"... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
"... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
"... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
"... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding
the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when
buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments,
and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as
long as it has?"
To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure
was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the
fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit
in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son,
Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but
prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable
of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.
This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been
so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on
PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed
out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers,
to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order
the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about
environmental damage.
Yes, he really said that:
We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't
want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.
In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris
bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's
hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.
Brilliant.
As the
Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure
that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized
for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed
"rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where
the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge,
and flood Europe, since World War II.
But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important
than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.
Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to
destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the
people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't
go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental
damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."
Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting
oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those
are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."
So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the
primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of
dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.
We are truly speechless at this idiocy.
Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated
by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal
profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of
ISIS' cheap oil, and which
involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this
day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.
For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not
some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.
Looney
Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes
like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found?
;-)
Buckaroo Banzai
The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention
anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began.
Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.
Ignatius
There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental
concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.
Pladizow
----> Not OK to spill oil
----> OK to spill blood
JustObserving
2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.
Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38
times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279
Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer
"In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were
taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find
depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium
weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases
in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during
Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly
enriched uranium."
"Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related
health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind,
care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "
"Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s)
causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted
uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current
study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."
It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts
from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie
cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the
almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's
(relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam
in Kuwait...
'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.
Lore
I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake.
If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony
and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters,
place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient
lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then
announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece
of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy
war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian
people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies
of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.
It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called
a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.
NoDebt
So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their
"targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.
That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault
or something.
KesselRunin12Parsecs
"We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't
want to do environmental damage"
So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators
in 1991 you POS mF'er.
Kirk2NCC1701
Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.
Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context.
Allow me to translate for you:
1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.
2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell
you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men
and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."
Normalcy Bias
He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character
from Clear and Present Danger.
Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...
Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish
border with Armenia
Chris88
We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because
we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.
..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.
Junerberno
After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to
seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all
along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were
appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished
him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.
Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.
So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends
when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their
hands.
The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone
in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against
Shia muslims.
earleflorida
when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed,
etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and...
guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank
with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.
But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the
stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants
on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but
NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking
liar piece of shit..
marcusfenix
this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.
if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it
would make any difference then it begs the question....
why bother bombing them at all?
these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how
to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the
most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?
really?
and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions
in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS
oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all
around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.
the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria
people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting
from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale
of this oil the longer this war will drag on.
the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for
the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then
afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be
an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.
and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out
the islamic states revenue stream?
all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian
infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.
because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.
sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might
just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that
i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world
to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling
two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French
Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.
1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters
Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter
carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less
than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.
"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded
yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.
He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there
were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because
of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.
"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken
for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the
French state.
In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to
do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian
technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President
Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.
Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships,
would look for other buyers for the two ships.
"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries
have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.
Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt,
which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.
The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending
at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.
DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French
state.
France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after
coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine
crisis.
The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase
in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who
was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of
the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.
(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)
"... The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya. ..."
Starting 10 August, Russia will start limiting import of cut flowers
from Netherlands.
The pretext is that all cut flowers from Netherlands must go through phyto-sanitary
inspection before being admitted into the country.
In Russia, a whopping 90% of all cut flowers are imported. Of this, Europe
supplies 40.5%; Netherlands by itself 38.5%. Hence, the new rule is sure
to hit the Dutch in their pocketbooks.
The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers
which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in
Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries,
such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya.
Recently Russia started forming direct ties with those countries and
importing the flowers directly, bypassing Netherlands. This process is expected
to continue.
Already, Ecuador is pushing out Netherlands in the Russian market for
flowers.
Even China is getting in on the game, starting to supply some of the
voracious Russian appetite for cut flowers. Given all these sources of the
flowers, Russian consumers are not likely to suffer a deficit of flowers,
the article concludes.
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. What's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes, schadenfreude:-
"In 2015, the German economy is estimated to lose up to 290,000 jobs and receive $10 billion
less than it could due to restrictive measure imposed on Moscow, the Committee on Eastern European
Economic Relations told Contra Magazine. German exports to Russia last year fell by $7.2 billion.
"The current developments exceed our worst fears," committee chairman Eckhard Cordes said.
This nasty short-term implication of an unreasonable Western policy towards Russia is affecting
many European countries, not only the largest economy in the EU. In total, the European Union
could potentially lose as much as $110 billion and up to 2 million jobs from the anti-Russian
sanctions, according to the committee's estimates.
But the long-term consequences are far more profound and damaging. German businesses now fear
that their reliable and long-time Russian partners have pivoted to Asia, specifically China.
German businesses are concerned that this shift could be permanent. By the time restrictive
measures are lifted, former ties and partnerships could be long gone."
"Former ties and partnerships could be gone". You bet. What's it gonna take before Europe's
so called leaders wake up to the fact that US sanctions aren't just about trying to destroy Russia's
economy, but also about doing serious, possibly terminal damage to the European one?
Russlands Wirtschaftskrise hat verheerende Folgen für Europa. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt eine
Studie aus Österreich. Besonders betroffen ist Deutschland. Die Krise könnte das Land mittelfristig
eine halbe Million Arbeitsplätze und Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung kosten.
Die Wirtschaftskrise in Russland hat weitaus schlimmere Konsequenzen für die Länder der Europäischen
Union (EU) und die Schweiz als bislang erwartet. Nach einer Berechnung des Österreichischen Instituts
für Wirtschaftsforschung (Wifo), die der europäischen Zeitungsallianz "Lena" exklusiv vorliegt,
sind europaweit weit mehr als zwei Millionen Arbeitsplätze und rund 100 Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung
in Gefahr.
In most countries, it would be highly unusual for corporate executives to inject themselves
into geopolitics and matters of national security with the forcefulness that a number of German
business leaders have. But many of Germany's largest companies have substantial Russian operations,
built in some cases over decades, and worry that tough economic sanctions would rob them of a
key growth market when their home market-Europe-is stagnant.
The sanctions being placed on Russia by Europe are having a negative impact on the bloc,
experts have said.
European countries have implemented a series of trade embargoes as a punishment for Russia's
moves to annex Crimea and for its ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Rowan Dartington Signature's Guy Stephens said the eurozone had been "rife" with weak economic
data and one of the biggest concerns was Germany because of its relationship with Russia.
"Sanctions against key trading partner Russia, coupled with declining demand from China, have
begun to take their toll on Europe's largest economy," he said.
"Business confidence is also waning and GDP growth for next year has been downgraded to just
0.8 per cent, well below the government's forecast of 1.3 per cent. All in all, the decline of
Europe's powerhouse could just turn out to be the ammunition that European Central Bank president
Mario Draghi needs to begin a prolonged quantitative-easing campaign."
Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said Europe's
share of global profits had "collapsed".
"And complicating the immediate path of liquidity and corporate earnings in Europe is the
ongoing collapse in the Russian rouble," he said.
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
"... With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory. ..."
"... "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it." ..."
"... Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized". ..."
"... By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in. ..."
"... politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens. ..."
"... Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands. ..."
"... "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws." ..."
Rand Paul indicated his intention on Friday to filibuster a surveillance reform bill that he considers insufficient, as privacy
advocates felt momentum to tear the heart out of the Bush-era Patriot Act as its Snowden-era expiration date approaches.
With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and
Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory.
... ... ...
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
... ... ...
"Right now we're having a little bit of a war in Washington," Paul said at the rally on Friday. "It's me versus some of the rest
of them – or a lot of the rest of them."
... ... ...
In the middle is a bill that fell three votes shy of a 60-vote threshold. The USA Freedom Act, supported by Obama, junks the NSA's
bulk collection of US phone records in exchange for extending the lifespan of the Patriot Act's controversial FBI powers.
While McConnell, Obama and many Freedom Act supporters describe those powers as crucial, a recent Justice Department report said
the expiring "business records" provision has not led to "any major case developments". Another power set to expire, the "roving
wiretap" provision, has been linked to abuse in declassified documents; and the third, the "lone wolf" provision, has never been
used, the FBI confirmed to the Guardian.
... ... ...
The White House has long backed passage of the USA Freedom Act, calling it the only available mechanism to save the Patriot Act
powers ahead of expiration now that the House has recessed until Monday.
Obama on Friday chastised what he said were "a handful of Senators" standing in the way of passing the USA Freedom Act, who he
alleged risked creating an intelligence lapse.
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence whom Paul has criticized for lying to Congress about surveillance, issued
a rare plea to pass a bill he has reluctantly embraced in order to retain Patriot Act powers.
"At this late date, prompt passage of the USA Freedom Act by the Senate is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of
our ability to protect the American people," Clapper said on Friday.
At the Beacon Drive-in diner in Spartanburg, Paul chastised proponents of the Patriot Act for arguing the law would prevent another
9/11. "Bull!" a woman in the crowd exclaimed, as others groaned at the national security excuse cited by more hawkish lawmakers.
"I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government,
unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it."
Multiple polls released this month have found overwhelming public antipathy for government surveillance.
Still, it remains unclear if the USA Freedom Act has the votes to pass. Senate rules permit Paul to effectively block debate on
the bill until expiration. Few who are watching the debate closely felt on Friday that they knew how Sunday's dramatic session would
resolve.
But privacy groups, sensing the prospect of losing one of their most reviled post-9/11 laws, were not in a mood to compromise
on Friday.
"Better to let the Patriot Act sunset and reboot the conversation with a more fulsome debate," said Anthony Romero, the executive
director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
He opposes indefinite detention in the NDAA, he opposes TPP and the fast track. He opposes the militarization of local police.
He opposes the secrecy of the Federal Reserve. He opposes unwarranted civil asset forfeiture. He opposes no-knock home searches.
He opposes the failed drug war. He opposes war without congressional approval. What is it about him you don't like?
Trenton Pierce -> masscraft 30 May 2015 21:14
Then line up behind Rand. He polls the best against Hilary. The era of big government Republican is over. Realize that or get
ready for your Democrat rule.
Vintage59 -> Nedward Marbletoe 30 May 2015 16:20
The machine would chew him up and spit him out and he's smart enough to know that.
ripogenus 30 May 2015 07:47
Just listened to NPR's On the Media. They did a special podcast just on the patriot act and the consequences if it expires.
Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized".
seasonedsenior 29 May 2015 22:20
New technology is beginning to equal the playing field somewhat whether it be video of police misconduct or blocking out Congress
from 10,000 websites to stop NSA spying. This part of technology is a real positive. There are too many secrets in our democracy-light
that should be exposed for the greater good. There is too much concentrated power that needs to be opened up. I am happy to see
these changes happening. Keep up the good work.
AmyInNH cswanson420 29 May 2015 22:12
By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in.
Viet Nguyen -> cswanson420 29 May 2015 17:44
politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens.
Best examples? Retarded laws that discriminate against gay people in states like Indiana. When major corporations such as Wal-Mart
and Apple, who only cares about money, condemn such retarded laws with potential boycotts, their political lackeys quickly follow
in line.
I am waiting for another multinational corporation to declare the NSA process detrimental to businesses, and see how many former
government supporters of the NSA do a complete 180 degree stance flip.
EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22
Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.
Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.
Repent House 29 May 2015 16:13
"This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking
your access until you end mass surveillance laws."
This is so freekin awesome... mess with the bull you get the horns as I always say!
They seem to under estimate the strength, knowledge, tenacity, of the "AMERICAN PEOPLE" This is what we need to do on a wider scale for a number of things wrong!
Awesome!
"... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
"... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
"... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
"... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
"... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
"... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
"... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary
of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent
anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.
Though designed to isolate Russia because it
had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir
Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening
ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.
Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing
a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated
– largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.
Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian
alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous
insult to the Russian people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's
historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.
But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World
War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad
in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would
have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a
New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled
sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.
For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian
tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled
away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).
This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule.
From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to
demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.
That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all
the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make
the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."
Distorting the History
So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed,
about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed
coup in declaring there was no coup.
The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted
phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February
2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late
2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it
truly was the most blatant coup in history."
Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the
threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding
conflict.
For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea."
Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin
said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.'
He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing
the region."
So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred
on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO
would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.
Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored
by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the
putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval
base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014,
they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.
Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had
been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why
the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."
You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it.
Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.
The Sole Indispensable Country
Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's
dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant
concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked
by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.
That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept.
11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical
weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship
with President Obama is marked by growing trust."
Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing
a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before
it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."
The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence
will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt –
and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need
anyone's help to win World War II.
President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s,
which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message,
a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
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.More Patrick L. Smith.
It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference
in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where
the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk
ceasefire is rapidly
unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning
in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that
to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic
artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates
little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable.
Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping
the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way
back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding
Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved
would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the
Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting
with the regular units of the Russian army."
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with
lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects
Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long
haul.
The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which
he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander
said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its
fate,apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander
claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that
recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are
in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve
and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice
is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow
increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back
down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel
fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via
sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the
indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations
from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of
their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
"... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
"... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
"... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
"... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
"... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the
trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and
many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the
Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the
chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state
in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with
Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.
caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52
Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a
leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U.,
NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display
along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements?
More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another
threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground &
leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history
books on how not to be a "world leader".
Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12
And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the
guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the
population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have
only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.
Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and
fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by
negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the
fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.
Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama
about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support
fascist government Poroshenko.
EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin
Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one
side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it
should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be
easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known
before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a
much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that
you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.
What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who
have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they
tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't
happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith
negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.
Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the
Ukraine crisis
Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is.
People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving
whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.
Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53
As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!
This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at
Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the
trapped army may be NATO. !
Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the
Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked
civilian targets.
If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military
equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.
Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has
illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!
This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken
captive, what then?
Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland,
Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.
Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29
Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should
it Invade the Region
And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it
better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and
now here in Ukraine."
Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10
All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with
BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.
Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his
disarmed Berkut could not protect him.
As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're
deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much
today?
That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on
Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.
Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by
murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for
the junta.
From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed
optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in
'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.
Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable
inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while
their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.
National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and
frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless
abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.
But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their
likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against
Russia!
If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as
insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?
Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently
failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!
Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02
And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin
is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,
Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling
and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to
the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to
annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically
challenged folks still try and drag up)
Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57
"But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political
destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western
sponsored coup.....
EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45
amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in
deterring its continued military support for separatists.
I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I
am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far
enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous
American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is
modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question
is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?
You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the
sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second,
Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements
single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West
and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful
offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as
well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did
he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which,
I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.
Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an
agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications
that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will
happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an
unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.
Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30
Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is
lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether
European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the
streets en masse if they value their lives.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57
US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he
will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global
order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."
So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively
after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.
PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22
Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the
consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas...
It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.
The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the
accident.
"This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.
"Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well,
it's chaos, and they are barbarians."
Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.
The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to
shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial
Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on
his Facebook page.
According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because
they were shooting based on coordinates."
Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is
involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook
page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.
PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a
generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to
build up Ukraine.
One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in
this video).
Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort
peacefully containing and isolating Russia".
I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for
Vladimir Putin,
but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly
to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated
Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western
Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to
power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi
ideology.
For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of
Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection
should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured
for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn
one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.
As David Owen has pointed out (26
August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato,
threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a
diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report,
8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.
Tim Dyce, London
The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of
continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine.
Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use
an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy
within a unified
Ukraine. This is
something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to
let us do it.
Stephen Mennell, Dublin
David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report,
theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a
foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by
orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in
mediation.
Russia revolt against neoliberal empire with the capital is Washington...
Notable quotes:
"... There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order. ..."
"... Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government. ..."
Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay
too much attention to this. There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different
means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse
of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader,
thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only
if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order.
Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However,
we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made,
including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe.
They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain
harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore,
I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state
and the Government.
... ... ...
Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be
the 'spectre of communism', and now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional
confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not fear any spectres. However, a popular
saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain a responsible
attitude to our job, we will succeed.
"... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
"... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
"... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
"... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is
in the interest of all affected:
The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and
foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.
"The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not
against it." Wise words.
Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00
NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled
when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its
geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not
Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in
the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy
is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security
Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure
of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter
and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," -
he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is
trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to"
throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the
recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."
According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain
its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last
quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its
dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21
Putin today:
"Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and
to preserve the unipolar world.
"War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our
development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order
led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he
can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best
interest, "- said the head of state.
"Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it,
wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the
same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"-
said Putin.
snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08
of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones
screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in
power...
centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14
international isolation
Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the
majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank)
A majority is over 50%.
centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10
Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund
raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07
The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a
buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up
Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.
Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American
money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.
Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04
I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on
blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them
with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty
man.
MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01
Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement.
According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent
line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer
zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This
is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article
being commented on.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56
I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying
anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who
simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have
endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join
the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.
If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one
man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the
idiot Obama.
centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56
Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is
dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)
Another signal from 2015 about forthcoming clump down on RT. RT is Russian propaganda site, but that does not exclude them providing high quality critical
coverage of US and European events. In any case RT is preferable to BBC, although comparing two can get you at higher level of
understanding, than watching just one
Notable quotes:
"... simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, ..."
"... at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news. ..."
"... Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter ..."
At first glance, Lee Camp, Thom Hartmann and Larry King don't seem to have a lot in common. Mr. Camp is a comedian who seeks to
fuse progressive politics with humor. He is perhaps best known for his
"Moment of Clarity" rants, where he colorfully, and occasionally
profanely, analyzes an issue from the news. Mr. Hartmann is a progressive radio host, author and pundit who has written numerous
books, articles and blogs. Larry King is legendary talk show host and
erstwhile Little League coach. He has interviewed presidents, actors, musicians and even Oprah.
All three of these media personalities, however, share a link to RT (formerly Russia Today), the English-language arm of the Russian
government's media operation. In less diplomatic terms, it is a Kremlin propaganda machine. RT's coverage of Russia, the conflict
in Ukraine and other issues having direct bearing on Moscow's role in the world,
include headlines that sound like they could have been written by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Mother Russia is
portrayed as a force for only good and peace in
the world. It's anchors and "reporters" have enthusiasm for euphemisms such as "stabilizing force" ("invading army") and "humanitarian
aid" ("military intervention"). RT's coverage of Russian politics
is heavy-handed, unsubtle and, in the U.S., not particularly effective. Despite RT's best efforts to gin up sympathy for Russia
in the current Ukraine conflict, most mainstream politicians and media outlets continue to compete with each other to see who can
demonize Putin most.
RT's coverage of the U.S., however, is different. While it certainly has an political agenda, one that is not of the left or the
right, but simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system,
RT covers news, and offers perspectives that are not often seen American broadcast television. RT touts itself as offering a "second
opinion," through its American media campaign,
described by Ronn Torossian recently here at the Observer. RT is certainly neither objective or balanced, but it is at least
as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers
considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news.
Recent RT headlines such as "Police Brutality Activists Angry Obama Glossed Over Ferguson 'Events' in SOTU" and "Majority of America's
Public School Children are Living in Poverty," span a reasonably broad ideological range, but seek to consistently to portray the
U.S. in a negative light. These are also stories that much of the media overlooks. This approach, and similar language can also be
found in
RT America's busy Twitter feed. If RT were funded through advertising or the largesse of a quirky American billionaire and only
covered domestic politics here in the U.S., it would be viewed by many as a useful component of a diverse media environment. For
these reasons, RT is now the most watched foreign news
outlet in the U.S., with an audience that is estimated to be 6.5 times as large as its closest rival, Al Jazeera America.
In addition to its news coverage, RT has also become a clearinghouse for the opinions of American dissidents, including those
on the far left like Noam Chomsky, the far,
if twisted, right like Pat Buchanan, and increasingly
fringe Libertarians like
Ron Paul. While opinions like these are provocative, unpopular and often a little wacky, RT gives American audiences access to
ideas and opinions that are considerably beyond the narrow bandwidth in which most debate in the media usually occurs. Clearly, these
opinions are more extreme than the more genial progressive politics of Mr. Camp or Mr. Hartmann or of the generally politically neutral
work of Mr. King, but taken as a whole, RT provides a very broad range of political outlooks.
Somebody who only watched RT would have an image of the U.S. as a place of radical economic inequality, widespread civil unrest,
corrupt politicians, racial animus and a collapsing economy, committed to expanding its global influence through military might.
Of course, somebody who watched only Fox News, would understand the U.S. to be a country that is in the throws of a socialist takeover
where an oppressed minority of white, heavily Christian citizens, are now losing the country that was given to them by the almighty,
to hordes of illegal immigrants, non-whites, homosexuals and atheists. Both Fox and RT are propaganda organs espousing very biased
views of American politics. The major difference may be that Fox represents one extreme of the domestic political spectrum while
RT is the propaganda arm of a foreign government. While RT draws more viewers than other foreign news networks like CCTV from China,
Al Jazeera America or even the BBC, its viewership is dwarfed by major American news stations like Fox; RT America has 194,000 Twitter
followers compared with Fox News has 4.83 million Twitter followers.
But dismissing RT's coverage as simply a Russian propaganda, however, is a mistake. The insights of people like Mr. Camp and Mr.
Hartmann, while not universally agreed upon, certainly resonate with many Americans. It is significant that it is only on a Moscow-funded
station that voices like those can be heard, reflecting how the major media outlets still only present a relatively narrow range
of views on most topics. Second, providing a critical and resonant portrayal of American politics to American viewers will eventually
make those viewers more open to RT's dubious presentation of foreign affairs and Russian politics. The Kremlin hopes that the same
people who watch RT's US programming and wonder why stories about, for example,
why the US is classifying information about aid
to Afghanistan, will soon begin to question why so few voices on American media are critical of the Ukrainian government.
Consider RT's coverage of American politics as a bait and switch, from critical insight about the US to dishonest propaganda regarding
Russia.
Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter
Alfred Cossi Chodaton
RT does nothing different from what major media outlets do.
Ilya Nesterovich
Lie, lie and lie. That's all. RT show different opinion from official, and, of course, USA doesn't like it.
Mstislav Pavlov
In Russia there is no need for propaganda. Your media better than any propaganda. Kremlin even do not need anything :)
Another signal from 2015 about forthcoming clump down on RT. RT is Russian propaganda site, but that does not exclude them providing high quality critical
coverage of US and European events. In any case RT is preferable to BBC, although comparing two can get you at higher level of
understanding, than watching just one
Notable quotes:
"... simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, ..."
"... at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news. ..."
"... Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter ..."
At first glance, Lee Camp, Thom Hartmann and Larry King don't seem to have a lot in common. Mr. Camp is a comedian who seeks to
fuse progressive politics with humor. He is perhaps best known for his
"Moment of Clarity" rants, where he colorfully, and occasionally
profanely, analyzes an issue from the news. Mr. Hartmann is a progressive radio host, author and pundit who has written numerous
books, articles and blogs. Larry King is legendary talk show host and
erstwhile Little League coach. He has interviewed presidents, actors, musicians and even Oprah.
All three of these media personalities, however, share a link to RT (formerly Russia Today), the English-language arm of the Russian
government's media operation. In less diplomatic terms, it is a Kremlin propaganda machine. RT's coverage of Russia, the conflict
in Ukraine and other issues having direct bearing on Moscow's role in the world,
include headlines that sound like they could have been written by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Mother Russia is
portrayed as a force for only good and peace in
the world. It's anchors and "reporters" have enthusiasm for euphemisms such as "stabilizing force" ("invading army") and "humanitarian
aid" ("military intervention"). RT's coverage of Russian politics
is heavy-handed, unsubtle and, in the U.S., not particularly effective. Despite RT's best efforts to gin up sympathy for Russia
in the current Ukraine conflict, most mainstream politicians and media outlets continue to compete with each other to see who can
demonize Putin most.
RT's coverage of the U.S., however, is different. While it certainly has an political agenda, one that is not of the left or the
right, but simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system,
RT covers news, and offers perspectives that are not often seen American broadcast television. RT touts itself as offering a "second
opinion," through its American media campaign,
described by Ronn Torossian recently here at the Observer. RT is certainly neither objective or balanced, but it is at least
as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers
considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news.
Recent RT headlines such as "Police Brutality Activists Angry Obama Glossed Over Ferguson 'Events' in SOTU" and "Majority of America's
Public School Children are Living in Poverty," span a reasonably broad ideological range, but seek to consistently to portray the
U.S. in a negative light. These are also stories that much of the media overlooks. This approach, and similar language can also be
found in
RT America's busy Twitter feed. If RT were funded through advertising or the largesse of a quirky American billionaire and only
covered domestic politics here in the U.S., it would be viewed by many as a useful component of a diverse media environment. For
these reasons, RT is now the most watched foreign news
outlet in the U.S., with an audience that is estimated to be 6.5 times as large as its closest rival, Al Jazeera America.
In addition to its news coverage, RT has also become a clearinghouse for the opinions of American dissidents, including those
on the far left like Noam Chomsky, the far,
if twisted, right like Pat Buchanan, and increasingly
fringe Libertarians like
Ron Paul. While opinions like these are provocative, unpopular and often a little wacky, RT gives American audiences access to
ideas and opinions that are considerably beyond the narrow bandwidth in which most debate in the media usually occurs. Clearly, these
opinions are more extreme than the more genial progressive politics of Mr. Camp or Mr. Hartmann or of the generally politically neutral
work of Mr. King, but taken as a whole, RT provides a very broad range of political outlooks.
Somebody who only watched RT would have an image of the U.S. as a place of radical economic inequality, widespread civil unrest,
corrupt politicians, racial animus and a collapsing economy, committed to expanding its global influence through military might.
Of course, somebody who watched only Fox News, would understand the U.S. to be a country that is in the throws of a socialist takeover
where an oppressed minority of white, heavily Christian citizens, are now losing the country that was given to them by the almighty,
to hordes of illegal immigrants, non-whites, homosexuals and atheists. Both Fox and RT are propaganda organs espousing very biased
views of American politics. The major difference may be that Fox represents one extreme of the domestic political spectrum while
RT is the propaganda arm of a foreign government. While RT draws more viewers than other foreign news networks like CCTV from China,
Al Jazeera America or even the BBC, its viewership is dwarfed by major American news stations like Fox; RT America has 194,000 Twitter
followers compared with Fox News has 4.83 million Twitter followers.
But dismissing RT's coverage as simply a Russian propaganda, however, is a mistake. The insights of people like Mr. Camp and Mr.
Hartmann, while not universally agreed upon, certainly resonate with many Americans. It is significant that it is only on a Moscow-funded
station that voices like those can be heard, reflecting how the major media outlets still only present a relatively narrow range
of views on most topics. Second, providing a critical and resonant portrayal of American politics to American viewers will eventually
make those viewers more open to RT's dubious presentation of foreign affairs and Russian politics. The Kremlin hopes that the same
people who watch RT's US programming and wonder why stories about, for example,
why the US is classifying information about aid
to Afghanistan, will soon begin to question why so few voices on American media are critical of the Ukrainian government.
Consider RT's coverage of American politics as a bait and switch, from critical insight about the US to dishonest propaganda regarding
Russia.
Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter
Alfred Cossi Chodaton
RT does nothing different from what major media outlets do.
Ilya Nesterovich
Lie, lie and lie. That's all. RT show different opinion from official, and, of course, USA doesn't like it.
Mstislav Pavlov
In Russia there is no need for propaganda. Your media better than any propaganda. Kremlin even do not need anything :)
"... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
"... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
"... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
"... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
"... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
"... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
"... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
"... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
"... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
"... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
"... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
"... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
"... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
"... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
"... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
"... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is
Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens,
has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest
income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce
resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and
imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.
You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.
thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15
I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly
horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing
the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,
AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13
The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the
petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.
The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few
years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to
find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.
Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to
expand.
Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong
and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.
Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11
General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding
from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those
billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.
NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09
I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem
incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle
Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the
Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to
that from the Cuban missile crisis.
nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07
The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of
NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still
struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy
was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US
policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the
security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world,
especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has
to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant
policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across
the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and
overall growth of the people of this planet.
desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04
I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also
of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.
Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03
Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is
Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and
Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to
form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or
remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into
their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population
of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.
Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01
laSaya said:
Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian
landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.
Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes,
livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their
places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because
their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?
Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way
forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko
not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.
angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!
Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace
talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to
pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that
cannot be won.
AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??
Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the
investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at
Russia, don't you think they would have used it?
glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50
courtesy of google translate:
Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a
battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a
crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving
the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of
combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without
causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal
actions.
In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their
application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar
actions, while not causing the death of soldier.
If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special
tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person
against whom he may apply such measures
suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38
suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America
He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!
cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36
While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see
them as idiots.
Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an
open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence
in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join
such an adventure.
AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40
CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they
report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.
Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.
Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any
sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement
can be made.
He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.
The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are
large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?
he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic
humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.
If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look
at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended
and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.
He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.
Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and
has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good
business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.
All this was simply because his ego was hurt.
It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash
by now.
If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.
KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57
Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on
Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What
possible benefit is that to you and me?
Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost
billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.
This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In
"Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and
everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the
"government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".
They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning
of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.
roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55
"We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's
territorial integrity."
That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a
similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the
situations analogous?
Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too
high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary
war.
I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked
flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift
their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the
bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on
Ukraine be strike no 3?
Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55
Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the
situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land
in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also
a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied
with Russia.
Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused
by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.
I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could
be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an
astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to
re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt
collector when he comes to your house.
I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a
virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious
problems to deal with.
Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54
Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually
spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their
conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency
reported here;
http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419
Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53
They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not
to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.
BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52
Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the
Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.
In regard to Georgia
The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely
orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.
Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in
Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home
almost overnight.
They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an
attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.
Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued
an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing
them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for
help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all
Georgians today".
During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black
soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and
Augusta.
In regard to the Crimea
The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy
made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in
the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the
Crimea.
Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the
Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine?
When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea
overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.
In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev
The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government,
under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department
Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"
However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as
she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the
existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian
Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against
the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev
using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.
Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.
ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45
"Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over
and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".
AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29
Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his
own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian
Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian
civil war is being waged.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are
fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been
participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups,"
meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual
citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says,
emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian
army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions
against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against
Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the
Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore
incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels,
restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news
reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public
officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.
If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire
career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false,
then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.
While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be
another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump
into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia
coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news
for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.
Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended
consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??
And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?
Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?
Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to
pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..
greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14
the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists
targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov
battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.
poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The
real civil war has yet to start.
PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13
i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a
spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further
bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians
I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and
miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.
EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12
I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is
intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and
do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a
decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.
So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand
Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that
reminds me Spanish civil war.
Notable quotes:
"... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of
state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on
Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48
The situation is far more complex than that.
it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked
Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.
IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48
Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing
cities killing civilians and destroying property.
What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58
Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn
their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to
explain with all those drones they have?
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29
There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very
interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there
has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government
was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web,
like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and
like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What
has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the
Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other
reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens
(and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there,
inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the
Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters
who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to
foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the
"Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's
sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the
sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the
regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the
Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is
therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available
channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and
the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted,
as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
AlienLifeForce
Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to
get Russia involved in conflict but failed.
"democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"
What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.
Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19
The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders
in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the
regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the
third, forth ones.
So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across
Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others
countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until
Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the
command of the Big 6.
LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57
"
The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
How long will it take you?
GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46
I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on
the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk
and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence,
violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked
to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less
than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has
restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East
Ukraine will be forever thankful.
If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co
Persona non grata -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for
crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they
want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements
form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting
nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
Notable quotes:
"... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries
of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting
the buffers.
Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....
This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO
funds.
Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54
Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete
confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that
they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)
Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53
"We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information
and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than
the BBC."
I couldn't stop laughing!
Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine
tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better,
Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the
best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes,
the need to confront Russia at all cost.
Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi
batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very
beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they
said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What
is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?
The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very
easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative
media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their
readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the
truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind
of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments,
very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again
this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the
least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!
Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their
statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are
trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is
gaining the field? All three?
halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52
And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail,
cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and
agents of influence in EU capitals"?
Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is
down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.
micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52
Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the
Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of
the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like
Guernica.
whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48
Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering
power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but
that of the US president himself.
So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?
RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46
Putin must be stopped.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.
Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be
stopped!!?
'' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months
from their general election.
Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of,
Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo
Nazis; thugs.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things
across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts
every monning.
But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate
corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon,
bite the bastards on the arse.
These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down
in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.
Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the
Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.
If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had
not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now.
This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.
And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.
We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO.
So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country
without a mandate from our Parliament?
herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44
The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government
that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed
this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.
In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the
eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.
There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the
mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen
with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.
The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and
BMWs.
Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44
As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already
died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we
forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that
weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.
When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their
throats - especially American 'democracy'.
rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43
"Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to
Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is
effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in
the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in
tears.
NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41
"German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been
right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth
going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."
Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed
any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after
all.
The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got
reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was
torn to shreds with that.
It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From
comments:
"The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting
from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from
the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when
reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government'
as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
and
"Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research
it helps with facts"
Notable quotes:
"... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
"... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
"... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
"... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or
historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening
in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian
(and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's
disinformation handouts" ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Selected Skeptical Comments
vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he
realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure
from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be
talking about truce.
This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.
edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?
What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to
do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?
What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate
a civil war in Europe!
scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28
I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like
they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is
committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any
large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate
another country's borders, officially.
Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's
affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely
interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot
more convincing ten years ago than they do today.
ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28
The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased
reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the
propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for
example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the
Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current
or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a
journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is
happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for
The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and
Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07
Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single
American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the
lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind
when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is
greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become
a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.
Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill
each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build
the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev
Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.
BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are
reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to
make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.
GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06
I'm English, but I think you are American.
And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced
weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's
merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02
Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of
Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused,
assaulted, and disappeared.
There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup
that toppled Yanukovych.
HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00
Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The
shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57
Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine,
there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in
Kiev, nor do they want to.
Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US
geopolitical machinations.
When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what
was the US response?
"Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.
MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56
Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of
research it helps with facts
Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54
This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51
German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan
for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary
Victoria Nuland.
Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!
MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45
Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and
Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too
powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!
MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42
Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right,
I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.
Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41
The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the
fascists. All you need to know, everyone.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40
Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan
of democratic transional government.
Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on
Ukraine.
Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.
Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.
Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34
Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st
World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for
sure!
Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44
Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you
HAVE.
HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32
How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the
Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?
Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free"
article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes
only guns can stop guns",
It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they
cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big
money.
During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen
royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of
Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish
independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.
He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.
By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting
us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The
Willing?
As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":
"The men who build the planes and make the tanks
Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."
Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30
Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war
indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)
GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs"
from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons
are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they
expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however,
was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and
East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by
Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection
of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No
matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in
Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets,
and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for
declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is
irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.
And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at
last. The warmongers have their war.
Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they
organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are
working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help
bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe
is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more
insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?
AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08
So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine
it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession
Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes
sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since
the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic
independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.
Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby
Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue
(MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's
illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic
independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately
fired.
Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not
honor.
I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has
intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How
America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her
program a number of times.
My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character.
I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost
her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even
Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.
For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda
that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian
troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the
right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.
Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this
fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.
As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order
to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's
border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.
Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated
by Washington.
It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.
They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party
on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian
Troops into Crimea."
No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops
to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean
Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established
themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.
So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three
are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.
It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most
independent journalists can escape its influence.
What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia
for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column
dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?
The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production.
The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot
protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing
non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in
an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine
Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych,
but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows
that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from
the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really
disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to
gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings
were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here:
http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate
government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in
southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians
have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's
help.
The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How
the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.
Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains
are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now
may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
Notable quotes:
"... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is
a right wing nazi supporting rally.
Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47
Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.
Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42
Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far
away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.
yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30
...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically
elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted
him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world,
it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.
yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17
"Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they
see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.
BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26
If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.
US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually
killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.
If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.
centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23
The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.
Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.
Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is
wholly constrained.
It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.
From the Pew Research Center:
Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and
say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the
U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .
For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum
was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/
I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having
been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?
Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57
And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?
Ukraine freedom support act.
Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language
broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda
Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in
the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?
I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them
about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.
Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.
jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46
And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.
New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin
And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new
Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?
Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has
intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk,
one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe
and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
"... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
"... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
"... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
"... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
"... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is
deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant
boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.
More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and
several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a
building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.
It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the
checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to
pass.
Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the
case for months. When Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on
supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a
conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.
After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact
on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic
diseases; everything is affected.
... ... ...
Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56
More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to
the west to kill. More like the other way around.
Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04
Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not
responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships
that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.
And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.
Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57
What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you
sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.
Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07
And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It
happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33
Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by
hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).
Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26
Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that
virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west
except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser"
peoples to serve as cannon fodder.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14
Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have
resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out,
he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They
should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have
challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of
teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and
refugees.
The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of
Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those
actions. If it walks like a duck...
buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51
Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and
conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of
people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable
as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out
that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the
Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to
argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?
Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43
They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn
(with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's
corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing.
They are hiding behind Yats.
Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25
Until recently, I also thought as you.
But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.
Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.
Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)
EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58
You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the
more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.
I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite
interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough
to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass
powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.
However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have
needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have
happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I
say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire
Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.
To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic
identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of
like fanatics.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52
There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is
backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an
enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By
contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.
So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown,
they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.
The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko,
Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most
likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.
You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the
EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.
BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51
Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper
strength, NOT the real strength).
Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to
leave.
Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus
chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).
It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost
at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered)
to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not
take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the
PL govt. (Turch.).
Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have
had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA
needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12
What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?
When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The
country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and
social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they
have failed the ultimate test.
These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true
for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the
so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany
after 1918 and 1945.
Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this
generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this
national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their
country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.
Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like
Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans
after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for
themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace
and political stability.
That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but
repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their
maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02
You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men
are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post
writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.
Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people
in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a
year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your
statement of 9000 people is meaningless.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11
What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity
of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.
For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians
immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the
time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian
defections.
The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian
people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat,
and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.
At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and
frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian
military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these
troops?
What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many
suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize
the things that might happen.
But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05
Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is
destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by
the rebels.
Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000
wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own
people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire
villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.
For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation
in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.
All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of
reasonable people.
Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal
to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda
involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization,
or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for
mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
Notable quotes:
"... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was
supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when
it can be blamed on the rebels.
Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring
the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling
with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that
try to point of the media hypocrisy.
"... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
"... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously
he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future
leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.
For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's
reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war.
After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of
Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.
Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57
That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war
party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow
"win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian
army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.
The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing
most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's
really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the
agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will
emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?
EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45
Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic
political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.
From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle --
to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.
EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38
Cargo 200 reports are all false?
They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same
statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000
Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that
not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively
identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that
could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything
I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers,
but that nobody denies.
Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34
Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC.
They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of
a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant
fascist gear, why worry?
Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The
National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching
behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people
wear is in the end less important that what they do.
The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the
riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the
shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this
should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS
insignia?
wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13
Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose
violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is
legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.
Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government
through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement
with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this
without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the
civil war but serious war crimes as well.
MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42
At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in
endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were
driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is
beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has
been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.
EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28
We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of
the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.
Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners
of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated
all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe
that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces
deployed.
At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more
than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts
that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and
associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing
some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.
A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will
not do.
Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12
I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view,
description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I
have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear
friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you
might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself
and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based
comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible
truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your
case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like
baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended
you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if
you provide some facts, I have not noticed
unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty
over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.
Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?
Here's one to try on
It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even
attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of
Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.
Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.
Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media
for Universities Project.
If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:
As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated
net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in
organized crime.
EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they
withdraw.
Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.
The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as
possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.
To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete
encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play
games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.
Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will
finally end this war.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48
The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took
blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th
brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost.
Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk
during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as
far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from
far range artillery.
Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015
Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and
maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!
EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns
stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a
happy ending!
That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about.
They'll lose their jobs if they do.
Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under
economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev
is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28
What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's
probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take
casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an
indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.
On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that
their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would
be a decisive victory for the rebels.
It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a
decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what
I really want to see).
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015
DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports
are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter
announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people
who are reasonably objective).
Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians
are being backed down at multiple points on the front.
ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19
What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the
innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you
seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time
for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is
pointless.
Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in
the political world towards actually caring about the people.
A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that
BOTH sides have played games.
Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it
power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong,
biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.
However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong
far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of
influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record
of backing the 'right' groups.
Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.
There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.
When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both
sides.
Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?
You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the
Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units -
under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?
Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any
chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe
Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting
through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when
it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle
eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even
though these cost far less to provide.
The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become,
for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all
citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural
sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).
This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev
changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes
corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is
not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we
can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic'
media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?
But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside
influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build
a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will
be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!
But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour,
nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this
potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.
Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not
changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price
is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a
humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop?
What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy
ending!
JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18
Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers ,
MH-17 , buss etc .
Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.
PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17
To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.
What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to
the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from
their airports, is not it?
Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The
artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up
operation, it is normal procedure in this war."
If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for
you.
Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17
No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...
But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other
positions.
Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk
I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that
Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever
been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that
wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse
to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup,
and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so?
Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their
freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is
that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and
the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.
graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in
Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside
Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in
Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based
on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.
For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In
June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling
Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the
exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern,
attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other
countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason
given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his
government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For
Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets.
They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners
do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save
a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact
bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared.
In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after
her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina
Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some
there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after
the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible
organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former
warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January
interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security
personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them
with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December
after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our
eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza.
This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw
all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists
that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against
Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed
2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have
sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny.
We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after
the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.
"... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?
PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35
That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent
responsible for its success or failure.
What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100%
responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???
For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which
is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
DPR and LPR leaders
Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36
£2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended
up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled,
then £3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere
near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!
HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26
The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their
citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.
Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59
You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All
infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply
than main Ukraine.
The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help
people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.
Latvia, which took over the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 January, intends to launch a Russian-language
TV channel to counter Kremlin propaganda, with EU support, a high ranking government official told journalists in Riga
Some 40% of Latvians are native Russian speakers and regularly watch several Russian TV channels, including RBK Ren TV,
RTR Planeta, NTV Mir .
Makarovs regretted that the majority of Russian channels broadcasting for Latvia were registered in the UK and in Sweden,
and that the regulators of those countries paid no attention to the content and put no pressure whatsoever on the broadcaster.
He also argued that the procedure should be that if a media is targeted toward a specific country, it should be registered
in that particular country .
###
Firstly, the Balt states announced at various times over the last year or so that they would ban or block Russian channels.
But they can't. They are EU member states, so this whole alternative programs is an actually an admission of defeat.
Secondly, if Russian propaganda is so absurd and unbelievable, then why would alternative programing be necessary? It is cognitive
dissonance par excellence!
What is fairly clear is that the Pork Pie News Networks of 'Europe' and the US are facing much more skepticism than ever before,
mostly through incompetence and simply repeating the same old tropes and propganda tactics they have been using for over twenty
years now. It doesn't fool anyone any more.
As for Latvia's presidency of the EU, it is little more than spokesstate since the rotating Presidency was gutted a few years
ago to make it much more efficient (i.e cheaper). With small countries, yes they choose certain aspects that they wish to promote
for their six months of fame, but the logistics and heavy lifting is usually done (sponsored) by a larger EU state like UK, Nl,
DE, Fr etc..). It's not that much different to Mogherini's job as spokeshole for the European External Action Service, aka the
EU's foreign minister (and Katherine 'Gosh!' Ashton before her). They don't make policy, just vocalized the lowest common denominator
position of 28 EU member states.
Latvia, which took over the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 January, intends to launch a Russian-language
TV channel to counter Kremlin propaganda, with EU support, a high ranking government official told journalists in Riga
Some 40% of Latvians are native Russian speakers and regularly watch several Russian TV channels, including RBK Ren TV,
RTR Planeta, NTV Mir .
Makarovs regretted that the majority of Russian channels broadcasting for Latvia were registered in the UK and in Sweden,
and that the regulators of those countries paid no attention to the content and put no pressure whatsoever on the broadcaster.
He also argued that the procedure should be that if a media is targeted toward a specific country, it should be registered
in that particular country .
###
Firstly, the Balt states announced at various times over the last year or so that they would ban or block Russian channels.
But they can't. They are EU member states, so this whole alternative programs is an actually an admission of defeat.
Secondly, if Russian propaganda is so absurd and unbelievable, then why would alternative programing be necessary? It is cognitive
dissonance par excellence!
What is fairly clear is that the Pork Pie News Networks of 'Europe' and the US are facing much more skepticism than ever before,
mostly through incompetence and simply repeating the same old tropes and propganda tactics they have been using for over twenty
years now. It doesn't fool anyone any more.
As for Latvia's presidency of the EU, it is little more than spokesstate since the rotating Presidency was gutted a few years
ago to make it much more efficient (i.e cheaper). With small countries, yes they choose certain aspects that they wish to promote
for their six months of fame, but the logistics and heavy lifting is usually done (sponsored) by a larger EU state like UK, Nl,
DE, Fr etc..). It's not that much different to Mogherini's job as spokeshole for the European External Action Service, aka the
EU's foreign minister (and Katherine 'Gosh!' Ashton before her). They don't make policy, just vocalized the lowest common denominator
position of 28 EU member states.
A widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasingly daring
patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threatens to end an era of arms control and bring
back a dangerous rivalry between the world's two dominant nuclear arsenals.
Tensions have been
taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise
missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and
has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in
Europe after a 23-year
absence.
On Boxing Day, in one of the more visible signs of the unease, the US military launched the
first of two experimental "blimps" over Washington. The system, known as JLENS, is designed to
detect incoming cruise missiles. The North American Aerospace Command (Norad) did not specify the
nature of the threat, but the deployment comes nine months after the Norad commander,
General Charles Jacoby, admitted the Pentagon faced "some significant challenges" in
countering cruise missiles, referring in particular to the threat of Russian attack submarines.
Those submarines, which have been making forays across the Atlantic, routinely carry
nuclear-capable cruise missiles. In the light of aggressive rhetoric from Moscow and the expiry
of treaty-based restrictions, there is uncertainty over whether those missiles are now carrying
nuclear warheads.
The rise in tension comes at a time when the arms control efforts of the post-cold-war era are
losing momentum. The number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia actually
increased last year,
and both countries are spending many billions of dollars a year modernising their arsenals.
Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and a failing economy, Vladimir Putin is putting
increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons as guarantors and symbols of Russian influence. In a
speech primarily about the Ukrainian conflict last summer, Putin pointedly referred to his
country's nuclear arsenal and
declared other countries "should understand it's best not to mess with us".
The Russian press has taken up the gung-ho tone. Pravda, the former mouthpiece of the Soviet
regime, published an article in November titled "Russian prepares a nuclear surprise for Nato",
which boasted of Russian superiority over the west, particularly in tactical nuclear weapons.
"The Americans are well aware of this," the
commentary said. "They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too
late."
Some of the heightened rhetoric appears to be bluster. The new version of the Russian military
doctrine, published on 25 December, left
its policy on nuclear weapons unchanged from four years earlier. They are to be used only in
the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapon onslaught which
"would put in danger the very existence of the state". It did not envisage a pre-emptive strike,
as some in the military had proposed.
However, the new aggressive tone coincides with an extensive upgrading of Russia's nuclear
weapons, reflecting Moscow's renewed determination to keep pace with the US arsenal. It will
involve a substantial increase in the number of warheads loaded on submarines, as a result of the
development of the multi-warhead Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile.
The modernisation also involves new or revived delivery systems. Last month
Russia announced it would
re-introduce nuclear missile trains, allowing intercontinental ballistic missiles to be moved
about the country by rail so they would be harder to target.
There is also mounting western anxiety over Russian marketing abroad of a cruise missile
called the Club-K, which can be concealed, complete with launcher, inside an innocuous-looking
shipping container until the moment it is fired.
However, the development that has most alarmed Washington is Russian testing of a medium-range
cruise missile which the Obama administration claims is a clear violation of the 1987
intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, the agreement that brought to an end the
dangerous standoff between US and Russian cruise missiles in Europe. By hugging the contours of
the Earth, cruise missiles can evade radar defences and hit strategic targets with little or no
notice, raising fears on both sides of surprise pre-emptive attacks.
At a
contentious congressional hearing on 10 December, Republicans criticised two of the
administration's leading arms control negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller of the State Department and
Brian McKeon of the Pentagon, for not responding earlier to the alleged Russian violation and for
continuing to observe the INF treaty.
Gottemoeller said she had raised US concerns over the new missile "about a dozen times" with
her counterparts in Moscow and Obama had written to Putin on the matter. She said the new Russian
cruise missile – which she did not identify but is reported to be the Iskander-K with a reach in
the banned 500-5,500km range – appeared to be ready for deployment.
The Russians have denied the existence of the missile and have responded with
counter-allegations about American infringements of the INF treaty that Washington rejects.
McKeon said the Pentagon was looking at a variety of military responses to the Russian
missile, including the deployment of an American equivalent weapon.
"We have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant with the INF treaty, some
of which would not be, that we would be able to recommend to our leadership if it decided to go
down that path," McKeon said. He later added: "We don't have ground-launched cruise missiles in
Europe now, obviously, because they are prohibited by the treaty but that would obviously be one
option to explore."
Reintroducing cruise missiles into Europe would be politically fraught and divisive, but the
Republican majority in Congress is pushing for a much more robust American response to the
Russian missile.
The US military
has also been rattled by the resurgence of the Russian submarine fleet. Moscow is building new
generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, known as "boomers", and attack submarines that
are equal or superior to their US counterparts in performance and stealth. From a low point in
2002, when the Russian navy managed to send out no underwater patrols at all, it is steadily
rebounding and reasserting its global reach.
There have been sporadic reports in the US press about Russian submarines reaching the
American east coast, which have been denied by the US military. But last year Jacoby, the head of
Norad and the US northern command at the time, admitted concerns about being able to counter new
Russian investment in cruise missile technology and advanced submarines.
"They have just begun production of a new class of quiet nuclear submarines specifically
designed to deliver cruise missiles,"
Jacoby told Congress.
Peter Roberts, who retired from the Royal Navy a year ago after serving as a commanding
officer and senior UK liaison officer with the US navy and intelligence services, said the
transatlantic forays by Akula-class Russian attack submarines had become a routine event, at
least once or twice a year.
"The Russians usually put out a sortie with an Akula or an Akula II around Christmas It
normally stops off Scotland, and then through the Bay of Biscay and out over the Atlantic. It
will have nuclear-capable missiles on it," he said.
Roberts, who is now senior research fellow for sea power and maritime studies at the Royal
United Services Institute, said the appearance of a periscope off the western coast of Scotland,
which
triggered a Nato
submarine hunt last month, was a sign of the latest such Russian foray.
He said the Russian attack submarine was most likely heading for the US coast. "They go across
to eastern seaboard, usually to watch the carrier battle groups work up [go on exercises].
"It's something the Americans have been trying to brush off but there is increasing concern
about the American ability to track these subs. Their own anti-sub skills have declined, while
we have all been focused on landlocked operations, in Afghanistan and so on."
The Akula is being superseded by an even stealthier submarine, the Yasen. Both are
multipurpose: hunter-killers designed to track and destroy enemy submarine and carrier battle
groups. Both are also armed with land-attack cruise missiles, currently the Granat, capable of
carrying nuclear warheads.
On any given sortie, Roberts said, "it is completely unknown whether they are nuclear-tipped".
A
Russian media report described the Akula as carrying Granat missiles with 200-kilotonne
warheads, but the reliability of the report is hard to gauge.
The US and Russia removed cruise missiles from their submarines after the 1991 Strategic Arms
Reduction treaty (Start), but that expired at the end of 2009. Its successor, New Start, signed
by Obama and the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in 2010 does not include any such
limitation, nor does it even allow for continued exchange of information about cruise missile
numbers.
Pavel Podvig, a senior research
fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the leading independent analyst of
Russian nuclear forces, said: "The bottom line is that we don't know, but it's safe to say that
it's quite possible that Russian subs carry nuclear SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles].
Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and
founding publisher of ArmsControlWonk.com,
believes the JLENS blimps are primarily a response to a Russian move to start rearming attack
submarines with nuclear weapons.
"For a long time, the Russians have been saying they would do this and now it looks like they
have," Lewis said. He added that the fact that data exchange on cruise missiles was allowed to
expire under the New Start treaty is a major failing that has increased uncertainty.
The Russian emphasis on cruise missiles is in line with Putin's
strategy of "de-escalation", which involves countering Nato's overwhelming conventional
superiority with the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would inflict "tailored damage" on
an adversary.
Lewis argues that Putin's accentuation of Russia's nuclear capabilities is aimed at giving him
room for manoeuvre in Ukraine and possibly other neighbouring states.
"The real reason he talks about how great they are is he saying: 'I'm going to go ahead and
invade Ukraine and you're going to look the other way. As long as I don't call it an invasion,
you're going to look at my nuclear weapons and say I don't want to push this,'" he said.
With both the US and Russia modernising their arsenals and Russia investing increasing
importance its nuclear deterrent, Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information
Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said we are facing a period of "deepening
military competition".
He added: "It will bring very little added security, but a lot more nervous people on both
sides."
InvisibleOISA -> Ethelunready 4 Jan 2015 23:53
Just how many warheads have the Iranians lofted towards Europe in the past quarter century?
Anyhow, the Yanqui ABM system is a pathetic blunderbuss. But extremely profitable for Boeing.
For instance:
US ABM test failure mars $1bn N. Korea defense plan
06.07.2013 10:03
A $214-million test launch of the only US defense against long-range ballistic missile
attacks failed to hit its target over the Pacific Ocean, according to the Missile Defense
Agency. There have been no successful interceptor tests since 2008.
InvisibleOISA 4 Jan 2015 23:41
Hey Julian. What a wussy propaganda piece. How about a few facts to put things in
perspective.
"All told, over the next decade, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the
United States plans to spend $355 billion on the maintenance and modernization of its nuclear
enterprise,[3] an increase of $142 billion from the $213 billion the Obama administration
projected in 2011.[4] According to available information, it appears that the nuclear
enterprise will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years.[5]
Beyond these upgrades of existing weapons, work is under way to design new weapons to
replace the current ones. The Navy is designing a new class of 12 SSBNs, the Air Force is
examining whether to build a mobile ICBM or extend the service life of the existing Minuteman
III, and the Air Force has begun development of a new, stealthy long-range bomber and a new
nuclear-capable tactical fighter-bomber. Production of a new guided "standoff" nuclear bomb,
which would be able to glide toward a target over a distance, is under way, and the Air Force
is developing a new long-range nuclear cruise missile to replace the current one."
And what about NATO, the u$a poodle.
NATO
"The new B61-12 is scheduled for deployment in Europe around 2020. At first, the guided
bomb, which has a modest standoff capability, will be backfitted onto existing F-15E, F-16,
and Tornado NATO aircraft. From around 2024, nuclear-capable F-35A stealthy fighter-bombers
are to be deployed in Europe and gradually take over the nuclear strike role from the F-16 and
Tornado aircraft."
Source: Arms Control Association
VikingHiking -> Rudeboy1 4 Jan 2015 23:25
To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over
the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor
trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million
artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million
tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and
icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment,
aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."
"Imperialist Powers paid for the blood of Soviet soldiers with limited supplies of obsolete
weapons, canned food and other war materiel which amounted to about 4% of total Soviet
production during WarII".
During Cold War all traces of Lend Lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized
and removed; photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns
were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines.
Five eights of the total German War effort was expended on the Russian front.
So it was a combination of allied arms and resources which kaputed the Nazi's, namely
1) The Russian Army
2) THE American Air Force
3) The British Navy and Merchant Marine
4) Hitler's Stupidity
Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 4 Jan 2015 23:03
Are you done with your boasting? By the way, you forgot Hollywood and GMO foods.
Leaving aside the one-side nature of your list (internet or web were also invented in CERN
by a European team), technology or business are not the same as intelligence.
Most Americans simply don't understand the world, its history, other cultures, don't see
others as having independent existence with other choices. They don't get it because they are
isolated and frankly quite lazy intellectually. Thus the infamous "we won WW2 in Normandy"
boast and similar bizarre claims.
Are other often similar? Yes, absolutely. But most of the others have no ability to provoke
a nuclear Armageddon, so their ignorance is annoying, but not fatal. The article was about the
worsening US-Russia confrontation and how it may end (or end everything). The fact that US has
actively started and provoked this confrontation in the last few years, mostly out of blissful
ignorance and endless selfishness. Thus we get "defensive missiles against Iran on Russia's
border", coups in Ukraine, endless demonizations...well, I think you get the picture. If you
don't, see the original post
irgun777 4 Jan 2015 22:59
" increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines "
What motivates the Cry Wolf tune of this article ?
Don't we also conduct nuclear and nuclear capable submarine patrols ? Even our allies
and friends operate routinely " nuclear capable submarines "
Our military budget alone is 10 times the Russian , we have over 600 military bases around
the world , some around Russia. We still continue to use heavy , nuclear capable bombers
for patrol , something Russia stopped doing after the Cold War. Russia did not
support and financed a coup in our neighbors . Something Ron Paul and Kissinger warned us
not to do.
Georgeaussie 4 Jan 2015 22:55
This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress.
I think its interesting that Americans believe their military personal are defending there
country when the United States is usually the aggressor. And that is my view,. And as for
people saying Russian bots and Korean bots(which i don't know if they exist) you are sounding
just as bad as them, every country has propaganda and everyone has a right to believe what
they want, wether its western media or eastern media. People on here don't need people like
you with you extreme biases, yes have an opinion, but don't put other peoples opinion down
because you think your right, collectively there is no right or wrong, do you know whats going
on around closed doors in your govt? Well sorry you probably know less then you think, i like
to read different media reports and its interesting, do you "obama bots" know that Russia is
helping look for the black box of the air asia flight? I just thought it was interesting not
reading that in my "western media" reports over the weeks. So comment and tell me if you
honestly think "western bot" are correct and "eastern bots" aren't b/c i would like too know
how there i a right and and wrong. In my OPINION there isn't if anything you are both wrong.
Veritas Vicnit 5 Jan 2015 00:05
p1. 'Russian General: We Are At War'
"Gen. Leonid Ivashov... issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis
unfolding in Ukraine: "Apparently they [US and EU officials] have dedicated themselves, and
continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They
present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda
employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of
aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is a project of the West, a new type of
war: ... wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . under the
cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine.
They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see
that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is
being prepared." (Russian General: 'We Are At War', February 22, 2014)
"what David Petraeus has done for counter-insurgency warfare, Stuart Levey [later David
Cohen] has done for economic warfare" [Sen. Joe Lieberman]
Russian military sources have disclosed their recognition that offensive operations
(economic warfare, proxy warfare, regime change operations, etc.) are active as is the
mobilisation of military architecture.
MattTruth 5 Jan 2015 00:05
Russia is not a threat to USA. The elite of USA just need a war and need it soon.
afewpiecesofsilver -> Continent 5 Jan 2015 00:00
That's exactly why the US/NATO is trying to 'wedge' Ukraine into their EU. Then they can
develop military bases in traditionally, socially, culturally, verbally Russian Ukraine, right
on Russia's border....After the well known, publicized and continuous international bullying
and abuse of Russia and Putin over the last couple of years, and now the recent undermining of
it's oil economy by US and NATO, anyone who is condemning Putin and Russia obviously can't
read.
moosejaw12999 5 Jan 2015 00:00
Might give a few minute warning on cruise missiles but will do nothing against drones will
it Barry ?
When you start a game , you should think for a minute where it might end . Americas worst enemy is always her own disgruntled people . Drones will be the new weapon of choice in Americas upcoming civil war .
Ross Kramer 4 Jan 2015 23:58
"Russia is a regional power" - Obama said last year. Yeah, sure. Just by looking at the map
I can see it is twice bigger than the US in territory. Its tails touches Alaska and its head
lays on the border with Germany. How on Earth the biggest country in the world with the
nuclear arsenal equal to that of the US can be "just a regional power"?
A widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasingly daring
patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threatens to end an era of arms control and bring
back a dangerous rivalry between the world's two dominant nuclear arsenals.
Tensions have been
taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise
missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and
has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in
Europe after a 23-year
absence.
On Boxing Day, in one of the more visible signs of the unease, the US military launched the
first of two experimental "blimps" over Washington. The system, known as JLENS, is designed to
detect incoming cruise missiles. The North American Aerospace Command (Norad) did not specify the
nature of the threat, but the deployment comes nine months after the Norad commander,
General Charles Jacoby, admitted the Pentagon faced "some significant challenges" in
countering cruise missiles, referring in particular to the threat of Russian attack submarines.
Those submarines, which have been making forays across the Atlantic, routinely carry
nuclear-capable cruise missiles. In the light of aggressive rhetoric from Moscow and the expiry
of treaty-based restrictions, there is uncertainty over whether those missiles are now carrying
nuclear warheads.
The rise in tension comes at a time when the arms control efforts of the post-cold-war era are
losing momentum. The number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia actually
increased last year,
and both countries are spending many billions of dollars a year modernising their arsenals.
Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and a failing economy, Vladimir Putin is putting
increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons as guarantors and symbols of Russian influence. In a
speech primarily about the Ukrainian conflict last summer, Putin pointedly referred to his
country's nuclear arsenal and
declared other countries "should understand it's best not to mess with us".
The Russian press has taken up the gung-ho tone. Pravda, the former mouthpiece of the Soviet
regime, published an article in November titled "Russian prepares a nuclear surprise for Nato",
which boasted of Russian superiority over the west, particularly in tactical nuclear weapons.
"The Americans are well aware of this," the
commentary said. "They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too
late."
Some of the heightened rhetoric appears to be bluster. The new version of the Russian military
doctrine, published on 25 December, left
its policy on nuclear weapons unchanged from four years earlier. They are to be used only in
the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapon onslaught which
"would put in danger the very existence of the state". It did not envisage a pre-emptive strike,
as some in the military had proposed.
However, the new aggressive tone coincides with an extensive upgrading of Russia's nuclear
weapons, reflecting Moscow's renewed determination to keep pace with the US arsenal. It will
involve a substantial increase in the number of warheads loaded on submarines, as a result of the
development of the multi-warhead Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile.
The modernisation also involves new or revived delivery systems. Last month
Russia announced it would
re-introduce nuclear missile trains, allowing intercontinental ballistic missiles to be moved
about the country by rail so they would be harder to target.
There is also mounting western anxiety over Russian marketing abroad of a cruise missile
called the Club-K, which can be concealed, complete with launcher, inside an innocuous-looking
shipping container until the moment it is fired.
However, the development that has most alarmed Washington is Russian testing of a medium-range
cruise missile which the Obama administration claims is a clear violation of the 1987
intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, the agreement that brought to an end the
dangerous standoff between US and Russian cruise missiles in Europe. By hugging the contours of
the Earth, cruise missiles can evade radar defences and hit strategic targets with little or no
notice, raising fears on both sides of surprise pre-emptive attacks.
At a
contentious congressional hearing on 10 December, Republicans criticised two of the
administration's leading arms control negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller of the State Department and
Brian McKeon of the Pentagon, for not responding earlier to the alleged Russian violation and for
continuing to observe the INF treaty.
Gottemoeller said she had raised US concerns over the new missile "about a dozen times" with
her counterparts in Moscow and Obama had written to Putin on the matter. She said the new Russian
cruise missile – which she did not identify but is reported to be the Iskander-K with a reach in
the banned 500-5,500km range – appeared to be ready for deployment.
The Russians have denied the existence of the missile and have responded with
counter-allegations about American infringements of the INF treaty that Washington rejects.
McKeon said the Pentagon was looking at a variety of military responses to the Russian
missile, including the deployment of an American equivalent weapon.
"We have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant with the INF treaty, some
of which would not be, that we would be able to recommend to our leadership if it decided to go
down that path," McKeon said. He later added: "We don't have ground-launched cruise missiles in
Europe now, obviously, because they are prohibited by the treaty but that would obviously be one
option to explore."
Reintroducing cruise missiles into Europe would be politically fraught and divisive, but the
Republican majority in Congress is pushing for a much more robust American response to the
Russian missile.
The US military
has also been rattled by the resurgence of the Russian submarine fleet. Moscow is building new
generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, known as "boomers", and attack submarines that
are equal or superior to their US counterparts in performance and stealth. From a low point in
2002, when the Russian navy managed to send out no underwater patrols at all, it is steadily
rebounding and reasserting its global reach.
There have been sporadic reports in the US press about Russian submarines reaching the
American east coast, which have been denied by the US military. But last year Jacoby, the head of
Norad and the US northern command at the time, admitted concerns about being able to counter new
Russian investment in cruise missile technology and advanced submarines.
"They have just begun production of a new class of quiet nuclear submarines specifically
designed to deliver cruise missiles,"
Jacoby told Congress.
Peter Roberts, who retired from the Royal Navy a year ago after serving as a commanding
officer and senior UK liaison officer with the US navy and intelligence services, said the
transatlantic forays by Akula-class Russian attack submarines had become a routine event, at
least once or twice a year.
"The Russians usually put out a sortie with an Akula or an Akula II around Christmas It
normally stops off Scotland, and then through the Bay of Biscay and out over the Atlantic. It
will have nuclear-capable missiles on it," he said.
Roberts, who is now senior research fellow for sea power and maritime studies at the Royal
United Services Institute, said the appearance of a periscope off the western coast of Scotland,
which
triggered a Nato
submarine hunt last month, was a sign of the latest such Russian foray.
He said the Russian attack submarine was most likely heading for the US coast. "They go across
to eastern seaboard, usually to watch the carrier battle groups work up [go on exercises].
"It's something the Americans have been trying to brush off but there is increasing concern
about the American ability to track these subs. Their own anti-sub skills have declined, while
we have all been focused on landlocked operations, in Afghanistan and so on."
The Akula is being superseded by an even stealthier submarine, the Yasen. Both are
multipurpose: hunter-killers designed to track and destroy enemy submarine and carrier battle
groups. Both are also armed with land-attack cruise missiles, currently the Granat, capable of
carrying nuclear warheads.
On any given sortie, Roberts said, "it is completely unknown whether they are nuclear-tipped".
A
Russian media report described the Akula as carrying Granat missiles with 200-kilotonne
warheads, but the reliability of the report is hard to gauge.
The US and Russia removed cruise missiles from their submarines after the 1991 Strategic Arms
Reduction treaty (Start), but that expired at the end of 2009. Its successor, New Start, signed
by Obama and the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in 2010 does not include any such
limitation, nor does it even allow for continued exchange of information about cruise missile
numbers.
Pavel Podvig, a senior research
fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the leading independent analyst of
Russian nuclear forces, said: "The bottom line is that we don't know, but it's safe to say that
it's quite possible that Russian subs carry nuclear SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles].
Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and
founding publisher of ArmsControlWonk.com,
believes the JLENS blimps are primarily a response to a Russian move to start rearming attack
submarines with nuclear weapons.
"For a long time, the Russians have been saying they would do this and now it looks like they
have," Lewis said. He added that the fact that data exchange on cruise missiles was allowed to
expire under the New Start treaty is a major failing that has increased uncertainty.
The Russian emphasis on cruise missiles is in line with Putin's
strategy of "de-escalation", which involves countering Nato's overwhelming conventional
superiority with the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would inflict "tailored damage" on
an adversary.
Lewis argues that Putin's accentuation of Russia's nuclear capabilities is aimed at giving him
room for manoeuvre in Ukraine and possibly other neighbouring states.
"The real reason he talks about how great they are is he saying: 'I'm going to go ahead and
invade Ukraine and you're going to look the other way. As long as I don't call it an invasion,
you're going to look at my nuclear weapons and say I don't want to push this,'" he said.
With both the US and Russia modernising their arsenals and Russia investing increasing
importance its nuclear deterrent, Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information
Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said we are facing a period of "deepening
military competition".
He added: "It will bring very little added security, but a lot more nervous people on both
sides."
InvisibleOISA -> Ethelunready 4 Jan 2015 23:53
Just how many warheads have the Iranians lofted towards Europe in the past quarter century?
Anyhow, the Yanqui ABM system is a pathetic blunderbuss. But extremely profitable for Boeing.
For instance:
US ABM test failure mars $1bn N. Korea defense plan
06.07.2013 10:03
A $214-million test launch of the only US defense against long-range ballistic missile
attacks failed to hit its target over the Pacific Ocean, according to the Missile Defense
Agency. There have been no successful interceptor tests since 2008.
InvisibleOISA 4 Jan 2015 23:41
Hey Julian. What a wussy propaganda piece. How about a few facts to put things in
perspective.
"All told, over the next decade, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the
United States plans to spend $355 billion on the maintenance and modernization of its nuclear
enterprise,[3] an increase of $142 billion from the $213 billion the Obama administration
projected in 2011.[4] According to available information, it appears that the nuclear
enterprise will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years.[5]
Beyond these upgrades of existing weapons, work is under way to design new weapons to
replace the current ones. The Navy is designing a new class of 12 SSBNs, the Air Force is
examining whether to build a mobile ICBM or extend the service life of the existing Minuteman
III, and the Air Force has begun development of a new, stealthy long-range bomber and a new
nuclear-capable tactical fighter-bomber. Production of a new guided "standoff" nuclear bomb,
which would be able to glide toward a target over a distance, is under way, and the Air Force
is developing a new long-range nuclear cruise missile to replace the current one."
And what about NATO, the u$a poodle.
NATO
"The new B61-12 is scheduled for deployment in Europe around 2020. At first, the guided
bomb, which has a modest standoff capability, will be backfitted onto existing F-15E, F-16,
and Tornado NATO aircraft. From around 2024, nuclear-capable F-35A stealthy fighter-bombers
are to be deployed in Europe and gradually take over the nuclear strike role from the F-16 and
Tornado aircraft."
Source: Arms Control Association
VikingHiking -> Rudeboy1 4 Jan 2015 23:25
To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over
the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor
trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million
artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million
tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and
icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment,
aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."
"Imperialist Powers paid for the blood of Soviet soldiers with limited supplies of obsolete
weapons, canned food and other war materiel which amounted to about 4% of total Soviet
production during WarII".
During Cold War all traces of Lend Lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized
and removed; photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns
were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines.
Five eights of the total German War effort was expended on the Russian front.
So it was a combination of allied arms and resources which kaputed the Nazi's, namely
1) The Russian Army
2) THE American Air Force
3) The British Navy and Merchant Marine
4) Hitler's Stupidity
Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 4 Jan 2015 23:03
Are you done with your boasting? By the way, you forgot Hollywood and GMO foods.
Leaving aside the one-side nature of your list (internet or web were also invented in CERN
by a European team), technology or business are not the same as intelligence.
Most Americans simply don't understand the world, its history, other cultures, don't see
others as having independent existence with other choices. They don't get it because they are
isolated and frankly quite lazy intellectually. Thus the infamous "we won WW2 in Normandy"
boast and similar bizarre claims.
Are other often similar? Yes, absolutely. But most of the others have no ability to provoke
a nuclear Armageddon, so their ignorance is annoying, but not fatal. The article was about the
worsening US-Russia confrontation and how it may end (or end everything). The fact that US has
actively started and provoked this confrontation in the last few years, mostly out of blissful
ignorance and endless selfishness. Thus we get "defensive missiles against Iran on Russia's
border", coups in Ukraine, endless demonizations...well, I think you get the picture. If you
don't, see the original post
irgun777 4 Jan 2015 22:59
" increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines "
What motivates the Cry Wolf tune of this article ?
Don't we also conduct nuclear and nuclear capable submarine patrols ? Even our allies
and friends operate routinely " nuclear capable submarines "
Our military budget alone is 10 times the Russian , we have over 600 military bases around
the world , some around Russia. We still continue to use heavy , nuclear capable bombers
for patrol , something Russia stopped doing after the Cold War. Russia did not
support and financed a coup in our neighbors . Something Ron Paul and Kissinger warned us
not to do.
Georgeaussie 4 Jan 2015 22:55
This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress.
I think its interesting that Americans believe their military personal are defending there
country when the United States is usually the aggressor. And that is my view,. And as for
people saying Russian bots and Korean bots(which i don't know if they exist) you are sounding
just as bad as them, every country has propaganda and everyone has a right to believe what
they want, wether its western media or eastern media. People on here don't need people like
you with you extreme biases, yes have an opinion, but don't put other peoples opinion down
because you think your right, collectively there is no right or wrong, do you know whats going
on around closed doors in your govt? Well sorry you probably know less then you think, i like
to read different media reports and its interesting, do you "obama bots" know that Russia is
helping look for the black box of the air asia flight? I just thought it was interesting not
reading that in my "western media" reports over the weeks. So comment and tell me if you
honestly think "western bot" are correct and "eastern bots" aren't b/c i would like too know
how there i a right and and wrong. In my OPINION there isn't if anything you are both wrong.
Veritas Vicnit 5 Jan 2015 00:05
p1. 'Russian General: We Are At War'
"Gen. Leonid Ivashov... issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis
unfolding in Ukraine: "Apparently they [US and EU officials] have dedicated themselves, and
continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They
present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda
employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of
aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is a project of the West, a new type of
war: ... wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . under the
cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine.
They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see
that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is
being prepared." (Russian General: 'We Are At War', February 22, 2014)
"what David Petraeus has done for counter-insurgency warfare, Stuart Levey [later David
Cohen] has done for economic warfare" [Sen. Joe Lieberman]
Russian military sources have disclosed their recognition that offensive operations
(economic warfare, proxy warfare, regime change operations, etc.) are active as is the
mobilisation of military architecture.
MattTruth 5 Jan 2015 00:05
Russia is not a threat to USA. The elite of USA just need a war and need it soon.
afewpiecesofsilver -> Continent 5 Jan 2015 00:00
That's exactly why the US/NATO is trying to 'wedge' Ukraine into their EU. Then they can
develop military bases in traditionally, socially, culturally, verbally Russian Ukraine, right
on Russia's border....After the well known, publicized and continuous international bullying
and abuse of Russia and Putin over the last couple of years, and now the recent undermining of
it's oil economy by US and NATO, anyone who is condemning Putin and Russia obviously can't
read.
moosejaw12999 5 Jan 2015 00:00
Might give a few minute warning on cruise missiles but will do nothing against drones will
it Barry ?
When you start a game , you should think for a minute where it might end . Americas worst enemy is always her own disgruntled people . Drones will be the new weapon of choice in Americas upcoming civil war .
Ross Kramer 4 Jan 2015 23:58
"Russia is a regional power" - Obama said last year. Yeah, sure. Just by looking at the map
I can see it is twice bigger than the US in territory. Its tails touches Alaska and its head
lays on the border with Germany. How on Earth the biggest country in the world with the
nuclear arsenal equal to that of the US can be "just a regional power"?
Making Defamation Law Great Again: Michael Mann's suit may continue
Washington Post. Note that there has long been a tension between First
Amendment rights and defamation, and the pendulum has swung in recent
decades even further in the direction of "free speech" rights (the Citizens
United decision being another example). This may not be the best decision in
terms of reversing that trajectory but it may signal a change in judicial
mood. (From
Links Christmas Eve 2016 naked capitalism)
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.
