Saturday 4th of May 2024

and fizzy drinks...

oldjoeoldjoe

“We want to remind you that Russia has never attacked anyone throughout its history.” Dmitri Peskov, Kremlin spokesman

“NATO leaders are now engaged in the most blatant and irresponsible destabilisation and hybrid war operation since they used Islamic terrorists to destroy Libya and attempted to use them to break up Syria.” Nick Griffin, political analyst and former Member of the European Parliament, Unz Review

Here’s your US Foreign Policy quiz for the day: Which of these militant organizations has the United States supported over the years?

  1. Marxist guerillas in East Syria (The YPG, The People’s Protection Units, The Syrian Democratic Forces)
  2. Far-right Neo-Nazis in Ukraine (Ukrainian Security Services, Azov Special Operations Detachment)
  3. Islamic extremists in Syria, Libya, Kosovo, Chechnya and Afghanistan. (aka– Al Qaida, Al Nusra etc)
  4. Anti-leftist Death Squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua
  5. All of the above

If you picked “Number 5”, then pat yourself on the back. That is the right answer. The US has “armed and trained” all of these disparate groups and still supports many of them today. And the reason Washington supports them, is because they help to advance America’s geopolitical agenda. It doesn’t matter if the group is on the “right” or the “left”. It doesn’t matter if they are religious extremists or Godless atheists. What matters is whether they can be turned into an effective fighting force capable of achieving America’s strategic objectives. That is the overriding goal.

Bottom line: Ideology is irrelevant. What matters to Washington is power; pure, iron-fisted power.

The point we are trying to make, is that other countries do not conduct their business like the United States. Russia, for example, does not see coup d’états, color revolutions and military aggression as an acceptable way to conduct their foreign policy. They prefer diplomacy, negotiation and compromise. Moscow is committed to international law, universal security, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. They do not see aggression or interventionist violence as legitimate ways to achieve their national interests which is why– as Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said on Saturday– “Russia has never attacked anyone in its history.”

Let that sink in for a minute: “Russia has never attacked anyone in its history.”

If that is true– and it is true– then what are we to make of the media’s endless claims that Russia is planning to invade Ukraine?

Either Russia is planning to break with an approach that dates back centuries or the media is whipping the public into a frenzy to create the perception that Russia poses an external threat to its neighbors? Which is it?

Most people already know the answer to that question because they have seen this same performance many times before. Unfortunately, these same people may be overwhelmed by the deluge of fear-mongering pronouncements and dire warnings of an impending conflict. Against their better judgement, they may actually believe the media is telling the truth this time. But the media is not telling the truth. There is no Russian Boogieman and the Russian army is certainly not going to go on a rampage killing and maiming innocent people across Ukraine. That is pure fiction.

What is actually taking place is not hard to grasp, but, first, we need to understand is that the target audience is not the American people. No. The current psyops is actually directed at Europe. The goal is to convince the Europeans that they need to strengthen and perpetuate Washington’s security umbrella (aka- NATO) to protect them from foreign enemies. The plan is also intended to drive Europe’s lapdog leaders back into Uncle Sam’s suffocating embrace. These are the objectives of the current operation. The US is taking emergency action to ensure that its European colonies don’t slip out of its economic and political orbit.

Second, Washington is trying to put a wedge between the EU and Russia in order to prevent greater economic integration that would inevitably lead to a massive free trade zone spanning Europe and Asia. Washington must sabotage that plan in order to maintain its dominant role in the global order. Here’s more on the topic by political analyst, Nick Griffin:

“The fundamental targets of the NATO warmongers in this crisis are not Donbass, nor even Russia, but Germany, and China’s One Belt, One Road initiative. They are trying to keep Germany down, and China out; failure to do both means that the US will become an isolated rust-belt island thousands of miles away from the core economic block of the world.

The same development also spells the forthcoming end of the dollar as the world’s financial reserve currency, while America’s time as a sole military superpower has already clearly ended. This is a classic example of the Thucydides’ Trap, the moment when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as the hegemon of the age, a transition which all too often is accompanied by a war of desperation…..

the Washington policy-makers… know that Nord Stream 2 is about far more than a mutually beneficial energy trading relationship between Germany and Russia. In the shorter term, it also spells further financial disaster for the already failed client state of Ukraine. Longer term, Nord Stream heralds a steadily closer relationship between Germany and Russia, which would in turn be a huge step towards the creation of a giant Eurasian free-trade block.”(“Ukraine Implementing Minsk Accords & Ending Conflict ‘Very Last’ Thing US, UK Want, Ex-MEP Says”, Nick Griffin, The Unz Review)

Readers may have noticed that Griffin does consider the possibility that Russia might be the instigator of the current crisis. Why is that?

It’s because it is not possible, it’s that simple. As we have pointed out, Washington has everything to gain from a conflict in Ukraine, while Russia has everything to lose. If Washington’s plan succeeds, Russia will be further isolated and demonized, its commercial relations with Germany will be terminated, and it will be universally scorned as a bloodthirsty and tyrannical warmonger.  How does any of this benefit Russia?

It doesn’t, and yet, this is the current direction of US policy, a policy that is dramatically shaping the public’s perception of Russia while ignoring Washington’s conspicuous attempts to reinforce its control over Europe and tighten its grip on the levers of global power.

So, how does one break the media’s spell so that people can see what is really going on? How do we raise awareness of the geopolitical gamesmanship that is playing out behind the smokescreen of disinformation? How do we cut through the media’s prodigious mountain of baloney and determine who is responsible for the current crisis and who is not?

It should be easy, after all, we’ve all seen this performance many times before. By now, people should have a good idea of what’s going on. And– if they don’t– then, perhaps, we can refresh their memories by asking a few simple questions that will shed light on the motives and historical behavior of the main actors, the United States and Russia. That ought to do the trick. That ought to help us to see which country is instigating the provocations, and which country is not. Which country is fueling the crisis and which country is trying to put out the flames.

So, what do we know about these two countries from past experience? How do they conduct their respective foreign policies? Do they follow the clearly-written “international” rules prohibiting foreign interference, military intervention and aggression or do they act unilaterally whenever it serves their interests regardless of the destruction, mayhem and death it may cause?

Answering these questions will lift us above the flustering din of the establishment media. It will help us to see that we are not comparing one peaceful, law-abiding nation to another peaceful, law-abiding nation. We are comparing one country that scrupulously follows the rules whether it is convenient or not, to another that invariably shows utter contempt for the basic principles of international law. While Russia has never launched a war of aggression, the US has initiated a series of conflicts that have plunged vast swathes of the Middle East and Central Asia into anarchy and ruin. Thus, the purpose of this questionnaire is to allow readers to mull-over the facts as we all know them, and determine for themselves where the source of the current crisis originates.

Question 1– Which of these two countries has launched– or helped to launch– military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Serbia and Syria?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 2– Which of these two countries built detention facilities at Bagram Air Force Base (Afghanistan), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), and Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), where prisoners were routinely subjected to vile and abusive treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 3– Which of the two countries fabricated a pretext for invading Iraq killing tens of thousands of Iraqis in the process?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 4– Which of these two countries has toppled or attempted to topple over 50 regimes since the end of World War 2?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 5– Which of these two countries has 800 military bases in countries around the world?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 6– Which of these two countries is more inclined to use military force to achieve its geopolitical objectives?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 7– Which of the two countries has repeatedly used false flags as a pretext for launching military interventions? (Note: “Remember the Maine”, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Saddam’s WMD, Assad’s chemical weapons attacks, Gaddafi’s Viagra-crazed rape squads, etc)

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 8– Which of the two countries is building nuclear missile sites on the other county’s border putting their main urban centers just 10 minutes away from nuclear annihilation?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 9– Which of these two counties (according to recent surveys) pose “the greatest threat to world peace” and represent “the greatest threat to democracy”?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

(Note: According to the survey results: “The US was the overwhelming choice for the country that represents the greatest threat to peace in the world today.” Also, “Threat to Democracy?” Guardian)

Question 10– Which is these two countries imposes onerous economic sanctions (which are a violation of WTO rules and regulations) on any country that poses a threat to its global primacy?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 11– Which of these two countries “has never attacked anyone throughout its history”?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 12– Which country has provided military advisors and cutting-edge weaponry to the Ukrainian Army so they can invade east Ukraine and kill ethnic Russians?

  1. Russia
  2. The United States

Question 13– Which country’s media fails to report that the Ukrainian army is presently shelling ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the country?

  1. The Russian media
  2. The western media

Question 14– Which country’s media continues to repeat unverified claims of a “Russian invasion” while ignoring the buildup of Ukrainian combat troops (on the “Line of Contact”) that are planning a massive ethnic cleansing operation in east Ukraine?

  1. The Russian media
  2. The western media

Question 15– Which country’s media sustained a 4 year-long disinformation campaign alleging that the other country had hacked their presidential election and changed the outcome?

  1. The Russian media
  2. The western media

Question 16– Which country’s media has proved to be a more reliable source of information and does not function as the propaganda organ of the state disseminating unverified claims gathered from the corrupted Intelligence agencies who unquestioningly parrot the screwball narratives concocted by their globalist paymasters?

  1. The Russian media
  2. The western media

Question 17– (Extra Credit) Which country’s president is more likely to lead his nation into a catastrophic war that will be remembered as “the greatest strategic disaster in his nation’s history”?

  1. Vladimir Putin
  2. Joe Biden

The point of this article is not to bash the United States, but to provide historical evidence showing the stark difference between Washington’s approach to foreign policy and Russia’s. The questions are intended to help the reader review the historical facts– as we all know them– and decide for himself if the perpetrator of the current crisis is more likely to be the United States or Russia. The evidence– we think– clearly suggests that the blame lies with Washington, which is conducting another regionally-destabilizing operation aimed at strengthening its grip on global power.

Swansong for the New American Century?

For what it’s worth, we expect this operation to backfire spectacularly triggering violent ructions in the equities and bond markets that no one in the Biden administration has anticipated. It will also inflict irreparable damage to the threadbare Transatlantic Alliance leading to the ultimate disintegration of NATO. Even America’s most die-hard allies will be forced to revisit their relations with Washington to determine whether the reputational risks exceed the marginal benefits. 30-years of relentless aggression, unilateralism and coercion has pushed the country towards a catastrophe entirely of its own making.

We are now at the point of extreme danger brought on by feckless leaders who fail to acknowledge their own incompetence, their own hubris, and their own failures. The United States has been sowing dragons-teeth for the better part of the last century, and now Joe Biden is marching the country towards an unfortunate moment of reckoning. God help us all.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/history-points-to-the-us-as-perpetrator-of-crisis-in-ukraine/

 

 

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

NED secrecy...

 

BY Alan MacLeod

 

 

KIEV, UKRAINE – Amid soaring tensions with Russia, the United States is spending a fortune on foreign interference campaigns in Ukraine. Washington’s regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), has spent $22.4 million on operations inside the country since 2014, when democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown and replaced by a successor government handpicked by the U.S. Those operations included propping up and training pro-Western political parties, funding pliant media organizations, and subsidizing massive privatization drives that benefit foreign multinational corporations, all in an effort to secure U.S. control over the country that NED President Carl Gershman called “the biggest prize” in Europe.

 

Demwashing the CIA

The National Endowment for Democracy was set up in 1983 by the Reagan administration after a series of public scandals had seriously undermined both the credibility and the public image of the CIA. That the organization was established and continues to function as a cutout group doing much of the agency’s dirtiest work is not in question. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,” Gershman himself said, explaining its creation. “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” NED cofounder Allen Weinstein told The Washington Post in 1991.

Since its inception, NED has been a driving force behind many of the most prominent uprisings and coups around the world. The organization currently has 40 active projects in Belarus, all with the goal of removing President Alexander Lukashenko from office. Last year, the country was engulfed by nationwide protests that made worldwide headlines. NED senior Europe Program officer, Nina Ognianova, boasted that her agency was involved in the uprising. “We don’t think that this movement that is so impressive and so inspiring came out of nowhere — that it just happened overnight,” she said, noting that NED had made a “modest but significant contribution” to the protests.

The 2021 protest movement in Cuba was also led by NED-financed operatives, with the organization’s own documents showing how it had for years been infiltrating the Cuban art and music scene in an attempt to turn popular culture against the communist government. Ultimately, the movement failed. However, NED continues to prop up anti-government Cuban artists, media outlets, politicians and public figures.

NED was also funneling money to the leaders of the 2019 Hong Kong protests in an attempt to prolong the movement. “The organization and its partner will leverage their extensive existing networks to support exiled activists and to sustain and grow activist communities remaining in Hong Kong,” one NED grant explains, adding that a secondary goal was to “strengthen regional and international support for the pro-democracy movement,” by carrying out a worldwide PR campaign promoting it, something that might help explain why the events dominated the news cycle for months.

Meanwhile, NED has also channeled millions to right-wing opposition groups in Nicaragua and even organized rock concerts in Venezuela in an effort to undermine support for its socialist government.

While NED is careful to couch all of its activities in the language of “democracy promotion,” the fact that it has never carried out a single project in the U.S.-backed Gulf dictatorships of Saudi ArabiaQatarBahrainOman, or the United Arab Emirates — some of the least democratic nations in the world — underlines that the organization exists to antagonize enemy governments.

NED is almost entirely funded by Congress and is staffed largely by ex-national security state leaders. Its current president is Damon Wilson, former special assistant to President George W. Bush and senior director for European affairs at the National Security Council. Other top officials pepper NED’s board of directors, including current CIA Director William J. Burns, current Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and 2014 Ukrainian Maidan revolution mastermind Victoria Nuland, as well as veteran national security official Elliott Abrams, infamous for his role in supplying weapons to far-right death squads in Central America and his attempts to overthrow the government of Venezuela.

Despite this, NED still insists that it is a private, non-profit, non-governmental organization. One key reason for this designation is that its private nature means that its affairs do not fall under the same legal scrutiny as those of government organizations like the CIA. It is harder to acquire documents under the Freedom of Information Act, for example, meaning that the group’s actions remain shrouded in secrecy.

 

Economic and political capture, NED-style

Studying the NED grants database reveals that the organization has approved 334 separate grants to Ukraine, a country the group’s 2019 annual report identified as its “top priority,” owing to “its size and importance for the Europe region.” The report notes that NED is focused on “counter[ing] foreign [i.e., Russian] malign influence, particularly disinformation and corrosive capital.” Of the European nations, only Russia itself has been the target of more NED money ($37.7 million to Ukraine’s $22.4 million).

NED is rather hazy about where its money is going, with the only clues being brief, one-paragraph descriptions (rarely longer than 75 words) full of boilerplate rhetoric. Yet scrutinizing even the vague project outlines, it becomes clear that NED has two major objectives in Ukraine:

  1. Pushing through a mass privatization of the country’s state-owned businesses.
  2. Building up political parties that will represent elite U.S. interests.

Of the $22.4 million, over $2.9 million has been awarded to the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), an offshoot of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for the purpose of “sparking economic transformation” in Ukraine. What sort of transformation the CIPE wants to see is made clear on its website, which states categorically that “Free market capitalism and global trade have resulted in the greatest economic gains in human history,” and that the center’s role is to further free market penetration around the world.

For instance, one NED grant to the CIPE — worth $500,000 and entitled “Developing [a] Market Economy” — described the project’s goal as “enhanc[ing] the role of leading business associations and the private sector in public policy decision-making, and improv[ing] the capacity of the private sector and officials to cooperate to develop and implement economic reforms.” In other words, to hand over government decision-making to big business, something many might argue is the antithesis of democracy.

The post-2014 government, installed after the Maidan Revolution, has already implemented a course of economic shock therapy, selling off many of the country’s state-owned assets, in the process turning Ukraine into, by quite some margin, the poorest nation in Europe (although it has also helped create many new billionaires). Nevertheless, the U.S. wants to see further privatizations, along the lines of what it helped implement in Russia in the 1990s.

 

NED has also been key in building up pro-U.S. political forces in Ukraine, notably awarding the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) nearly $2.2 million towards this endeavor. Congress established NDI in tandem with NED; and NDI, like its sister organization, claims to be a non-governmental organization, despite being affiliated with the Democratic Party. Its chairperson is Madeline Albright, secretary of state under the Clinton administration.

One $595,000 grant describes how NDI will “help political parties develop into inclusive, national movements,” and will “assist parties in the development of inclusive, internal communication and decision making procedures” and “conduct public opinion research and trainings to help parties better understand and respond to citizens, including those outside of their traditional geographical bases of support.” A less charitable interpretation of the grant would be that the U.S. government is taking over the political direction and organization of Ukrainian political parties, molding them as they see fit.

In tandem with the support of political blocs also comes the grooming of young political and social activists who NED hopes will become the leaders of tomorrow. To this end, it has given at least $385,000 to the European Institute for Democracy in Warsaw, in order to, in its words, “support a new generation of political leaders in Ukraine,” by conducting training courses for their handpicked proteges, flying them out of the country to provide lessons in “election campaigning, women empowerment, effective governing, and crisis management,” among other skills.

The point, of course, is to develop a cadre of pro-Western neoliberal thought leaders who will ally themselves to the United States and its vision for Ukraine. Left unstated in all this is that the U.S. is deciding who exactly this new generation of leaders comprises. And for all the nods towards diversity and liberalism, the U.S.’ record in Eastern Europe shows they are happy to support fascists and other highly anti-democratic forces. Those who do not share Washington’s goals for Ukraine need not apply. Thus, by using its financial muscle to support only one side in this debate, NED hopes to engineer a future in which pro-Russia, anti-privatization political figures and movements are sidelined and marginalized.

 

Media capture, NED-style

Another key focus for NED is to establish and support pro-Western media outlets and NGOs that backed both the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych and the new government’s privatization agenda. This is all couched as “promoting independent media.” But in reality, it is creating a network largely dependent on and answerable to Washington.

One example of this is the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, which consistently publishes studiesabout “Russia’s efforts to distort facts” and scare stories about an impending Russian invasion, while inviting the British ambassador to give talks at its headquarters. Ukraine Crisis describesits vision of Ukraine as an “outpost of freedom and democratic development in Eastern Europe,” and an “integral part of the West.” Ukraine Crisis is directly funded by a number of different U.S. governmental organizations, as well as by NATO and the governments of Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Finland and the Netherlands.

Most of the media organizations NED funds also maintain English-language versions of their websites. This is because many of these groups are used to influence Western audiences as well as individuals inside the target country, Ukraine. The Center for Civil Liberties (CCL), for example, has been supported financially since 2016 and has received at least $204,000 from NED. It plays an important role in injecting U.S. government narratives into American media reporting, having been presented simply as a “human rights group” in a wide range of outlets, including The Washington PostUSA Today and The New York Post. None of these articles inform readers that CCL is directly in the pay of a CIA front group, precisely because it would undermine their credibility.

Media networks directly owned and operated by the U.S. state, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America, also frequently use CCL as an expert source. This gives the impression that there is a sizable groundswell of individuals all focusing on the same issue when, in reality, it is simply operatives from the same source (the U.S. government) all interacting with each other.

 

Target: Donbas

Before his overthrow, President Yanukovych maintained cordial relations with Russia. However, that changed drastically after the Maidan Revolution, with the new government not only attempting to tie itself to the West, but also aggressively suppressing any pro-Russian sentiment. Since 2014, the government has shut down Russian-language media and jailed pro-Russian voices. It has also banned the Russian language from schools and in public places such as in stores and restaurants. Any business caught violating the law is subject to a fine.

This has caused significant consternation inside the country, not least because almost one-third of Ukrainian citizens speak Russian as their first language, and significant minorities do not speak Ukrainian at all. This is particularly true in the Donbas, the large industrial area of Eastern Ukraine, and in the Crimean peninsula, which Russia controversially annexed in 2014. In both regions, Russian is far-and-away the majority language, spoken by nearly three-quarters of the population. Support for Yanukovych and language preference are closely correlated. Since 2014, the Ukrainian government has also been engaged in a low-level civil war in the Donbas against Russian-speaking militias.

 

The Donbas is a target for not only the Ukrainian government but for NED as well. The word “Donbas” is referenced 52 times in the 334 one-paragraph grants noted above, while eastern Ukraine is mentioned 108 times and Crimea 22 times. The projects are full of coded references to “expanding outreach” of media outlets into the Donbas, or, even more alarmingly, to “assisting” civil groups “working in the front line territories of the Donbas” — a statement so vague that it could mean anything from health workshops to funneling weapons.

 

Selective anti-corruption agenda

Another focus of NED projects is anti-corruption drives. The words “corrupt” or “corruption” appear 83 times in the NED grants to Ukraine, and the endowment has funded a wide range of NGOs dealing with the subject. For instance, it has awarded $106,000 to the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center (KhAC) and $225,000 to the Anti-Corruption Action Center in Kiev.

NED describes KhAC’s work as “non-partisan” and concerned with “promot[ing] government transparency and accountability in eastern Ukraine,” by “monitor[ing] the financial performance of Kharkiv-based municipal enterprises, expos[ing] corrupt practices, and launch[ing] legal proceedings to prevent them.”

Certainly, corruption is endemic in Ukraine. Yet there is good reason to question the intentions of these groups and suspect that they are selectively pursuing opponents of American policy. KhAC was actually established by leaders of the Maidan Revolution. Furthermore, the board of the Anti-Corruption Action Center is littered with Western government officials, including the director general of the European Anti-Fraud Office (a department of the European Commission), a former FBI special agent, as well as controversial neoconservative intellectual Francis Fukuyama.

In an article in the elite American journal Foreign Policy, executives at the Anti-Corruption Action Center frame “corruption” and “Russian” as virtually synonymous. “[Ukraine’s] democratization and ongoing efforts to fight entrenched graft and cronyism are a threat to [President Vladimir] Putin’s model of governance,” they explain, adding that Russia uses “strategic corruption” to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty. The country is a “battlefield” between Ukrainian democracy and Russian autocracy, they write, calling for the U.S. to flood Ukraine with arms and to sanction Moscow.

In this sense, then, NED’s incessant focus on “corruption” appears to look far more like a witch hunt to bring down political forces that it opposes. This is reminiscent of the tactics of advanced “lawfare” — using legal means to destroy political enemies — that Washington used to overthrow Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and imprison her predecessor, Lula da Silva, paving the way for far-right pro-U.S. Jair Bolsonaro to become president.

Unbeknownst at the time, the U.S. government was secretly aiding an “anti-corruption” operation known in Brazilian as “Lava Jato.” A combination of corrupt judges and extremely flimsy evidence led to the persecution of the leaders of the Workers’ Party. Both the FBI and CIA were crucial to the operation. As one prosecutor involved in the persecution quipped, Lula’s arrest was “a gift from the CIA.”

 

Send in the Neo-Nazis

At the same time as NED has been training political leaders, other arms of the U.S. government have been training military units, almost certainly including the notorious Neo-Nazi group, the Azov Battalion. A Yahoo! News report noted that, since 2015, the CIA has been training “insurgent leaders” while Congress rubber-stamped hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military aid to Ukraine. The congressional aid bill originally included text explicitly barring assistance to Azov but, under pressure from the Pentagon, the language was removed. “Given all this,” wrote Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic, “it would be more of a surprise that the neo-Nazis of Azov haven’t been trained in the CIA’s clandestine make-an-insurgency program.”

In their drive to stoke hostilities between the West and Russia, corporate media have overwhelmingly ignored the fact that the U.S. and NATO forces have been supporting openly Neo-Nazi paramilitaries for many years. A MintPress study of the op-ed pages of The New York TimesThe Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal found that only one of 91 articles published in January mentioned this connection at all, with far more asserting that Vladimir Putin himself is Hitler incarnate. Around 90% of opinion columns pushed a “get tough on Russia” message, with anti-war voices few and far between.

“People who take at face value the Western media coverage would have a very distorted perception of the Ukraine conflict and its origin,” Ivan Katchanovski, Professor of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa, told MintPress, adding:

They omit or deny that there is a civil war in Donbas even though the majority of scholars who [have] published or presented concerning this conflict in Western academic venues classify it as a civil war with Russian military intervention. The Western media also omitted that recent ‘unity marches’ in Kharkiv and Kyiv and a staged training of civilians, including a grandmother, were organized and led by the far right, in particular, the Neo-Nazi Azov [Battalion].”

The Azov publicity stunt involving a grandmother, to which Katchanovski is referring, was a particularly noteworthy incident. Conducting a civilian training operation in the middle of the Donbas city of Mariupol while a crowd of Western journalists looked on, Azov units showed locals how to use rifles. The extraordinary image of a silver-haired, 79-year-old “babushka” staring down the sights of an AK-47 went viral around the world, allowing the media to construct an “everyone in brave Ukraine is doing their part to oppose an imminent Russian invasion” narrative. The story was covered by a host of outlets, including ABC NewsMSNBCNewsweek, the BBCThe Guardian and The Financial Times, as well as by media in IrelandAustraliaIsraelDenmarkThailand and Indonesia. Images from the training day featured on the front cover of six national British newspapers on February 14.

This was all despite the fact that the Wolfsangel insignia of the many Azov soldiers instructing the grandmother is clearly visible in a number of the images. The Wolfsangel was the crest of the infamous SS brigades, Hitler’s elite paramilitary units that carried out the extermination of millions of people (including countless Ukrainians) in Nazi death camps across Europe. The image is widely used by Neo-Nazi groups in the U.S. and is considered a hate symbol by the Anti-Defamation League. Azov’s original commander, politician Andriy Biletsky, has stated that he sees Ukraine’s mission as to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led subhumans.” None of the outlets above mentioned the fact that they were profiling Neo-Nazis.

Judging by other pro-Nazi coverage, this was far from an honest oversight. Earlier this month, a number of prominent Western media outlets, including The Daily Mailran puff pieces on Olena Bilozerska, a Ukrainian sniper with “at least ten confirmed kills.” Bilozerska was presented as a quintessential “girlboss” who was defending her land from foreign aggression. The Sun — Britain’s best selling newspaper — called her a “hero” in its headline. Both outlets even included a video of her killing Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens for readers’ pleasure. This enjoyment might have been tempered somewhat if the Mail, Sun or other outlets revealed to their readers that Bilozerska is a fascist from the Right Sector group, a Neo-Nazi paramilitary.

This information is far from difficult to find, as Bilozerska is a well-known public figure inside Ukraine, keeping a popular blog and YouTube channel where she shares her thoughts. These reportedly include that the Holocaust did not happen, that homosexuals should not be allowed to eat at the same table as heterosexuals, and that monuments to Hitler’s greatness should be erected in Berlin. In 2013, German state-owned media outlet Deutsche Welle was forced to rescind an award for which it had nominated her after activists highlighted her pro-Hitler writings. In 2019, she was invited to NATO headquarters in Brussels to give a speech.

 

A broken promise and an existential threat

In 1990, the U.S. government promised Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would stray “not one inch eastward” from its current position in exchange for Soviet support for German reunification. However, it later reneged on this promise, and between 1999 and 2004 NATO galloped eastward, even admitting three former Soviet republics, all of which share a land border with Russia. In 2008, NATO also invited Ukraine and Georgia to join.

For Moscow, this was an existential threat. Russia as a country draws its origins from the Kievan Rus Federation, a medieval state whose capital was Kiev and from where the word “Russia” derives. In the 13th century, the Rus people fled north towards Moscow to avoid the Mongol invasion, helping to establish the Grand Duchy of Muscovy, which later became the Russian empire, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation today. Putin himself has said that he considers Russians and Ukrainians to be “one people”; “Ukraine” literally means “borderland” in Russian. Yet White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently described Ukraine as “our eastern flank” — an assertion that is significantly less credible than Russia’s claim.

The U.S.-Russian relationship fundamentally deteriorated during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. President Yanukovych had been playing the European Union and Russia off against each other, negotiating economic deals with both. Unsurprisingly, given Ukraine’s importance to Moscow, Russia offered a more lucrative deal, which he accepted. This turned out to be Yanukovych’s political death warrant, as the United States immediately began supporting a nationwide protest movement. Senior U.S. officials like Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland flew to Kiev, famously handing out cookies to protestors in Independence Square.

In February 2014, leaked audio of Nuland speaking with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt showed that the United States was pulling the strings and crowning the kings. “I don’t think Klitch should go into the government. I don’t think it is necessary. I don’t think it is a good idea,” Nuland can be heard saying, referring to the boxer-turned-politician Vitali Klitschko. “I think Yats [Arseniy Yatsenyuk] is the guy who has got the economic experience, the governing experience,” she added. Less than one month after the audio leaked, Yatsenyuk became the next prime minister.

Less than two weeks after the phone call, snipers massacred almost 100 people protesting. Although the U.S. immediately blamed the Yanukovych administration, another leaked audio call, this time between the E.U.’s foreign affairs chief and the Estonian foreign minister, revealedthat they believed pro-U.S. forces had staged a false-flag attack as a pretext to remove Yanukovych and stage a coup. In the end, far-right militias like Azov and Right Sector provided the muscle to force Yanukovych out of office.

However, as Katchanovski noted, very little of this context is given in the press, leaving audiences fundamentally ignorant of the basic facts. In Katchanovski’s opinion:

The Western media coverage of the escalating Ukraine conflict is highly inaccurate and selective. The Maidan massacre, which led to the current conflict, is either omitted or misrepresented even though overwhelming evidence shows that this crucial mass-killing of the protesters and the police was perpetrated by the elements of the Maidan opposition; in particular, the far-right. Such evidence includes videos of snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings shooting the protesters and the police, testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded protesters at the Maidan massacre trial and investigation, several hundred witnesses, and 14 self-admitted members of Maidan snipers groups.”

Since the end of the 2nd World War the US empire has crept closer and closer to Russia's doorstep, will this be the last straw? pic.twitter.com/CBlT7G9ES5

— MintPress News (@MintPressNews) February 15, 2022

 

All over the world, the National Endowment for Democracy is training groups of people who can function as the leaders of another color revolution. In the process, it helps squash genuine grassroots movements by co-opting them and using its financial clout to push activism down pro-U.S. avenues. Spending more than $22 million on the country, NED has made Ukraine one of its top priorities. Yet an analysis of the groups receiving money reveals that the whole operation is an attempt to shore up support for the U.S.-backed Zelensky administration, and to carry out a foreign interference operation, the extent of which blows anything Russia is accused of out of the water. The National Endowment for Democracy can claim it is in the business of democracy promotion. In reality, it does anything but that, unless “democracy” is entirely synonymous with elite U.S. interests.

Feature photo | Ukrainians attend a rally in central Kiev, Ukraine, Feb. 12, 2022, during a protest against the potential escalation of the tension between Russia and Ukraine. Efrem Lukatsky | AP

 

 

 

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/documents-reveal-us-ned-spent-22m-promoting-anti-russia-narrative-ukraine/279734/

 

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

sovereign states...

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told foreign leaders that Moscow is likely to officially recognize the sovereignty of the Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) People’s Republics in Ukraine's war-torn east.

In a statement released on Monday, the Kremlin revealed that Putin had notified French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that he intends to sign a decree recognizing the two separatist Donbass regions “in the near future.” According to officials, the two leaders “expressed their disappointment with this development.”

In a statement issued earlier the same day, the EU's top diplomat, Josep Borrell, urged the Kremlin not to make the decision, arguing it could be a precursor to the DPR and LPR being “annexed” by Russia. “If there is annexation there will be sanctions, and if there is recognition I will put the sanctions on the table and the ministers will decide,” he said.

Macron will now host an emergency security meeting in response to the Kremlin's announcement, Reuters reported moments after it was communicated.

The move follows requests on Monday from Denis Pushilin and Leonid Pasechnik, the leaders of the DPR and LPR, calling for Moscow's backing. Putin chaired a televised meeting of the Russian Security Council to consider the request, in which he was urged by top officials to grant both regions recognition.

The two republics split from Kiev's control in 2014, following the events of the Maidan, when violent street protests toppled the democratically elected government in Ukraine. This led to the Donbass war, which was formally ended in September 2014 by the Minsk Protocol, but has simmered since in a semi-frozen state.

According to the deal signed in Minsk, and a second follow-up text in 2015, Ukraine was required to decentralize its government and give a special status to Donetsk and Lugansk. Much to Moscow’s frustration, Kiev has failed to implement this part of the agreement.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/russia/550139-russia-recognizes-independence-donbass/

 

TWO WORDS: Remember Kosovo...

 

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

BS from bojo...

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the recognition of the separatist states was a breach of international law.

"I gather, just as I came into this press conference, that Vladimir Putin has effectively announced that Russia is recognising the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk," Mr Johnson said.

"This is plainly in breach of international law. It's a … flagrant violation of the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine.

 

BULLSHIT... Remember Yugoslavia's integrity? Syria's integrity being dismantled by the USA and Turkey... China's integrity, including Hong Kong... and do not forget the long Irish integrity that is still a problem... And EU integrity, with Brexit... and .... and... the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski plan...

What is in breach of international law and history is the West support of the Nazis in Ukraine...

 

READ FROM TOP

 

 

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

disgusting joe...

 

BY Philip M. Giraldi

 

One can frequently disagree with government policies without necessarily regarding them with disgust, but the Joe Biden Administration has turned that corner, first with its senseless promotion of a new Cold War that could turn hot with Russia and, more recently, with its actions undertaken to undermine and punish Afghanistan. The fact that the White House wraps itself in the sanctimonious, self-righteous twaddle that is so much the hallmark of the political left is bad enough, but when the government goes out of its way to harm and even kill people around the world in pursuit of an elusive global dominance it is time for the American people to rise up and say “Stop!”

As a former CIA operations officer, I departed government service in 2002 in part due to the impending invasion of Iraq, which I knew was completely unjustified by the web of largely fabricated information that was flowing out of the Pentagon to justify the attack. In the years since I have been appalled by the Obama era attacks on Syria and Libya as well as by the assassinations and cruise missile strikes carried out under Donald Trump. But all of that was a Sunday in the park compared to the hideous nonsense being pursued by Biden and his crew of reprobates. Trifling with the use of force as part of negotiations intended to go nowhere over Ukraine could well by misstep, false flag or even design escalate into nuclear war ending much of the life on this planet as we know it, and we are now also witnessing the cold, calculated slaughter of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians just because we have the tools at hand and believe that we can get away with it. What we are seeing unfold right in front of us goes beyond appalling and it is time to demand a change of course on the part of a runaway federal government that is drunk on its own self-assumed unbridled right to exercise total executive authority over vital issues of war and peace.

I am most particularly shocked and dismayed over what the Biden Administration did to Afghanistan on February 11th, which is unambiguously a crime against humanity. On that day the President of the United States Joe Biden, still smarting from the botched departure from Afghanistan and low approval ratings, issued an executive order invoking emergency powers stipulating that the $7 billion in Afghan government money being held and frozen in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would be retained by the US and divided in two.

Half of the $7 billion would be placed in a US government administered trust fund. The money would in theory go to fund humanitarian relief in Afghanistan to be carried out by agencies unidentified but presumed to be acting in coordination with the barracudas at the Treasury Department while the other half would go to benefit the victims of 9/11. This money is not just “frozen assets,” it is the entire reserve of the Afghan central bank, and its appropriation by the US will destroy whatever remains of the formal Afghan economy, making Afghanistan entirely reliant on small rations of foreign aid that come through channels unconnected with the Afghan government.

The other half of the story is that Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 but instead became a victim of the US lust for revenge. After 9/11, the Taliban government offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States if Washington were able to provide evidence that he was somehow involved in the attacks in New York and Virginia. The George W. Bush Administration was unable to do so, but chose to invade instead.

Afghanistan now has a government that is recognized by the United Nations and many other countries, though not by Washington, which insists that the Taliban are terrorists. Sanctions pressure being exerted by Washington on the new Taliban dominated regime has inter alia brought about a major humanitarian disaster, with various international agencies predicting that many thousands of Afghan civilians will die of starvation because there is no money available to provide relief. The United Nations has reported that three-quarters of Afghanistan’s population has plunged into acute poverty, with 4.7 million people likely to suffer severe or even fatal malnutrition this year.

The money in New York unambiguously belongs to the Afghan government and the country’s central bank. It is not money that came from the United States, which means that what Biden, who is already stealing Syria’s oil, is engaging in yet one more large scale theft, this time from people dying from famine and disease. Furthermore, as the US was de facto an occupying military power in Afghanistan, the responsibility to protect the civilian population is explicitly required under the articles of the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory. That Washington will watch many thousands of civilians die because it has used its position as an occupying power to steal money that might alleviate the suffering is unconscionable and amounts to a war crime.

Undoubtedly the half of the money allegedly allocated for humanitarian relief will be directed to organizations that will do Washington’s bidding in terms of how the aid is distributed and who gets it. It is being reported that it will take months to set up the aid network, by which time thousands will die. That is to be expected and may have been intentional. And as for the other half of the money directed towards 9/11 “victims,” just watch how that plays out. There are undoubtedly instances of Americans who lost multiple and even cross generational family members at 9/11 and are still in need of assistance. Fine, that is a given, but why punish the Afghans to deal with that? And as soon as the money is on the table you know exactly what will happen. All the shyster lawyers working on a percentage of the payoffs will come out of the woodwork and the major beneficiaries of all the loot will be people who know how to manipulate and game the system. That is what happened to the billions that came raining down as a consequence of the insurance claims on the World Trade Center and also in the distribution of other monies that followed. You can bank on it.

Washington has become adept at lying to cover up its crimes overseas, but foreigners, who are not likely inclined to read the Washington Post and are directly affected by the deception, frequently have a more facts-based understanding of what exactly is going on. And it is why no one any longer trusts the United States. And, it is interesting to note how inevitably the lying by the US government is both bipartisan and inclined to blame the victim as a fallback position. This was seen in Donald Trump’s assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani over two years ago. Soleimani was in Baghdad for peace talks and was falsely accused by the White House of preparing to attack American soldiers. There is also the more recent assassination of alleged ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi and killing of 13 additional women and children in Syria where accounts of villagers don’t quite square with the Pentagon version of what allegedly took place.

And then there is a long-concealed atrocity also in Syria which took place in the town of Baghuz in March 2019. At least 80 mostly women and children died in an attack by American F-15 fighter bombers, which was only reported in the media in November 2021. Reportedly, a large crowd of women and children were seen by photographic drones seeking shelter huddled against a river bank. Without warning, an American attack jet dropped a 500-pound bomb on the group. When the smoke cleared, another jet tracked the running survivors and dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of them. Military personnel at the Udeid Airbase in Qatar watching the attack by way of the drone camera reportedly reacted in “stunned disbelief” at what they were witnessing. A Pentagon cover-up followed and to this day the official comment on the attack is that it was “justified.”

So, by all means go and listen to lying Jen Psaki and pencil neck Ned Price or to Secretary of State Tony Blinken and possibly to the ultimate nitwit himself, President Honest Joe Biden. Or you can just pick up a New York Times or Washington Postwhere deliberately leaked government lies are backed up by what the newspapers pretend to be editorial integrity. These folks just might drop us into a nuclear war or could possibly continue in their larcenous ways to rob the world. Sooner or later the chickens will be coming home to roost and accountability for America’s war crimes will be demanded. Stay tuned.

 

 

 

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

 

 

READ MORE:

https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/fear-and-loathing-in-washington/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

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