Sunday, 4 May 2014

Putin v. Kerry by Stephen Lendman

by Stephen Lendman


My PhotoPutin’s statesmanship embarrasses Kerry. Both men are geopolitical opposites.
Putin represents responsible leadership. Kerry shames the office he hold.

On April 29, Putin addressed Ukrainian crisis conditions forthrightly. On the same day, Kerry irresponsibly addressed the Atlantic Council.
In 1961, it was established to support NATO. It’s headquartered in Washington. It supports America’s global agenda.
Past and current members include a rogue’s gallery of reliable US imperial supporters.
They include Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Schlesinger, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Jones, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Susan Rice, and an array of current and former top military officials.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel formerly served as chairman. Kerry’s comments reflected US imperial arrogance. More on them below.
Putin pointed fingers the right way. What’s ongoing in Ukraine “shows us who really was mastering the process from the beginning,” he said.
“But in the beginning, the United States preferred to remain in the shadow(s).”
In addressing crisis conditions, Washington is “telling that they originally were behind this process, but now they just have emerged as (its) leaders.”
US officials encouraged Maidan protesters. They supported them. They did so against Ukraine’s democratically elected government.
They manipulated events. They aided and abetted Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster.
They helped empower illegitimate fascist putschists. They did so lawlessly.
“It is necessary to understand that the situation is serious and try to find serious approaches to the solution,” said Putin.
He called on coup-appointed officials to “treat equally the rights of those living in other areas of Ukraine, first of all, I mean, the east and southeast, establish a dialogue, find a compromise.”
He addressed illegitimate US/EU sanctions, adding:
“We would very much wish not to resort to any measures in response.”
“But if something like that continues, we will of course have to think about who is working in the key sectors of the Russian economy, including the energy sector, and how.”
Major US companies are involved. They include ExxonMobil and Chevron.
“Regarding (sanctions imposed on Moscow), it’s not clear at all what this is linked to, because there is no cause and effect link with what is happening now in Ukraine and Russia,” said Putin.
At the same time, US/EU policy won’t deter Russia’s Eurasian integration process, he explained. It involves Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.
Putin prioritizes resolving Ukrainian crisis conditions responsibly. US policy is polar opposite.
Kerry fronts for power. He represents longstanding US imperial arrogance.
His comments leave no doubt where he stands. Big Lies infest them. They do so repeatedly.
He addressed the Atlantic Council’s “Toward a Europe Whole and Free” conference.
Washington wants Europe co-opted. It wants full control. It wants it united against Russia.
It bullies, pressure and threatens European leaders to bend to its will. Outliers aren’t tolerated. They’re targeted for replacement. Washington rules apply.
The year 2014 marks NATO’s 65 anniversary. Its mission is offense, not defense.
It’s a machine for the manufacture of mass slaughter, destruction and unspeakable human misery.
Not according to Kerry. He lied saying “over (its) decades-long history, I think NATO, without any question, has done more to promote security, more to promote prosperity, and more to promote freedom than any other alliance in human history.”
He cited nonexisting threats. Ukraine is Exhibit A, he suggested.
Its crisis “calls us back to the role that this alliance was originally created to perform, and that is to defend alliance territory and advance transatlantic security.”
False! US-led NATO is a destabilizing machine. It prevents global security.
It advances America’s imperium. It does so through lawless violence, belligerence and full-blown aggression.
“The events in Ukraine are a wake-up call,” said Kerry.
He lied claiming “(o)ur European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.”
“It is not as if we really haven’t bent over backwards to try to set a new course in the post-Cold War era.”
“And so we’ve pursued serious bilateral engagement…But what Russia’s actions in Ukraine tell us is that today Putin’s Russia is playing by a different set of rules.”
“And through its occupation of Crimea and its subsequent destabilization of Eastern Ukraine, Russia seeks to change the security landscape of Eastern and Central Europe.”
“So we find ourselves in a defining moment for our transatlantic alliance, and nobody should mistake that.”
“And we are prepared to do what we need to do, and to go the distance, to uphold that alliance.”
“Our strength will come from our unity. And the strength of our alliance always has come from our unity over the course of the 65 years.”
“So together, we have to push back against those who want to try to change sovereign borders by force.”
“Together, we have to support those who simply want to try to live as we do or as others do.”
Fact: Washington wants sovereign Russian independence eliminated.
Fact: It wants subservient pro-Western governance replacing it.
Fact: Longstanding US policy wants all independent governments replaced.
Fact: Eliminating major rivals matter most.
Fact: Russia and China are top targets.
Fact: Both countries deplore war.
Fact: They prioritize peaceful coexistence.
Fact: Advancing America’s imperium prevents it.
Fact: Kerry lied suggesting otherwise.
“(W)e have to support those folks who want to live free, making their choices about their own future. Together, we have to continue our strong support for Ukraine,” he said.
“(W)e have to make it absolutely clear to the Kremlin that NATO territory is inviolable. We will defend every single piece of it.”
“(F)rom day one, Ukraine undertook to implement both the spirit and substance of” Geneva four-party agreement terms.
“(N)ot one single step has been taken by Russia.”
“Every time you have a conversation, it’s pointing the finger at what the Ukrainians haven’t done, without even tallying up what they have done or acknowledging their own zero in the column with respect to what they have undertaken.”
“(I)t’s fair to say they have escalated the crisis even further.”
“There is strong evidence that I laid out several days ago of the degree to which Russian engagement exists directly in the east and has been building up over some period of time.”
Russian policy persists “to pursue (its) own goals and…ends.”
It has “a clear choice: Leave Ukraine in peace and work with us together to create a strong Ukraine, a Ukraine that is not a pawn, pulled and tugged at between East and West…”
“…I can guarantee this: The United States and our allies will stand together in support of Ukraine.”
“This crisis is a wake-up call for us to accelerate the other work that we’ve been doing to promote a stronger, more prosperous transatlantic community.”
Fact: Kerry repeated one Big Lie after another.
Fact: He’s a serial liar.
Fact: He’s a world class thug.
Fact: He makes lesser rogue officials look pacifist.
Fact: He makes mafia bosses look saintly by comparison.
Fact: He makes serial killers look like pussy cats.
Fact: “NATO, without a question, has done more to (subvert) security, more to (prevent) prosperity, and more to (destroy) freedom than any other alliance in human history.”
Fact: NATO “was originally created” for offense, not defense.
Fact: “European allies have spent more than 20 years with (Washington) working to” marginalize, weaken and isolate Russia.
Fact: “(W)hat Russia’s actions in Ukraine tell us is that today Putin’s Russia” represents responsible geopolitical leadership.
Fact: No Russian “occupation of Crimea and its subsequent destabilization of Eastern Ukraine” occurred.
Fact: Moscow did nothing “to change sovereign borders by force” or any other way.
Fact: Washington and rogue EU partners want free people subjugated.
Fact: They want their fundamental freedoms eliminated altogether.
Fact: They want their futures destroyed.
Fact: “(F)rom day one, Ukraine (violated) both the spirit and substance of” Geneva four-party agreement terms.
Fact: (I)t’s fair to say” Washington and rogue EU partners “escalated the crisis even further.”
Fact: No evidence suggests Russian involvement with Eastern Ukrainian activists.
Kerry represents the worst of Washington’s dark side. Lawless aggression reflects it.
Millions of corpses attest to America’s barbarity. Don’t expect Kerry to explain.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

A small clarification to MAY 3ND, SITREP

The Saker 

Russia stands for freedom!Some of you have understood my reference to Chechnia in the latest SITREP has an indication of the kind of tactics the Russian military would use if/when the Kremlin decides to intervene in the Ukraine.

That is not at all what I meant and I apologize for misleading you.

What I meant was to say that in extreme circumstances Putin was willing to use extreme measures.  But let me reassure you all - the Donbass is not Chechnia, the Ukrainians are not Chechens and, most importantly, the Russian military of 2014 is not the Russian military of 1999.  In fact, I can guarantee you that these tactics willnot be used in the Ukraine.  Such massive use of firepower is the sign of a weak military, once which does not trust the training of its own soldiers, one which has poor command, control and intelligence and one which uses the only thing it still has: a big fist.  Such tactics are effective but crude and if the Russian military used them in the Ukraine it would result in a outraged explosion of protest in Russia.

Without going into details, what the Russians would do if they intervened in the Ukraine would be to disorganize Ukie communication and create a sense of chaos (for the Ukie command).  By "going for the eyes" they would transform what is currently a more or less coherent Ukie attack force into many small and completely confused ones.  Though that phase could include a few bomb/missile strikes or sabotage, most of it would be non-lethal.  One the junta is blinded, the Russians would essentially engage the Ukie commanders in a "surrender or else" dialog. The vast majority will at this point gladly surrender.  Those few who will chose "or else" will be destroyed in precision strikes.  That's it.  I do not expect WWII tank battles to take place.  Cities like Dnepropetrovsk or Kharkov will not be turned into Grozny in 2000.

The Ukie military machine is extremely weak and all it will take is hitting a few well-chosen trigger points, and then it will collapse.  Again, judging by Crimea and by what has happened so far in the Donbass, the vast majority of the Ukrainian officers will be *immensely relived* to be "defeated".  By the way, the Russians went out of their way to treat the Ukrainian forces in Crimea with utmost respect - both those who did surrender and those who decided to hold out and be evacuated.  Putin personally issued a decree not only to treat all the Ukrainian military personnel with professional courtesy but even to treat the *symbols* of Ukrainian statehood (flags, insignia, etc.) with utmost respect.  The same will happen this time.

The Ukies made "prisoner" will be offered to join the Russian military, their pensions will quadruple overnight, their ranks and diplomas recognized and most will even be left in command of their own units.

I have to say that this idyllic situation will not apply to the neo-Nazis and assorted oligarch-paid thugs.  Those will be killed, ruthlessly and with no mercy.  Any Right Sector thug or foreign mercenary captured will get a 10min "conversation" somewhere behind an APC and then will be executed.  But that will be a very small amount of cases about which we will probably never learn anyway.

I honestly don't know how far the Russian military intervention would go, it might well be confined to only the easternmost part of the Ukraine (where the current Ukrainian attack forces are concentrated).  That really depends on the reaction in the West.  If the US/NATO continue to refuse to negotiate the Russians might push further, but not beyond the Dniepr.


Remember the 08.08.08 war: its purpose was never to seize and hold land, it was to take Saakshvili's ulgy toys away.  Once the Georgian military basically disappeared the Russians withdrew.  The same will happen in the Ukraine.  The Russian will destroy the repressive machine of the junta in Kiev and then stop.

Think *forces*, not territory.

Russia cannot and has no desire to "occupy" the Ukraine.  All that talk about a new Afghanistan in the Ukraine is absolute nonsense.  As soon as they are done, they will withdraw most of their forces and they will help the locals get organized.  Only if the US/NATO do something truly fantastically stupid, like sending in NATO forces into the western Ukraine will the Russians establish a forward security buffer aimed at keeping the AngloZionists on the West side of the Dneipr.  But - honestly - I don't see the US/NATO/EU trying that kind of crap, not because of the Russian military, but because that would mean that they would own all of the worst and poorest part of the rump-Ukraine.


Does anybody really think that the EU wants to own Banderastan?

I sure don't.

Okay, I hope that this clarification has been useful and I apologize again for giving the impression that the Russian military was prepared to use the same tactics as it did in Chechnia.

Kind regards,

The Saker
What happened in Odessa yesterday is much worse than what the initial reports had indicated: it was truly a deliberate and blood-curling massacre.  To summarize:

In Odessa the pro-Russian demonstrators had never seized a building, all they did was erecting a small tent city and hanging out there.  Hardly any violence had taken place.  Yesterday, the neo-Nazis finally made their move:

1)  They bussed in large numbers of Right Sector thugs.
2)  They then got the local football hooligans (paid by oligarchs according to some reports) to begin a nationalist demonstration.
3)  The Right Sector thugs then joined the hooligans and together they viciously attacked the pro-Russian tent city: the tents were torn down and the anti-regime demonstrators viciously beat up to a pulp.  The local cops stood by and watched.
4)  The anti-regime demonstrators ran literally for their lives towards the building of Unions which had been their normal rallying point at which point they were surrounded and the building set ablaze.
5)  Those attempting to leave the building were severely beat up and many murdered.  Many were shot while standing in the windows to flee from the flames.
6)  The neo-Nazis did not let the firefighters through.
7)  With each jumping demonstrator or each person shot in the windows the crowd would scream "Glory to the Ukraine!  Glory to he heroes!"  Many took souvenir videos.  For them, this was a joyful, liberating event.
8)  The Ukrainian social networks flooded with joyful messages congratulation the "heroes" in Odessa and promising more of the same to the accursed Moskals.
9)  The Western and Ukie press reported the events as a "clash" with "casualties" but with no reference to any one party causing this massacre.
10) The last fatalities figure was at 46.  But with many dying from smoke inhalation and, especially, burns, it will probably go up.

So what about Russia in all this?

I am amazed to see so many commentators posting messages here like "Russia has surrendered" or "Putin has caved in" or "Russia has made a deal".  Truly, I wonder if there is some kind of "mysterious Russian soul" that is so hard to understand.  Nora also asked a very interesting question.  She wrote:
Saker, am I wrong about this or is Putin's reluctance based in large part on a profound cultural and historical lack of blood-lust? I mean, we certainly have no compunction Just Plain Destroying... women, children, cultures, societies: really, that's just what we do, at home and abroad. But apart from Kiev being holy as the beginning of both Russia and her Orthodox faith and wondering how any Orthodox Russian could attack it despite it being perhaps the prime military target, I am so struck by the great desire of the people, all over Ukraine really, not to kill their own. I sure don't see that here -- even the militia types supporting Bundy are now at each other's throats. I'm not being very articulate here and don't really know how to take this observation, if it is real, to the next step because I just bump into this wall of "How does morality fight immorality without losing in this life?
So let me try to make sense of all this. 

First and foremost, let's remember the not too distant past.

The very first thing Putin did when he came to power was to prosecute and win an amazingly violent and vicious war against the Chechen Wahabis.  As I have mentioned many times here, a typical situation during that war was like this:  a Russian commander would be met by a delegation of local "elders" who would assure him that their village was peaceful.  The commander would reply "okay, we will not enter your village, but if a single shotcomes out of it, we will wipe it off the face of the earth with artillery fire".  And they did so.  Every time.  With artillery and multiple-rocket launcher fire.  A huge number of civilians died because a village of 500 people would harbor 20 or 30 insurgents.  And when the commanders of this operation were accused of war crimes (like General Shamanov) Putin not only stood by them, he gave many them the highest Russian decoration: Hero of Russia.  Does that mean that Putin was a bloodthirsty genocidal maniac in 1999 and that in 2014 he turned into a pot-smoking peacenik singing "give peace a chance"?

Of course not.

In 1999 Russia had absolutely no other option left.  None.  The Wahabi insurgency had to be ruthlessly crushed or Russia would collapse.  So if the numerous massacres (on both sides) in the First Chechen War were the result of gross incompetence and total indifference by the gang of Jewish oligarch in power under Eltsin, then the numerous massacres (mostly committed by the Russian military) in the Second Chechen War were carefully planned and systematically executed by the military high command with the full backing of the Kremlin.

I am not writing this to trash Putin or accuse him of being a war criminal.  I am, like most Russians, absolutely convinced that Russia had no other choice.  I even think that this willingness to deliver a massive amount of violence in specific circumstances saved a lot of lives, shortened the war and was actually met with a great deal of understanding by a lot of non-Wahabi Chechens.  What Putin and Kadyrov (himself an ex-field commander and also a man with a reputation of ruthlessness, which he does not even deny) achieved in Chechnia is nothing short of a miracle and today Chechnia is a fantastic success story.  But to make that possible, the Wahabis had to be quite literally eliminated, one by one, and all their sympathizers given a stark choice: desist or die.  Do I really need to remind you all that Putin is the guy who, after a Chechen terrorist attack, publicly declared "we will hunt them down and kill them, and if they hide in a toilet, we will kill them there" (he used a slang term "mochits" which means to "off", "waste" or "whack" somebody).

Guys, never underestimate the potential of a person like Putin to mete out a huge amounts of ruthless violence if needed.  So far all those who have done so have paid dearly.

So why does Russia stand by and do nothing?

Guys, when the Russians look across the border they see two groups they really really hate: Nazis and oligarchs.  Them they would gladly kill with even more ruthless mass violence than the Chechen insurgents some of whom at least they respected as courageous combatants.  But besides Nazis and oligarchs they also see their own fellow-Russians, who are in a bind, stuck between stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Did you guys see the footage of the Ukie army captain shot down by the pro-Russians over Slaviansk being rescued by the locals?  Normally, captured Mi-24 pilots are not treated kindly as they fly a truly terrifying machine which even the Afghan guerrillas feared.  In Syria today, these guys typically are tortured and then executed.  In this case, I wish you could understand the audio, the pro-Russian militiamen were encouraging the guy by saying: "brother, no worries, we will get you to a hospital, hang in there captain, you still have a long life to live, don't let go, just a little longer and you will be fine".  There was such an outpouring of compassiontowards this men that it was absolutely amazing to see (if somebody could post a subtitled video of this footage that would be fantastic).

Now please understand that if/when Russian intervenes in the Ukraine there will be a lot of people killed.  How many neo-Nazis or oligarchs to you think will be manning the Ukie Mi-24 which will be sent to try to stop the movement of Russian armor?  How many oligarchs or neo-Nazis will be told to take off in old and poorly maintained SU-27 or MiG-29 to try to stop the Russian Air Force?  Zero of course.

And if in Crimea there was not a single shot fired in anger, this will not be the case in the Donbass because it will be much harder to distinguish who is who.  Think about it: you see a tank in your targeting scope.  Say an old T-72, which you can easily smoke, but whose 125mm smoothbore shell still can kill you and your entire crew.  Will you take the chance and try to talk to the other guy?  What if his family is a de-facto hostage of the junta?  What if he is simply terrified of your upgraded T-90 and shoots first?

The Russians know that most of the Ukrainian military is completely on their side.  It is enough to look at the tense and embarrassed faces of the Ukrainian paratroopers which attacked the checkpoints around Slaviansk yesterday to see that they are going through a painful internal struggle.

The Russian military culture is profoundly averse to shooting on civilians or fellow Russians (and I mean "Russian" not ethnically, of course, but in a civilizational sense).

Furthermore, there are two ways to achieve deterrence: denial and punishment.

The first implies that you deny the other guy the means to achieve his goal.  The second one means that you punish him if he acts.

Now, let me ask you: how does the Russian military deny the neo-Nazis in Odessa the ability to attack a tent city or burn people alive in a building?  And if Russia cannot do that, then whom does Russia "punish" for that and how?

I promise you that if Russia had a magic death ray weapon which would only kill the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and oligarchs Putin would have used it a long time ago.  But Putin is not Obama - he does not believe that such a magic death ray weapon (Obama calls it "drones") exists. Putin fully understands that if Russia moves in there will be a lot of innocent people killed, including pro-Russian Ukrainians, including decent anti-Russian civilians and, of course, Russian soldiers.

The outcome, however, is not in doubt.  As I have said here many times, Russia can occupy all of the Ukraine if needed and there is nothing the US/NATO can do about that except protest, gesticulate, threaten, grandstand and increase global warming by a massive release of hot air.

There is no "mysterious Russian soul".  Many in the West have a hard time understanding Putin because they are so used to completely irresponsible politicians who have been carefully selected by the West's "deep state" precisely for their lack of even basic decency, their knee jerk use of violence as the method of first resort and their eager willingness to reject any form of negotiations.  What is mysterious is not the Russian soul but the West unique track record in meting out senseless violence over and over and over again and to hell with the consequences.  That is the real mystery.

I also want to say this: up to the moment Putin ordered the "Polite Armed Men in Green" to take Crimea under control, the comments section was full of the very same comments accusing Putin, the Kremlin and Russia of selling out, of weakness or of surrender.  Then, quite literally overnight, everybody went "WOW!" when the Crimean Peninsula was taken without a single fatality.  Why are we repeating the same mistake today?

I promise you, Russia is ready to intervene in the Ukraine.  To my immense sadness, I even suspect that it will.  Clearly the US wants Russia to intervene to have a pretext for a new Cold War which would re-subordinate the EU to the US, prevent any Russia-EU rapprochement and give NATO a justification for its absurd existence.  As for the freaks in power in Kiev (Timoshenko: "we have to execute these accursed Moskals with nuclear weapons") they have nothing to loose and they will obey any order coming from their western masters.  The recent events in Slaviansk, Kramatorsk and Odessa can only be understood as a provocation to force Russia to intervene.  Sadly, this technique might work and those who are now cheering for a Russian intervention might get their wish.

Personally, if Russia sends its military into the Ukraine I will not be rejoicing.  I will be heartbroken (even if I will also be elated by the fact that all that neo-Nazi scum will finally have an opportunity to shows its worth in a fair battle agianst the acccursed Moskals). 

I personally am deeply grateful to Putin and his outstanding government for not intervening so far and for waiting until the very last second, when there is really no other option left, before doing so.  Frankly, my hope is that the Russian-speakers in the East and South of the Ukraine will find a way to secede from Banderastan without any overt Russian intervention.  So far, I see no signs at all that the Ukies are winning this one.  Yes, reports say that they have taken most of Kramatorsk today.  So what?  During the first Chechen War a hapless Russian armored brigade also "succeeded" in "taking" the center of Grozny.  Then most of them got killed.

Guys - "taking" a city defended by a guerrilla force is always easy.  Always.  It's what comes after which is really hard.  There is a darn good reason why, at least so far, the Ukie military always withdrew after it's initial "successes".  These guys are not cowards, they are smart and a lot of them remember their training in the Soviet military.  By the way, and this has not been reported in the English blogosphere, did you know that the folks manning the checkpoints around Slaviansk were ordered to withdraw soon after the first skirmishes with the attacking Ukies began.  Why?  Because a single burst of 30mm gunfire form the Ukie APCs would tear those so-called "checkpoints" into shred in just a few seconds.  So what is the point of dying there?  So the defenders pulled back, the attackers seized the checkpoint, declared victory, and promptly left.  That is the real face of thepseudo-war taking place right now.  Every military person there knows and understands that.  It's just the moronic western press corps which just does not want to understand what is really happening in front of it's nose.

So here is my request to you all: let's stop both the pro-Russian warmongering on one hand, and the constant Russia-bashing for non-intervention on the other.  It's not good enough to see some dramatic footage on the idiot-tube to jump to conclusions.  We first must carefully look at the full picture, at all the issues at stake, try to understand both why this or that actor does something (especially if that something seems stupid or senseless) and then develop a hypothesis of what will happen if, say, Russia intervenes with its armed force.  Or if it does not.

It is true that western politicians play poker (bluff) and monopoly (grab it all).  These are all sort-term & immediate results games.  The Russians (and the Chinese for that matter) play chess where you move slow, calculate each move way in advance, offer gambits, sacrifice pieces and there both the opening and the mid-game have the sole purpose of setting up the desired conditions for the end game.  In chess you don't just smash a piece off your board to show how much of a man you are.

I want to conclude this by reminding you of three basic Russian sayings:

Россия не злится, она сосредотачивается.
(Russia does not get mad, she concentrates)

Русские долго запрягают, да быстро едут.
(Russians are slow to saddle-up, but they ride fast)

Eсли замахнулся - то бей.
(Once you swing, then you have to strike)


Maybe these are the keys to the "mysterious Russian soul"?  ;-)

The Saker

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Twisting Putin’s Words on Ukraine

Exclusive: Anti-Russian bias pervades the mainstream U.S. media in the Ukraine crisis, reflected in word choices – “pro-democracy” for U.S.-favored protesters in Kiev, “terrorists” for disfavored eastern Ukrainians – but also in how the narrative is shaped by false summaries, as Robert Parry explains.
Sometimes dealing with the waves of U.S. media propaganda on the Ukraine crisis feels like the proverbial Dutch boy putting his fingers in the dike. The flood of deeply prejudiced anti-Russian “group think” extends across the entire media waterfront – from left to right – and it often seems hopeless correcting each individual falsehood.
The problem is made worse by the fact that the New York Times, the traditional newspaper of record, has stood out as one of the most egregious offenders of the principles of journalism. Repeatedly, the Times has run anti-Russian stories that lack evidence or are just flat wrong.
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivering a speech on the Ukraine crisis in Moscow on March 18, 2014. (Russian government photo)
Among the flat-wrong stories was the Times’ big front-page scoop on photos that purportedly showed Russian troops inside eastern Ukraine, but the story had to beretracted two days later when it turned out that a key photo – allegedly of several men “clearly” in Russia before they later turned up in Ukraine – was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise.
The other type of Times’ propaganda – making assertions without evidence – appeared in another front-page story about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s phantom wealth ($40 billion to $70 billion, the Times speculated) without presenting a shred of hard evidence beyond what looked like a pricy watch on his wrist.
However, in some ways, the worst of the New York Times reporting has been its slanted and erroneous summations of the Ukraine narrative. For instance, immediately after the violent coup overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych (from Feb. 20-22), it was reported that among the 80 people killed were more than a dozen police officers.
But, as the pro-coup sympathies hardened inside the Times, the storyline changed to: “More than 80 protesters were shot to death by the police as an uprising spiraled out of control in mid-February.” [NYT, March 5]
Both the dead police and the murky circumstances surrounding the sniper fire that inflicted many of the casualties simply disappeared from the Times’ narrative. It became flat fact: evil “pro-Yanukovych” police gunned down innocent “pro-democracy” demonstrators. Also consigned to the memory hole was the key role played by well-organized neo-Nazi militias that led the final assaults on the police.
More recently, the Times’ Ukraine summary has challenged Putin’s denials that Russian special forces are operating in eastern Ukraine (the point that the bogus photo scoop was supposed to prove). So, now whenever Putin’s denial is noted, the Times contradicts him by claiming that he made the same denial about Crimea, that Russian troops weren’t involved, and then reversed himself later.
For instance, in Friday’s editions, the Times wrote: “Mr. Putin has said there are no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. He made similar claims during the annexation of Crimea, however, and then later acknowledged the existence of a Russian operation.”
But that simply isn’t true. The Russians never denied having troops in Crimea, since that’s where they maintain a major Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol and had a contractual agreement with Ukraine allowing the presence of up to 25,000 troops. At the time of the Feb. 22 coup, Russia had about 16,000 troops in Crimea and that was well known as Crimea began to break away from the post-coup regime in Kiev.
On March 4, the Associated Press reported that “the new Ukrainian leadership that deposed the pro-Russian Yanukovych … has accused Moscow of a military invasion in Crimea. The Kremlin, which does not recognize the new Ukrainian leadership, insists it made the move in order to protect Russian installations in Ukraine and its citizens living there.
“On Tuesday, Russian troops who had taken control of the Belbek air base in the hotly contest[ed] Crimea region fired warning shots into the air as around 300 Ukrainian soldiers, who previously manned the airfield, demanded their jobs back. …
“The shots reflected tensions running high in the Black Sea peninsula since Russian troops – estimated by Ukrainian authorities to be 16,000 strong -tightened their grip over the weekend on the Crimean peninsula, where Moscow’s Black Sea Fleet is based.
“Ukraine has accused Russia of violating a bilateral agreement on conditions of a Russian lease of a naval base in Crimea that restricts troop movements, but Russia has argued that it was acting within the limits set by the deal.
“Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, said Monday [March 3] at the U.N. Security Council that Russia was entitled to deploy up to 25,000 troops in Crimea under the agreement. Churkin didn’t specify how many Russian troops are now stationed in Crimea, but said that ‘they are acting in a way they consider necessary to protect their facilities and prevent extremist actions.’”
Putin’s Comments
Also on March 4, Putin discussed another public confrontation in Crimea at a Moscowpress conference. He said: “You should note that, thank God, not a single gunshot has been fired there; there are no casualties, except for that crush on the square about a week ago. What was going on there? People came, surrounded units of the [Ukrainian] armed forces and talked to them, convincing them to follow the demands and the will of the people living in that area. There was not a single armed conflict, not a single gunshot.
“Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. The only thing we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defense of our military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in. We did this, it was the right thing to do and very timely.”
So, Putin did not deny that Russian troops were present in Crimea. He even acknowledged that they were operational and were prepared to take action in defense of Crimean citizens if necessary.
Arguably, Putin did dissemble on one point, though the precise circumstances were unclear. When a reporter asked him about a specific case of some people “wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian Army uniform,” he demurred, claiming “those were local self-defense units.”
A Formal Speech
Two days after a hastily called referendum, which recorded a 96 percent vote in favor of seceding from Ukraine and rejoining Russia, Putin returned to the issue of Russian involvement in Crimea, a territory that first became part of Russia in the 1700s.
On March 18 in a formal speech to the Russian Federation, Putin justified Crimea’s desire to escape the control of the coup regime in Kiev, saying: “Those who opposed the [Feb. 22] coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.
“Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.”
Again, Putin was not claiming that the Russian government had no involvement in Crimea. He was, in contrast, confirming that it was involved. He continued:
“First, we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law.  Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.
“Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? True, the President of the Russian Federation [Putin] received permission from the Upper House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine. However, strictly speaking, nobody has acted on this permission yet. Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement.
“True, we did enhance our forces there; however – this is something I would like everyone to hear and know – we did not exceed the personnel limit of our Armed Forces in Crimea, which is set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.”
However, several weeks later, when Putin reiterated these same points, saying that Russian troops were in Crimea in support of the Crimean people’s right to have a referendum on secession from Ukraine, the New York Times and other U.S. publications began claiming that he had reversed himself and had previously hidden the Russian troop involvement in Crimea.
That was simply bad reporting, which now gets repeated whenever the Times mentions Putin’s denial of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Clearly, there is nothing “similar” between Putin’s previous statements about Crimea and his current ones about eastern Ukraine.
Beyond sloppy reporting, however, something arguably worse is playing out here, since this distortion fits with the pattern of anti-Russian bias and anti-Putin prejudice that has pervaded the “news” coverage at the Times and other major U.S. media outlets.
Rather than show some independence and professionalism, the Times and the rest of the MSM have marched in lock-step with the propaganda pronouncements emanating from the U.S. State Department.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

British Fighters Filmed In Syria ‘War Crime’



May 2, 2014, Sky News
Footage uncovered by researchers at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) shows jihadist rebelskilling a prisoner, said to be a loyalist of President Bashar al Assad.
The incident is thought to have happened in the last two weeks near Raqqa in northern Syria.
The footage was posted on the Instagram account of a man believed to be from London.
The caption accompanying the video describes the prisoner as one of “Bashar [al Assad's] dogs” and says the killing was retribution for the deaths of four fellow rebels and the rape of a woman.
The ICSR monitors the social media accounts of hundreds of foreign fighters inside Syria.

British fighters implicated in Syria 'war crime' 
Researchers say one of the executioners is a Briton seen in other videos

They believe the man that posted the video is part of a group of British fighters, known as Rayat al Tawheed, an affiliate of the Sunni jihadi movement ISIS, which controls large swathes of northern Syria.
Shiraz Maher, a senior ICSR researcher based at King’s College London, said the killing of prisoners is a war crime in international law.
“It’s incredibly serious,” he said.
“We believe the main characters involved with Rayat al Tawheed come from London.
“We have deduced this based on our discussions with foreign fighters, our extensive record-keeping of foreign fighter activity in Syria, and our maintenance of social network maps which allows us to plot activity and associations in a visual form.”

British fighters implicated in Syria 'war crime' 
In one video a British fighter says a bullet is “the pen of the mujahid”

Although no audible English is spoken in the video itself, analysts from the ICSR believe they have identified one of the gunmen as being a British citizen.
A man is seen in the video firing shots into the body of the prisoner in the seconds after the initial bullet was fired by the main shooter.
Analysis of the gunman’s physical build, wristwatch and balaclava led the ICSR to conclude he is the same man seen speaking English with a London accent in other videos posted by the group.
“We don’t know if the prisoner was alive or dead when he fired, but he did partake in the execution, he did fire shots at the individual from his weapon, and we believe he is a British citizen,” said ICSR researcher Joseph Carter.
On two separate videos posted on YouTube, the man identified as the gunman by the ICSR is heard berating the British Muslim community for failing to provide sufficient financial support for the jihad or the families the fighters have left behind.

British fighters implicated in Syria 'war crime' 
The group lobbies for donations to buy more weapons and ammunition

“You know who you are, from the capital, the Midlands, up north, wherever you may be… it’s a disgrace, that brothers know where these wives are, where these families are, and yet you are buying your nephew or your child a PlayStation 4 or taking them out to Nando’s,” he said.
The Government’s counter-terrorism programme last week launched a campaign urging the families of young men planning to travel to Syria to intervene.
It is estimated that up to 400 Britons have travelled to fight or train in Syria in the last two years. 
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “This demonstrates why we have consistently called for the situation in Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court.
“Horrific atrocities have been committed by both the Assad regime and by extremists. The international community must ensure that all those responsible are held to account.
“Our priority is to dissuade people from travelling, but any extremists should know we are prepared to take action to protect national security, and intelligence agencies and police are working to identify potential threats.”
Amnesty International UK Syria campaign manager Kristyan Benedict said: “This alleged British member of the extremist group ISIS says it’s ‘a disgrace’ other British Muslims will not join him in Syria.
“The real disgrace is people like him and other extremists brazenly committing war crimes and holding Syrians back from realising their aspirations for a Syria free from violent authoritarianism.
“The scale of unlawful killing, torture and arbitrary detention from the Syrian government side still dwarfs abuses carried out by numerous armed groups, but the Assad government certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on atrocities.
“All these crimes will need to be properly investigated and the perpetrators held to account.”
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!