killed or wounded dozens of Russians in Volgograd in December.

Knight’s innuendo prefigured a purported report on Ukraine by Yale professor Timothy Snyder in the February 20 issue. Omissions of facts, by journalists or scholars, are no less an untruth than misstatements of fact. Snyder’s article was full of both, which are widespread in the popular media, but these are in the esteemed NYRB and by an acclaimed academic. Consider a few of Snyder’s assertions:

§ ”On paper, Ukraine is now a dictatorship.” In fact, the “paper” legislation he’s referring to hardly constituted dictatorship, and in any event was soon repealed. Ukraine is in a state nearly the opposite of dictatorship—political chaos uncontrolled by President Viktor Yanukovych, the Parliament, the police or any other government institution.

§ ”The [parliamentary] deputies…have all but voted themselves out of existence.” Again, Snyder is alluding to the nullified “paper.” Moreover, serious discussions have been under way in Kiev about reverting to provisions in the 2004 Constitution that would return substantial presidential powers to the legislature, hardly “the end of parliamentary checks on presidential power,” as Snyder claims. (Does he dislike the prospect of a compromise outcome?)

§ ”Through remarkably large and peaceful public protests…Ukrainians have set a positive example for Europeans.” This astonishing statement may have been true in November, but it now raises questions about the “example” Snyder is advocating. The occupation of government buildings in Kiev and in Western Ukraine, the hurling of firebombs at police and other violent assaults on law enforcement officers and the proliferation of anti-Semitic slogans by a significant number of anti-Yanukovych protesters, all documented and even televised, are not an “example” most readers would recommend to Europeans or Americans. Nor are they tolerated, even if accompanied by episodes of police brutality, in any Western democracy.

§ ”Representatives of a minor group of the Ukrainian extreme right have taken credit for the violence.” This obfuscation implies that apart perhaps from a “minor group,” the “Ukrainian extreme right” is part of the positive “example” being set. (Many of its representatives have expressed hatred for Europe’s “anti-traditional” values, such as gay rights.) Still more, Snyder continues, “something is fishy,” strongly implying that the mob violence is actually being “done by russo-phone provocateurs” on behalf of “Yanukovych (or Putin).” As evidence, Snyder alludes to “reports” that the instigators “spoke Russian.” But millions of Ukrainians on both sides of their incipient civil war speak Russian.

§ Snyder reproduces yet another widespread media malpractice regarding Russia, the decline of editorial fact-checking. In a recent article in the International New York Times, he both inflates his assertions and tries to delete neofascist elements from his innocuous “Ukrainian extreme right.” Again without any verified evidence, he warns of a Putin-backed “armed intervention” in Ukraine after the Olympics and characterizes reliable reports of “Nazis and anti-Semites” among street protesters as “Russian propaganda.”

§ Perhaps the largest untruth promoted by Snyder and most US media is the claim that “Ukraine’s future integration into Europe” is “yearned for throughout the country.” But every informed observer knows—from Ukraine’s history, geography, languages, religions, culture, recent politics and opinion surveys—that the country is deeply divided as to whether it should join Europe or remain close politically and economically to Russia. There is not one Ukraine or one “Ukrainian people” but at least two, generally situated in its Western and Eastern regions.

Such factual distortions point to two flagrant omissions by Snyder and other US media accounts. The now exceedingly dangerous confrontation between the two Ukraines was not “ignited,” as the Times claims, by Yanukovych’s duplicitous negotiating—or by Putin—but by the EU’s reckless ultimatum, in November, that the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country choose between Europe and Russia. Putin’s proposal for a tripartite arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was flatly rejected by US and EU officials.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

But the most crucial media omission is Moscow’s reasonable conviction that the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West’s ongoing, US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia, which began in the 1990s with NATO’s eastward expansion and continued with US-funded NGO political activities inside Russia, a US-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense installations near Russia. Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels policy is wise or reckless, it—not Putin’s December financial offer to save Ukraine’s collapsing economy—is deceitful. The EU’s “civilizational” proposal, for example, includes “security policy” provisions, almost never reported, that would apparently subordinate Ukraine to NATO.

Any doubts about the Obama administration’s real intentions in Ukraine should have been dispelled by the recently revealed taped conversation between a top State Department official, Victoria Nuland, and the US ambassador in Kiev. The media predictably focused on the source of the “leak” and on Nuland’s verbal “gaffe”—“Fuck the EU.” But the essential revelation was that high-level US officials were plotting to “midwife” a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its democratically elected president—that is, a coup.

Americans are left with a new edition of an old question. Has Washington’s twenty-year winner-take-all approach to post-Soviet Russia shaped this degraded news coverage, or is official policy shaped by the coverage? Did Senator John McCain stand in Kiev alongside the well-known leader of an extreme nationalist party because he was ill informed by the media, or have the media deleted this part of the story because of McCain’s folly?

And what of Barack Obama’s decision to send only a low-level delegation, including retired gay athletes, to Sochi? In August, Putin virtually saved Obama’s presidency by persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to eliminate his chemical weapons. Putin then helped to facilitate Obama’s heralded opening to Iran. Should not Obama himself have gone to Sochi—either out of gratitude to Putin, or to stand with Russia’s leader against international terrorists who have struck both of our countries? Did he not go because he was ensnared by his unwise Russia policies, or because the US media misrepresented the varying reasons cited: the granting of asylum to Edward Snowden, differences on the Middle East, infringements on gay rights in Russia, and now Ukraine? Whatever the explanation, as Russian intellectuals say when faced with two bad alternatives, “Both are worst.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia#

 

Crypto ‘White Nationalist’ Jews Useful Idiots for Zionist West in its Attempt to Topple Ukrainian Government?

ed note – Many contemporary ‘white nationalists’ follow the doctrines of Christian Identity today. Christian Identity adheres to the belief that ‘white people are the true Israelite’s of the Old Testament\Hebrew Torah.  These doctrines derive from the tenants of ‘British Israelism’. This fact alone makes many so-called white nationalists and Neo-Nazis  crypto-Jews...

TSA Nominee Sees Domestic Threat in ‘Christian-Identity’ Groups, appointed by Obama
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=666_1263810065&comments=1#YSv6VEy4ciHgc2Wv.99

TSA Nominee Sees Domestic Threat in ‘Christian-Identity’ Groups, appointed by Obama
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=666_1263810065&comments=1#YSv6VEy4ciHgc2Wv.99

Israeli ex officer leads Ukraine protests Reports

Appeal from Ukrainian political parties and public organizations to the UN Secretary-General and the leadership of the EU and the USA

January 25, 2014

The political crisis in Ukraine is worsening by the day, taking the country toward fratricidal civil war, the loss of sovereignty, and the disintegration of the state. This is a foreign project to seize Ukraine. It is being implemented against the interests and the demands of our people. It is being carried out unconstitutionally and in violation of international norms and principles, which are based on peaceful action, free elections, freedom of speech, and respect for human rights.

Since the international media reports deliberately distorted information about Ukraine, stated by politicians and officials in the EU and the USA, and this is used in support of the illegal actions of the guerrillas, we are obliged to make the following Appeal.

1. The pretext for organizing the Euromaidan in Kiev was the refusal of the Government and the President of Ukraine to sign an Association Agreement with the EU. We draw your attention to the content of this document, for the sake of which the Parliamentary opposition led people to the Maidan. The heart of the Agreement is the complete loss of Ukraine’s sovereignty through the transfer to supranational agencies (the Council of Association and the Committee on Trade) of decision-making authority, placing them juridically above the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. It has been unconditionally proven that this contradicts the Declaration on the National Sovereignty of Ukraine, the Constitution of Ukraine, and decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. It also contradicts the expression of the will of the people of Ukraine in the referenda of March 17 and December 1, 1991.

Implementation of the Association Agreement with the EU would indisputably lead to the destruction of the country’s economy, industry, agriculture, service sector, and science.

Signing the Association Agreement with the EU would lead to the total annihilation of state property, which is a competitor of oligarchs in the West.

The Association Agreement with the EU would eliminate the national and state sovereignty of Ukraine. Its embedded political convergence mechanism would liquidate political sovereignty as well, drawing Ukraine into the Joint Security and Defense Policy (JSDP). This anti-Russian project provides for the expulsion of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol and Crimea as a whole, and draws Ukraine into the NATO military bloc.

The aforementioned arguments confirm that the Agreement on Association of Ukraine with the EU is a project of the West for the takeover and colonization of Ukraine. Its implementation has been assigned to the Parliamentary opposition: the Batkivshchyna (Fatherland), Udar (Punch) of Klitschko, and Svoboda (Freedom) Parties.

2. We deem it necessary to draw your close attention to the nature of the political forces that have organized the Euromaidan and today are conducting combat actions throughout the territory of Ukraine. The terrorists have not only launched bloodletting with law enforcement agencies, but are seizing government buildings, smashing and burning the party offices of their political opponents, and applying mob law against the citizens of Ukraine. This unquestionably threatens the safety and life of citizens, as well as their dignity and the inviolability of their property.

You should understand that, in supporting the actions of the guerrillas in Ukraine, by according them the status of “Euromaidan activists” who are taking part in so-called peaceful actions, you yourselves are directly protecting, inciting, and egging on Ukrainian neo-Nazis and neo-fascists.

None of these oppositionists (Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyahnybok) hide that they are continuing the ideology and the practices of the OUN-UPA. They punctuate all of their speeches at the Maidan with cries of “Glory to Ukraine — to the Heroes Glory!” This Nazi greeting was adopted by the Ukrainian nationalists in April 1941 (at the Second Assembly of the OUN), and was copied from the analogous slogans of Hitler’s Nazi Party.

Other regular slogans of the Maidan are “Glory to Ukraine — Death to the Enemies,” “Ukraine above All,” “Ukraine for Ukrainians,” “Stab the Muscovites and Hang the Communists.”

Wherever the Euromaidan people go in Ukraine, they disseminate, besides the slogans mentioned above, neo-Nazi, racist symbols such as the Wolf’s Cross — one of the first emblems of Hitler’s NSDAP Party; the Celtic Cross — one of the main neo-Nazi and racist symbols, denoting the superiority of the white race; and the numbers 14 and 88. The 14 refers to fourteen words of the American neo-Nazi David Lane, who was sentenced to 190 years in prison in the state of Indiana, USA, for racist civil rights violations and racketeering; while 88 is an encoded version of “Heil Hitler!” (“h” being the eighth letter of the Latin alphabet). Right Sector, which coordinates the guerrillas, uses the black-and-red flag in all its actions. It is a symbol of the Nazi ideology of “Blood and Soil,” which in 1930 was consolidated as a certain sort of national socialist doctrine, which the Hitlerites used to justify their regime after coming to power in 1933.

Also confirming the neo-Nazi nature of the Euromaidan is the constant use of portraits of the bloody executioners of our people, Bandera and Shukhevich — agents of the Abwehr under the nicknames “Gray” and “Taras Chuprinka.” On January 14 a portrait of Bandera was hung from the Kiev City Hall [occupied by demonstrators], as a provocation. After a scandal ensued, it was removed to the interior of the building. Also diabolical was the march by Maidan participants with torches through the central streets of Kiev on January 1, Bandera’s birthday.

Not only the Kiev Maidan, but also the maidans unfolding in the regions of Ukraine are massively infected with Nazi ideology, and they are using the practices of their predecessors in their actions both against law enforcement agencies and against Ukrainian civilians (including their political opponents).

Washington and Brussels are either following the risky course of ignoring the Nazi nature of the Euromaidan, or they are consciously closing their eyes and covering up the fascist ideology of the Parliamentary opposition and the Euromaidan in Ukraine. It is appropriate to ask: “Have the UN, the EU, and the USA ceased to recognize the Charter and Verdict of the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, where the Hitlerite Nazis and their henchmen were convicted? Have human rights ceased to be a value for the countries of the EU and the world community? Is the Ukrainian nationalists’ devotion to Hitler and his mass murders of civilians now considered democracy?”

3. The rights of those citizens of Ukraine who condemn Nazism and neo-Nazism, espouse a different ideology, defend the sovereignty of Ukraine, and categorically reject the Association Agreement with the EU, while seeing Ukraine’s integration into the Customs Union as a way out of the crisis, are being trampled on! Representative polling shows that over half the population advocates the integration of Ukraine with Russia and 97 percent are against Nazism. Do the EU and the UN think that the rights of tens of millions of these Ukrainians should not be defended? Do the EU and the UN consider it a standard of democracy, when the so-called self-defense units of the Euromaidan, unconstitutionally and in violation of the norms of international law, kidnap citizens, search them, interrogate them, torture them, and take them off for “sentences” to be carried out?

We insist on the inclusion of our representatives in the negotiation process with the President of Ukraine and the Parliamentary opposition, and we ask you to support this demand. We also urgently request that you receive an authorized delegation of the signatories hereof, in order to obtain objective information about what is happening in Ukraine.

We, as leaders of Ukrainian political parties and public organizations, express our concern that politicians and officials from the UN, the EU, the USA, and the international community have a distorted perception of the events being organized to bring about a coup d’etat in Ukraine, and are not taking effective measures to stop this fascist coup.

We call on the leadership of the UN, the EU, and the USA to immediately condemn the actions of Ukrainian Nazi organizations and, on their own part, to take the necessary measures to prevent a fratricidal civil war in our country.

We are sending a copy of this Appeal to the leaders of the member countries of the United Nations Security Council.

Signed by:

Alexander Vasilyevich Bondarchuk

Ukrainian Labor Party (Marxist-Leninist), People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 2nd, 3rd, 4th sessions of the Supreme Rada

Natalia Mikhailovna Vitrenko

Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Doctor of Economic Sciences, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 2nd and 3rd sessions of the Supreme Rada

Leonid Ivanovich Grach

Communist Marxist-Leninist Party of Ukraine, Doctor of Historical Sciences, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 4th, 5th, 6th sessions of the Supreme Rada

Sergei Vasilyevich Dovgan

Honorary Chairman of the Peasant Party of Ukraine, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 2nd and 3rd sessions of the Supreme Rada

Yevgeni Georgiyevich Dubovnik

Sevastopol Anti-NATO Front (public organization), Deputy of the Sevastopol City Council, 5th and 6th sessions

Lyudmila Pavlovna Kayotkina

All-Ukraine Women’s Public Organization “Gift of Life,” Deputy of the Donetsk Regional Parliament, 5th session

Sergei Nikolayevich Kiyashko

Assembly of Slavic Peoples of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine

Vasili Fyodorovich Kuvshinov

Union of Soviet Officers, city of Chigirin

Nikolai Fyodorovich Larinenko

People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 2nd and 3rd sessions of the Supreme Rada

Yelena Anatolyevna Mazur

All-Ukraine Public Organization “For the Union of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia” (ZUBR)

Tatyana Alexandrovna Makarenko

Public Organization “Russkaya Obshchina” (Russian Community), city of Dnepropetrovsk

Gennadi Makarov

Coordinating Council of Russian Organizations in Eastern Ukraine

Vladimir Romanovich Marchenko

Ukrainian Federation of Labor, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 1st, 2nd, 3rd sessions of the Supreme Rada

Alexander Viktorovich Svistunov

Russian Movement of Ukraine, Deputy of the Supreme Sovet of Autonomous Republic of Crimea, 5th session

Valentina Petrovna Semenyuk-Samsonenko

Union of Women for the Future of the Children of Ukraine, Kandidat of Economic Sciences, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th sessions of the Supreme Rada

Valeri Alexandrovich Sergachov

Kiev Rus Party, Deputy of the Odessa Regional Parliament, 5th session

Olga Nikoloyevna Solovenko

Eurasian People’s Union, Deputy of the Odessa Regional Parliament, 5th session

Pavel Vasilyevich Tishchenko

Kharkov Regional Public Organization “Trudovaya Kharkovshchina”, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 3rd session

Konstantin Viktorovich Shurov

Russian Community of Ukraine

Vladimir Vladimirovich Bogatyrev

All-Ukraine Public Association “Russky Soyuz” (Russian Union)

Lyudmila Anatolyevna Gorbachova

Vinnitsa Regional Organization “Union of Orthodox Women of Ukraine”

Nikolai Vladimirovich Kovalyov

Association of Citizens in Support of Canonical Orthodoxy “The Path of the Orthodox in the Name of the Blessed and Equal of the Apostles Prince Vladimir” (Autonomous Republic of Crimea)

Vladimir Ilyich Matrokhin

Russian Community of Lviv, Deputy of the Lviv Regional Parliament, 2nd session

Alexei Borisovich

Merkulov March 17 Union Movement

Alexander Ivanovich Ogorodnikov

Union of Soviet Officers, city of Uman

Alexander Sergeyevich Pokrovsky

Lviv Regional Organization “Intelligentsia for Socialism,” Kandidat of Economic Sciences, Deputy of the Zaliznychny District Council of the city of Lviv, 1st session

Nadezhda Gennadiyevna Polyakova

Public Organization “Russkaya Obshchina” (Russian Community) of Yevpatoriya

Viktor Viktorovich Silenko

All-Ukrainian Association of Russian Compatriots (VORS)

Anna Fyodorovna Tsysar

Children of the War of Sevastopol

Alexander Varushko

Social Safety Forum

“United Slavic Front”

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/01/ukrainian-left-wing-activists-appeal-un-eu-and-usa-dont-back-civil-war-fascist-coup-uk

neonazi

US NGO Uncovered in Ukraine Protests

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01/07/us-ngo-uncovered-in-ukraine-protests/#sthash.YHPiEeGh.dpuf

TSA Nominee Sees Domestic Threat in ‘Christian-Identity’ Groups, appointed by Obama

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=666_1263810065&comments=1

Appeal from Ukrainian political parties and public organizations to the UN Secretary-General and the leadership of the EU and the USA – See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/01/ukrainian-left-wing-activists-appeal-un-eu-and-usa-dont-back-civil-war-fascist-coup-uk#sthash.1rf8M95w.dpuf
Appeal from Ukrainian political parties and public organizations to the UN Secretary-General and the leadership of the EU and the USA – See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/01/ukrainian-left-wing-activists-appeal-un-eu-and-usa-dont-back-civil-war-fascist-coup-uk#sthash.1rf8M95w.dpuf
Ukrainian Left-Wing Activists’ Appeal to UN, EU, and USA: Don’t Back Civil War & Fascist Coup in Ukraine! – See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/01/ukrainian-left-wing-activists-appeal-un-eu-and-usa-dont-back-civil-war-fascist-coup-uk#sthash.1rf8M95w.dpuf
Ukrainian Left-Wing Activists’ Appeal to UN, EU, and USA: Don’t Back Civil War & Fascist Coup in Ukraine! – See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/01/ukrainian-left-wing-activists-appeal-un-eu-and-usa-dont-back-civil-war-fascist-coup-uk#sthash.1rf8M95w.dpuf

Russia Under Attack

The Jewish War On Vladimir Putin

Russia Under Attack

In a number of my articles I have explained that the Soviet Union served as a constraint on US power. The Soviet collapse unleashed the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony. Russia under Putin, China, and Iran are the only constraints on the neoconservative agenda.

Russia’s nuclear missiles and military technology make Russia the strongest military obstacle to US hegemony. To neutralize Russia, Washington broke the Reagan-Gorbachev agreements and expanded NATO into former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire and now intends to bring former constituent parts of Russia herself–Georgia and Ukraine–into NATO. Washington withdrew from the treaty that banned anti-ballistic missiles and has established anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s frontier. Washington changed its nuclear war doctrine to permit nuclear first strike.

All of this is aimed at degrading Russia’s deterrent, thereby reducing the ability of Russia to resist Washington’s will.

The Russian government (and also the government of Ukraine) “foolishly” permitted large numbers of US funded NGOs to operate as Washington’s agents under cover of “human rights organizations,” “building democracy,” etc. The “pussy riot” event was an operation designed to put Putin and Russia in a bad light. (The women were useful dupes.) The Western media attacks on the Sochi Olympics are part of the ridiculing and demonizing of Putin and Russia. Washington is “determined” that Putin and Russia will not be permitted any appearance of success in any area, whether diplomacy, sports, or human rights.

The American media is a Ministry of Propaganda for the government and the corporations and helps Washington paint Russia in bad colors. Stephen F. Cohen accurately describes US media coverage of Russia as a “tsunami of shamefully and unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles.”

As a holdover from the Cold War, the US media retains the image of a free press that can be trusted. In truth, there is no free press in America (except for Internet sites). See for example. During the later years of the Clinton regime, the US government permitted 5 large conglomerates to concentrate the varied, dispersed and somewhat independent media. The value of these large mega-companies depends on their federal broadcast licenses. Therefore, the media dares not go against the government on any important issue. In addition, the media conglomerates are no longer run by journalists but by corporate advertising executives and former government officials, with an eye not on facts but on advertising revenues and access to government “sources.”

Washington is using the media to prepare the American people for confrontation with Russia and to influence Russians and other peoples in the world against Putin. Washington would love to see a weaker or more pliable Russian leader than Putin.

Many Russians are “gullible.” Having experienced communist rule and the chaos from collapse, they naively believe that America is the best place, the example for the world, the “white hat” that can be trusted and believed. This idiotic belief, which we see manifested in western Ukraine as the US destabilizes the country in preparation for taking it over, is an important weapon that the US uses to destabilize Russia.

Some Russians make apologies for Washington by explaining the anti-Russian rhetoric as simply a carryover from old stereotypes from the Cold War. “Old stereotypes” is a red herring, a misleading distraction. Washington is gunning for Russia. Russia is under attack, and if Russians do not realize this, “they are history.”

Many Russians are “asleep at the switch,” but the Izborsk Club is trying to wake them up. In an article (February 12) in the Russian weekly Zavtra, strategic and military experts warned that the Western use of protests to overturn the decision of the Ukraine government not to join the European Union had produced a situation in which a coup by “fascist elements” was a possibly. Such a coup would result in a fratricidal war in Ukraine and would constitute a serious “strategic threat to the Russian Federation.”

The experts concluded that should such a coup succeed, the consequences for Russia would be:

— Loss of Sevastopol as the base of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet;

— Purges of Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, producing a flood of refugees;

— Loss of manufacturing capacities in Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov where contract work is done for the Russian military;

— Suppression of the Russian speaking population by forcible Ukrainianization;

— The establishment of US and NATO military bases in Ukraine, including in Crimea and the establishment of training centers for terrorists who would be set upon the Caucasus, the Volga Basin, and perhaps Siberia.

— Spread of the orchestrated Kiev protests into non-Russian ethnicities in cities of
the Russian Federation.

The Russian strategists conclude that they “consider the situation taking shape in Ukraine to be catastrophic for the future of Russia.”

What is to be done? Here the strategic experts, who have correctly analyzed the situation, fall down. They call for a national media campaign to expose the nature of the takeover that is underway and for the government of the Russian Federation to invoke the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in order to convene a conference of representatives of the governments of Russia, Ukraine, the USA, and Great Britain to deal with the threats to the Ukraine. In the event that the Budapest Memorandum governing the sovereignty of Ukraine is set aside by one or more of the parties, the experts propose that the Russian government, using the precedent of the Kennedy-Khrushchev negotiations that settled the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, negotiate directly with Washington a settlement of the developing crisis in Ukraine.

This is a pipe dream. The experts are indulging in self-deception. Washington is the perpetrator of the crisis in Ukraine and intends to take over Ukraine for the precise reasons that the experts list. It is a perfect plan for destabilizing Russia and for negating Putin’s successful diplomacy in preventing US military attack on Syria and Iran.

Essentially, if Washington succeeds in Ukraine, Russia would be eliminated as a constraint on US world hegemony, Only China would remain.

I suspected that Ukraine would come to a boiling point when Putin and Russia were preoccupied with the Sochi Olympics, leaving Russia unprepared. There is little doubt that Russia is faced with a major strategic threat. What are Russia’s real options? Certainly the options do not include any good will from Washington.

Possibly, Russia could operate from the American script. If Russia has drones, Russia could use drones like Washington does and use them to assassinate the leaders of the Washington-sponsored protests. Or Russia could send in Special Forces teams to eliminate the agents who are operating against Russia. If the EU continues to support the destabilization of Ukraine, Russia could cut off oil and gas supplies to Washington’s European puppet states.

Alternatively, the Russian Army could occupy western Ukraine while arrangements are made to partition Ukraine, which until recently was part of Russia for 200 years. It is certain that the majority of residents in eastern Ukraine prefer Russia to the EU. It is even possible that the brainwashed elements in the western half might stop foaming at the mouth long enough to comprehend that being in US/EU hands means being looted as per Latvia and Greece.

I am outlining the least dangerous outcomes of the crisis that Washington and its “stupid” European puppet states have created, not making recommendations to Russia. The worst outcome is a dangerous war. If the Russians sit on their hands, the situation will become unbearable for them. As Ukraine moves toward NATO membership and suppression of the Russian population, the Russian government will have to attack Ukraine and overthrown the foreign regime or surrender to the Americans. The likely outcome of the audacious strategic threat with which Washington is confronting Russia would be nuclear war.

The neoconservative Victoria Nuland sits in her State Department office happily choosing the members of the next Ukrainian government. Is this US official oblivious to the risk that Washington’s meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine and Russia could be triggering nuclear war? Are President Obama and Congress aware that there is an Assistant Secretary of State who is provoking armageddon?

Insouciant Americans are paying no attention and have no idea that a handful of neoconservative ideologues are pushing the world toward destruction.

– Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/02/14/350735/russia-under-attack/