Wednesday 22nd of September 2021

dishonest stories...



















For years Luke Harding has been a singular plague to journalism. Lucky few journalists, except some on the extreme right, are prepare to take Harding seriously... Basically Harding cleverly writes dishonest stories. 


Like the one below:


2) Putin’s view of Washington is (still) negative. Over the last two decades he has met five serving American presidents. Throughout Putin has nursed a list of geopolitical grudges: Nato expansion, alleged US meddling in Russia’s internal affairs, and its “hypocritical” behaviour as shown in Iraq and elsewhere. On Wednesday Putin hit back at claims Moscow was behind cyber-hacking, and suggested Russia wasn’t even on a list of nations responsible. He also complained about the “bloody coup” in Ukraine in 2014, which he believes the US instigated.

As in cold war times, Putin sees America as an adversary and global rival. The Geneva summit allowed Putin to present himself at home as Biden’s equal on the international stage. Despite modest progress at the talks, Putin is unlikely to yield to US pressure. He will continue to repress opponents and made clear he has no sympathy with the jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Nor will he make concessions over Ukraine, a country intrinsic to Russia’s “great power” ideology and which Putin sees as his back yard. In recent years the Kremlin has waged a deniable almost-war against the west, featuring cyber-attackspolitical interference and flamboyant state murder. Expect these wrecking tactics to continue.


Read more crap:



Unfortunately for Harding, PUTIN IS CORRECT. The coup in Ukraine was US SPONSORED and Joe Biden did his bit on this front. In regard to cyber-attacks, Harding places them squarely on Putin and Russia without ANY SINGLE PROOF, while we know that the US (and sometimes Israel) have been proven to do some cyber-crafty business in Iran and Russia. NATO expansion is a blight on agreements made between Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, which prove ONE CANNOT TRUST THE YANKS FOR ONE SECOND. In regard to "Navalny", he is a small-time crook who tries to get redeem point in the West by claiming he is the leader of the opposition in Russia, with not a single policy of value other than unseat Putin, while the true opposition in Russia are the communists. 


AS WELL I WILL VENTURE TO SAY THAT "Harding is responsible for Assange being in prison"...:


In 2011, the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, written by Harding and David Leigh, was published by Vintage Books in the US and Guardian Faber in the UK.[13] On 1 September 2011, it was revealed that an encrypted version of WikiLeaks' huge archive of un-redacted US State Department cables had been available via BitTorrent for months and that the decryption key had been published by Leigh and Harding in their book.[14][15][16] WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy was made into a Hollywood film, The Fifth Estate (2013). WikiLeaks condemned the film, stating that its depiction of Assange rushing to publication with no redactions was not true.

On 27 November 2018, Harding co-authored a piece for The Guardian claiming that Julian Assange and Paul Manafort met several times at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2013, 2015, and 2016.[17] Commentators including Preet Bharara and Benjamin Wittes stated that they would be interested in seeing more evidence, because the sources in Harding's piece were described only as "sources". Manafort and Assange both denied ever having met, and Assange threatened legal action against The Guardian.[18]

In The Washington Post, Paul Farhi noted that, despite The Guardian promoting Harding's story as "a bombshell", it could turn out to be nothing but "a dud", and that the British paper has only defended the story "half-heartedly" since critics started voicing their skepticism. According to Farhi, "No other news organization has been able to corroborate the Guardian’s reporting".[19] The article was described as possibly journalism's biggest scoop of the year, or its biggest blunder.[18]

According to Glenn Greenwald, "if Paul Manafort visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that."[20] Likewise, President Obama's former national security aide Tommy Vietor said that "If these meetings happened, British intelligence would almost certainly have video of him entering and exiting."[20] As of May 2021, The Guardian article remains online.[17]


Read more:


THIS TO CONCLUDE that the more the Guardian publishes Harding's fiction as journalism, the more the Guardian becomes a rag in the dirty footprints of the Murdoch Media... And by the way, my journalist spies told me that at the Mid-Year Walkleys award last night, the organisers could not spell Lenore Taylor correctly... I have the feeling that Lenore would be horrified by the Harding rubbish "she has to publish" to please the financial masters who own the place...




primakov readings...


By James O’Neill


The Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov recently made a very important speech that, unsurprisingly, received very little attention from the western media. On June 9 Mr Lavrov addressed the Primakov Readings International Forum in Moscow. In his speech, Lavrov drew attention to what he persists in calling “our western colleagues” unwillingness to accept the “objective reality” of a peaceful movement to a polycentric world.

Instead, the collective West strove to ensure the continuation of their “privileged international opinion” at all costs. The West’s unpreparedness for “an honest, facts-based dialogue” was certain to undermine trust in the very idea of dialogue as a method of settling differences “and to erode the capabilities of diplomacy as a crucial foreign policy tool”.

The main mechanism used by the West in trying to establish its point of view was in its relentless promotion of what it is pleased to call “the rules-based world order”. That is a concept, Lavrov argued, that was “even more irrational and devoid of prospects”.

The West’s concept of the rules-based world order was to be contrasted with the United Nations Charter, itself also a body of rules, but one that has been universally accepted and coordinated by all members of the international community. It is the latter that is the foundation of international law. The West, by contrast, uses the term the “rules-based world order,” by which they have in mind something completely different. The West, by its use of the rules-based world order have in mind a totally different concept. The West by its terminology, has in mind that they want to develop West centric concepts and approaches “to be later palmed off as an ideal of multilateralism and the ultimate truth.”

These ideas of the rules based order are particularly marked in Europe, the United States and Australia.

By contrast, Russia is promoting its ideas in Eurasia. Lavrov drew attention to the fact that the values the Russians promote underlie the operation of a range of international organisations that have developed, especially over the past decade. These include the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Eurasian Economic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

These organisations can all be characterised by being associations based exclusively on the principle of “voluntary participation, equality and the common good”. One of Russia’s priorities was the strengthening of the comprehensive interaction with China. This year marked the 20th anniversary of the Treaty of Good Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation between Russia and China

That is a relationship the Americans would dearly love to break up. It is undoubtedly one of the principal motivations of United States president Biden’s anxious desire for a meeting with Vladimir Putin in Geneva in a little less than a week’s time. It has just been announced that Biden will be accompanied by his secretary of state Antony Blinken, undoubtedly to make sure that Biden embarrasses neither himself nor the United States. Given Biden’s uncertain mental grasp these days, him saying the wrong thing is an ever-present danger.

The Russians are relentlessly pursuing an ASEAN based policy, based on what Lavrov called the “unification philosophy”. The concept embraces all of Eurasia’s nations, and Lavrov sees it as a means of dramatically increasing the comparative advantages of all the countries in this huge region. The aforementioned organisations are an illustration of how many countries in this vast region are cooperating in their economic and social development.

Lavrov was asked a question about the forthcoming meeting with Biden. He gave a cautious response. The success or otherwise of the mission would clearly depend upon the mindset the Americans brought to the meeting. Lavrov warned that if the Americans continued to follow the footsteps of their own propaganda, which deafens the United States elite as well, then there was “not much to expect from this summit”.

This is a totally realistic view. The history of United States – Russia relations has been fraught with many problems. It is difficult to escape the view that the latest summit will offer no realistic improvement in the United States – Russia relations. The Americans clearly see the Chinese as the greatest threat to their world position and one way to tackle the Chinese issue is to try to separate them from their relationship with Russia.

In this, is in so many other things, the Americans fail to grasp the geopolitical realities of the 21st-century. They are desperately seeking to cobble together a new alliance of India, Japan, Australia and themselves. Inviting Australia to the current G7 meeting in the United Kingdom surely flatters Australia’s perception of itself as a key player in the Indo Pacific region, but to the rest of the world it is merely yet another example of Australia’s obeisance to the United States.

It is hardly likely to frighten the Chinese who could destroy Australia in less than 30 minutes should they one-day pose a serious threat to China. Even the Australian government is not so stupid as to believe it’s eventual receipt of a collection of submarines will seriously change the balance of regional power.

Australia should grasp the opportunities offered by the growing number of regional organisations mentioned above as providing the key to its future prosperity. Unfortunately, the current directions of its foreign policy do nothing to encourage the belief that Australia has grassed the realities of the 21st-century political, economic and military changes.


James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Read more:


Free Julian Assange Now ©ƒƒƒƒƒ∂∂∂∂∂∂ÎÎÎÎÎDDDD!!!!!!

journalist for rent...


Glenn Simpson, the former Wall Street Journal reporter turned high-priced “oppo” merchant, didn’t like to think of himself as a private investigator. He preferred to describe what he and his firm, Fusion-GPS, did as “journalism for rent,” an activity a class above spying, because a journalist can’t just say what he or she thinks.

“You have to prove it,” Simpson said. “And that imposes a discipline to the investigative process that people in other fields don’t really absorb… When you’re a spy, you really don’t have to get into a lot of that stuff.”

Spooked, the meticulous new book on private spying by former New York Times reporter Barry Meier, reads like a direct rebuttal to Simpson, the book’s central character. “There is little question that private investigators take on legitimate assignments,” writes Meier at one point. “Still, everyone in the industry knows its secret — that the big money is made not by exposing the truth but by papering it over.”

Meier, a two-time Polk award winner who was also part of a team that won a Pulitzer in 2017, is the first mainstream press figure to break the industry omerta over the reporting failures of Russiagate. That Spooked is an important book can be judged by the nervous reaction to it. Though the Times did publish an excerpt and a review by William Cohan, and the Wall Street Journal commended him for saying “what hardly anyone else in his circle of elite mainstream journalists has had the courage to say,” much of the rest of the business has looked askance. This reveals how much industry discomfort remains about the Steele story, still treated by media critics as a minor fender-bender and not the epic crackup Spooked describes.

Much of the point of Meier’s book is that there can be no such thing as “journalism for rent,” because the mere act of putting information up for sale corrupts the process Simpson claims to love. As Meier put it to me, “People who think of themselves as journalists and rent out those talents are no longer journalists.”

Although Spooked covers other private agencies like Black Cube (hired by Harvey Weinstein to dirty up his accusers) and K2 (the corporate descendant of Kroll Associates, who planted a phony documentarian to investigate health activists), the spine of the book is the story of Glenn Simpson’s Fusion-GPS. Simpson is the kind of half-absurd, half villainous character who makes for a great character study, and Spooked readers are fortunate he made the mistake of leaving a trail of unflattering stories before very gossipy witnesses across his years in the media business. Meier coldly gathers these tales together in a way that makes for a particularly entertaining read for anyone who’s ever worked in a newsroom (Simpson imploring his “dachsund-beagle mix named Irving” to take a dump on his editors’ desks on his last day at the Journal is just one of many amusing anecdotes).

Simpson had a rocky relationship to the journalism profession when he was in it. On one level, he apparently was well-liked, funny, a prankster. On another, editors were wary, finding him combative and, as Meier writes, “quick to see conspiracies where they didn’t exist”:

One Journal editor became so concerned about the conclusionary leaps that Simpson was capable of making that he asked another journalist on the paper’s staff to double-check Simpson’s reporting. His response to any pushback he got from editors was usually the same: they could go fuck themselves…

As Simpson soldiered on in a business whose ranks were shrinking, he drifted into a world where a thinker prone to “conclusionary leaps” might feel more comfortable, filling his rolodex with the names of private operatives who became his top sources. He did a series of reports about a fierce (if uninteresting) squabble between Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev and his former son-in-law and political rival, Rakhat Aliyev, with Aliyev’s lawyers and operatives serving as Simpson’s sources.

Feeling less wanted in the newsroom, and tempted by the money and allure of the private spy world, Simpson made the jump to become an informational Pinkerton, to disastrous effect. Meier emphasizes that for all its flaws, the journalism business at least once imposed some constraints on personalities like Simpson’s, forcing them to stay stuck in the world of evidence. In private spying, those constraints are removed, and a person prone to skipping steps in the proof process can get themselves into some very nasty situations. As Meier put it, “things could go really wrong.”

As the world knows by now, things did go wrong, in what Meier describes as “a media clusterfuck of epic proportions.”

Fair Use Excerpt. To read the rest, subscribe here.


Read more:


Read from top.



Free Julian Assange Now µ˜µ˜µ˜µ∫∫∫∫∫≈≈≈≈≈≈≈!!!!!

more crap from luke...


The person to ‘weaken’ America: what the Kremlin papers said about Trump

Documents appear to show how Russian intelligence worked to install their preferred candidate as president

Papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House


Byline: Guess who... Luke Harding (read from top) and some obscure hack called Dan Sabbagh...


Of course this crapping crapology from The crappy Guardian isn't idle. It is designed to carry on with the many times disproved charade started as far back as 2015, when Trump nominated for the Presidency... The article by Harding is once again created to catch the illiterate doubters and the naive idiots. As usual it is cleverly disguised as a "balanced" piece of writing (shit)...


Thus the Kremlin has to respond and waste resources on the subject, but didn't even bother mentioning a link to the new (old) fabricated garbage in The Guardian:




Earlier on Thursday, the newspaper, citing what it claims to be leaked Kremlin documents, reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin, during a closed session of the Russian Security Council on 22 January 2016, is alleged to have personally approved a secret operation to support Trump in the 2016 US presidential election.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in a comment to The Guardian, characterised claims of Moscow's secret support for Donald Trump in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election as "a great pulp fiction".

The newspaper contacted Peskov to clarify "exclusive documents" that suggested the Russian president held a key meeting with intelligence officials and senior ministers on 22 January 2016 during which he gave a green light to a clandestine spy op to support the candidacy of a "mentally unstable" Donald Trump as the US president.

The purportedly leaked documents suggested that a Trump win would play into Moscow's hands as it would cause "social turmoil" and weaken the negotiating stance of the United States on the world stage.


The Guardian claimed that Russian spy agencies were instructed to do everything in their power to ensure a Trump victory, as the former beauty pageant producer was considered by the Kremlin to be the "most promising candidate", whose personality the alleged report assessed as a "impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex". The Kremlin is also alleged to have compromising intel on Trump, in particular, about his "non-official visits to Russian Federation territory".

The newspaper outlined that Western intelligence agencies were aware of these alleged Kremlin documents and had examined them.

Russia has repeatedly denied the claims of its meddling in the 2016 presidential election in the United States.

According to a report on the Kremlin's website, on January 22, 2016, Putin did have a meeting with permanent members of the Security Council, but they discussed socioeconomic domestic issues, Moldova, and the situation in international markets.


Read more:


Read from top.




FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sick guardian...

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been “found out” again by the Sherlock Holmes clones inhabiting western investigative media. When I first read the story of how a mysterious document titled “No 32-04 \ vd” had been leaked to The Guardian by some idiot at the Kremlin, I was stupefied, I’ll admit. I even asked myself, “How could I have missed this?” But then, the larger, more nagging question began to eat at me as I scanned the page. “Has Vladimir fooled us all? Is he micromanaging the puppet strings of conquest for real?” And then I read the report on Putin installing a Donald Trump windup toy in the White House a second time.

I know most who are reading this are familiar with this story, but here’s my translation of Russia’s most recent slander of Russia’s leader. Let’s start with the title “Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House.” Whenever an author uses a weak modifying word like “appear” in a title, you know that what you are about to read his opinion. So, the “news” that 50,000 media outlets in the western world is now republishing is not news at all. The lead paragraph tries to cement opinion as fact for The Guardian’s readership.

“Vladimir Putin personally authorized a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.”

Here’s where this opinion is further weakened, when the authors project the fantasy and then back off of claiming they have evidence of anything. “According to what are assessed” means somebody at The Guardian’s legal department gave these bozos the go based on the likely impossibility of anybody proving “No 32-04 \ vd” is NOT an official document. The logical question here is, “Who made this assessment?” I wonder what their qualifications are? I think we shall never know.

Here I will go staccato to make my report as painless for readers as possible. The pertinent words are in BOLD CAPS. In short paragraph two – “The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the PAPERS SUGGEST….” Paragraph four reads, “Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree APPEARING to bear Putin’s signature.” Paragraph five reads in its entirety:

“Western intelligence agencies are UNDERSTOOD to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them. The papers, seen by the Guardian, seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin.”

So, it looks like we have found out who made the assessments and what their qualifications are. Did somebody at the US State Department or spook central at Langley leaked these papers? APPARENTLY, but let’s move on. Oh, wait, wait, wait, we have another slip-up slash butt-covering in the next paragraph, which reads:

“The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they APPEAR to be genuine. Incidental details COME ACROSS AS GENUINE. The overall tone and thrust IS SAID TO BE CONSISTENT WITH KREMLIN SECURITY THINKING.”

Are you still reading, or has a laughing fit already turned your face from the screen? Just checking, because I had to stop reading at this point before continuing. The trigger that got me was the insertion of an official Kremlin photo of the media in question. It was a meeting announced and outlined with minutes on the Kremlin website of President Putin.

In response to a Guardian request, President Putin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov called the accusations that Russian leaders had met and agreed to support Trump in at the meeting in early 2016 was “a great pulp fiction.” Sandy Peskov was generous and diplomatic, in my opinion.

The supposedly authentic super-secret “32-04 \ vd” got one thing right, even if the document proves to be fake. Whoever drafted the texts said Trump was an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex.” Unless I miss my guess, another document, “No 32-77\ kk (for Killery Klinton) assessed Trump’s rival as “diabolical, egoist, sociopath, who is also unbalanced and PROBABLY capable of cold-blooded murder.” I made you laugh, go on.

The following two short paragraphs contain the qualifiers APPARENT CONFIRMATION, POTENTIALLY, THE DOCUMENT SAYS, “CERTAIN EVENTS,” and UNCLEAR. Then the authors turn to misdirect and confusion under the heading “The Kremlin summit” by using the fact a meeting was held and recorded to fool readers into believing that the authentic meeting was really held to install a US President. It’s clever. I’ll give them that.

The Guardian sleuths go on to garnish their bullshit with facts like the Kremlin press release announcing the strategy meeting. Even though the Russians said the discussion covered the economy and Moldova. Now you tell me. Is this something out of an asymmetrical warfare DoD manual? It reads as if the author worked for RAND Corporation to me.

Anyhow, for the sake of brevity here, allow me to assert my analysis, opinion, quasi facts, and speculation that The Guardian, by releasing this story in its current form, is acting out the US Department of Defense strategies, probably. Let me illustrate using the USNaval Institute’s March 2021 proceedings “The Reality of War Should Define Information Warfare.” Then I will let the reader determine whether or not a branch of the US defense establishment POSSIBLY leaked a fake Russian document and ALLEGEDLY validated its authenticity. Is The Guardian practicing:

Information Superiority: The operational advantage derived from the ability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary’s ability to do the same.

Information Warfare: Offensive and defensive actions in physical and virtual space that enable and protect the friendly force’s ability to access, process, and communicate information that also deny, exploit, corrupt or destroy an adversary force’s ability to use information.

Information Advantage: An advantage in which a military force exploits rapid access to more detailed and comprehensive information than that of an adversary for superior awareness, decision-making, and action at the strategic, operational, or tactical levels of warfare.

COULD BE, huh? Peskov should have laughed and hung up the phone.



Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Read more:


Read from top.


Note: the letter VD (vd) are telling... V is B in Russian and means "at" or "for"... d is Д д for dog... I am sure that "No 32-04 \ vd” name was made up by bullshit artists... and in Western culture vd means "venereal disease"... Please also note that Putin, being sane of body and mind, WOULD NEVER SIGN SUCH AN ORDER/DECREE/PAPER...