Robert Parry: Who’s Telling the ‘Big Lie’ on Ukraine?

[Karmadillo]

Ends by noting, "...Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society."

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/02/whos-telling-the-big-lie-on-ukraine/

Who’s Telling the ‘Big Lie’ on Ukraine?
September 2, 2014

Exclusive: Official Washington draws the Ukraine crisis in black-and-white colors with Russian President Putin the bad guy and the U.S.-backed leaders in Kiev the good guys. But the reality is much more nuanced, with the American people consistently misled on key facts, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

If you wonder how the world could stumble into World War III – much as it did into World War I a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire U.S. political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats vs. black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason.

The original lie behind Official Washington’s latest “group think” was that Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated the crisis in Ukraine as part of some diabolical scheme to reclaim the territory of the defunct Soviet Union, including Estonia and other Baltic states. Though not a shred of U.S. intelligence supported this scenario, all the “smart people” of Washington just “knew” it to be true.

Yet, the once-acknowledged – though soon forgotten – reality was that the crisis was provoked last year by the European Union proposing an association agreement with Ukraine while U.S. neocons and other hawkish politicos and pundits envisioned using the Ukraine gambit as a way to undermine Putin inside Russia.

The plan was even announced by U.S. neocons such as National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman who took to the op-ed page of the Washington Post nearly a year ago to call Ukraine “the biggest prize” and an important interim step toward eventually toppling Putin in Russia.

<edit>

In other words, from the start, Putin was the target of the Ukraine initiative, not the instigator. But even if you choose to ignore Gershman’s clear intent, you would have to concoct a bizarre conspiracy theory to support the conventional wisdom about Putin’s grand plan.

more...

[Purveyor]

1. Regarding your first paragraph...we sure do have a 'gaggle' of those around here.

[MattSh]

78. Yep, Shock & Awe is not only for Iraqis...

Now it's the Shock & Awe Propaganda Blitzkrieg. Made in the USA for Americans!

[LiberalAndProud]

2. I don't have time for nuance, Karmadillo.

Well, yes I do, but it taxes me and I'd sooner not clutter my beautiful mind. Okay? tyvm




/sarcasm

[SidDithers]

3. You are, Parry...nt

Sid

[geek tragedy]

4. Answer : Robert Parry. nt

[sabrina 1]

33. Well, that doesn't refute anything in the article. What is he wrong about? He's not the only one

btw. Until someone proves him wrong, considering his long and distinguished career as a respected investigative journalist, I imagine people are going to believe HIM over anonymous drive by comments on the internet. But you have a forum here to refute him if you can. I'm interested in your evidence that he is wrong.

[Blue_Tires]

5. The same Robert Parry who blames the U.S. for MH17?

no thanks...

[reddread]

6. the same Robert Parry who uncovered the treason of GHWB

not your sort?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. I can live in the 1980s, too.

I choose not to, though.

Because people change. And sometimes their star falls. And sometimes their star falls really, really hard.

[Octafish]

9. Not Robert Parry's.

He's kept what so many in his profession have lost: Integrity.

[tritsofme]

14. I hear he is a finalist

in the Jason Leopold Award for Journalistic Excellence. The winner will be announced in 24 business hours.

[reddread]

20. that wasnt the 80's

but you live anywhere you like.

[sabrina 1]

34. We are talking about his excellent work throughout the BUSH years, which airc, were just a few years

ago. Of course he has a very long, distinguished record going back to the eighties, continuing through the Bush/Cheney era and is still going strong, ferreting out the truth which he as not stopped doing since I've been aware of him. What makes you think he stopped in the eighties? Were you around at all over the past decade?

[Octafish]

7. Thank you, Karmadillo. Wish more understood how Journalism works.

Parry makes a good case: Let's not go to war until all the facts are in. From the article in the OP:

One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to “virtually nothing.” Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures.

Parry referred there to Ray McGovern. I've gotten so old, I remember when he was somebody DU looked up to.

Thanks for the heads-up. Perhaps the Truth may yet counteract the efforts of the few who control MOST of what Americans hear, see and read: Corporate McPravda.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. The major separatist stronghold of Sloviansk fell July 5th.

After that, the strongholds of Druzhkivka, Kostyantynivka, Artemivsk, and Kramatorsk.

Then the Ukrainian military moved in on Donetsk and Luhansk. They retook Horlivka and Sievierodonetsk. Then they recaptured Dzerzhynsk, Soledar, and Rubizhne.

On August 5th, the separatists lost Yasynuvata.

Clearly the separatists were on the run at this point, and losing badly.

That was less than a month ago. Over the past two weeks, the "separatists" have miraculously regained territory. And become far better organized and equipped.

But yeah. As Parry says, they just "evolved into a more effective fighting force" nearly overnight. Sure.

[Octafish]

13. Got a link for any of that?

Until I learn more, I'll stick with Parry.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. It's pretty concisely spelled out in wiki....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass

.....with the link to all sources at the bottom.

Clearly the separatists were on the verge of defeat around mid-August. Then things dramatically shifted out of the blue, just around the same time that reports of border crossings by Russian regular troops began to pop up.

If you want to call that a mere coincidence, by all means, go ahead.

[Octafish]

18. Not really a source as Wiki's infiltrated by spooks. Keep trying.

Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'

By Jonathan Fildes
Science and technology reporter, BBC News

An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.

Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president.

It also purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

The tool, developed by a US researcher, trawls a list of 34m edits and matches them to the net address of the editor.

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia that can be created and edited by anyone.

Most of the edits detected by the scanner correct spelling mistakes or factual inaccuracies in profiles. However, others have been used to remove potentially damaging material or to deface sites.

CONTINUED...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. OFFS. Go to the Wiki page, look at footnotes 309-430.

There's plenty of sources for everything asserted. Unless you actually are arguing that Ukrainian forces never actually retook Sloviansk and surrounding towns.

Here, I'll make it easy for you. You don't even have to leave the website:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014840286

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025216814

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025221281

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1014866519

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=840033

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=840348

[zappaman]

27. Wikipedia is a CIA front!!!

I knew their synopsis of STAR WARS was off!!!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. And let's not get started on Wikibear!

[NuclearDem]

30. Great, so if I see a Waaahhhhhhhh in the Ukraine article I'll know where it came from.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Amazing

coincidence, same time those aid trucks came in, same time numerous troop movements on the Russian border and also what a coincidence that the "rebels" attacked at the Russian border 100 KM from there they were. They also seemed to have gained lots of new T72 tanks and massive other stores of equipment, some of that Ukraine has never even had.

Ukraine should have concentrated on the border more to dry up the supply lines, now they are screwed.

[sabrina 1]

35. Why is the Kiev government killing its own people? The world is appalled at the carnage being

inflicted on those innocent people. What is the purpose of this? It certainly has destroyed any opportunity to gain respect for that already questionable government.

[jazzimov]

10. WTF? Lost me at WW3. nt

[Dems to Win]

12. Robert Parry is an excellent journalist

He got it right on Iran-Contra, I'll bet he's got it right now.

Thanks for the link

[KittyWampus]

15. WAS a good journalist. WAS.

[Octafish]

19. Why WAS?

He's still alive.

[reddread]

21. I assume because the modern concept of a "good journalist" utterly precludes him

but not small poodles, chihuahuas and shih tzus.

[Octafish]

23. You're entitled to that opinion.

Here's why I think you are wrong:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1450222

That was 8 years ago. Show me where he's been wrong since then.

[rhett o rick]

24. I assume you are being rhetorical. There were a lot of "good journalists" when they were critical

of Bush-the Dim-Son, but if they dare say anything that isn't lavish praise for Pres Obama, they lose their "good journalist" standing. But I know you know that. You should show a little sympathy, as they are weak and have to hold onto the dream that Pres Obama is the new savior. It's so much easier to declare that everything Pres Obama does is wonderful than to be discerning. And easy is what they seek.

[Octafish]

61. What should have knocked some sense of reality into their heads was Biden fracking Ukraine.

I'm sick of Big Oil calling US foreign policy.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/23/vice-president-joe-biden-promotes-u-s-fracking-missionary-force-during-ukraine-trip

[rhett o rick]

68. "What should have knocked some sense of reality into their heads", you are looking at it

from your perspective. From their perspective, if Biden says fracking is ok, then it's ok. We live in a authoritarian culture, that brainwashes us to worship authority.

[Octafish]

71. I like the media's roles.

Like not telling us stuff like:

US foreign policy advances the interests of big business and the wealthy at the expense of democracy abroad.

US domestic policy serves the wealthy and big business at the expense of democracy at home.

Fewer and fewer politicians stand up for We the People anymore. The politicians and their backers have gamed the system to serve the Military Industrial Complex and its owners.

Other than that, I've got a list.

[Doctor_J]

121. that's pretty much it

The BOG despises anyone who doesn't alter their principles depending on who is in office. If you were against the ACA when it was Heritage Care or Gingrinch Care or Romneycare, and are still against it, you're a racist/purist/ideologue. Same thing with war, torture, rendition, fracking, and so on.

Hey, DINO's - you're the reason we can't get out of this mess.

[Octafish]

130. Weak of mind, yet strong in purpose.

What JackpineRadical found:

Obama Makes Bushism the New Normal

By Dan Froomkin, The Intercept
03 September 14

In a lot of ways, we’re worse off today than we were under George W. Bush.

Back then, Bush’s extremist assault on civil liberties, human rights and other core American values in the name of fighting terror felt like an aberration.

The expectation was that those policies would be quickly reversed, discredited — and explicitly outlawed — once he was no longer in power.

Instead, under President Barack Obama, they’ve become institutionalized.

There will be no snapping back to a pre-Bush-era respect for basic human dignity and civil rights. Thanks to Obama, it’s going to be a hard, long fight.

In some cases, Obama has set even darker precedents than his predecessor. Massively invasive bulk surveillance of Americans and others has been expanded, not constrained. This president secretly condemns people to death without any checks or balances, and shrugs as his errant drones massacre innocent civilians. Whistleblowers and journalists who expose national security wrongdoing face unprecedented criminal prosecution.

CONTINUED...

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25668-focus-obama-makes-bushism-the-new-normal

They buy time for the, uh, game to continue unabated.

[NuclearDem]

25. Journalists don't have to die to stop being good journalists.

See: Bob Woodward.

[Octafish]

62. See Don Fulsom.

Nixon approved hiring a Secret Service man who said he'd 'kill on command' to guard Ted Kennedy. You can hear Nixon and Haldeman discuss it, about 40 minutes into the HBO documentary "Nixon by Nixon." While I had read the part of the transcript available years ago, and wrote about it on DU, almost no one I know has heard anything about it.

Ted Kennedy survived Richard Nixon's Plots

By Don Fulsom

In September 1972, Nixon’s continued political fear, personal loathing, and jealously of Kennedy led him to plant a spy in Kennedy’s Secret Service detail.

The mole Nixon selected for the Kennedy camp was already being groomed. He was a former agent from his Nixon’s vice presidential detail, Robert Newbrand—a man so loyal he once pledged he would do anything—even kill—for Nixon.

The President was most interested in learning about the Sen. Kennedy’s sex life. He wanted, more than anything, stated Haldeman in The Ends of Power, to “catch (Kennedy) in the sack with one of his babes.”

In a recently transcribed tape of a September 8, 1972 talk among the President and aides Bob Haldeman and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon asks whether Secret Service chief James Rowley would appoint Newbrand to head Kennedy’s detail:

Haldeman: He's to assign Newbrand.

President Nixon: Does he understand that he's to do that?

Butterfield: He's effectively already done it. And we have a full force assigned, 40 men.

Haldeman: I told them to put a big detail on him (unclear).

President Nixon: A big detail is correct. One that can cover him around the clock, every place he goes. (Laughter obscures mixed voices.)

President Nixon: Right. No, that's really true. He has got to have the same coverage that we give the others, because we're concerned about security and we will not assume the responsibility unless we're with him all the time.

Haldeman: And Amanda Burden (one of Kennedy’s alleged girlfriends) can't be trusted. (Unclear.) You never know what she might do. (Unclear.)

Haldeman then assures the President that Newbrand “will do anything that I tell him to … He really will. And he has come to me twice and absolutely, sincerely said, "With what you've done for me and what the President's done for me, I just want you to know, if you want someone killed, if you want anything else done, any way, any direction …"

President Nixon: The thing that I (unclear) is this: We just might get lucky and catch this son-of-a-bitch and ruin him for '76.

Haldeman: That's right.

President Nixon: He doesn't know what he's really getting into. We're going to cover him, and we are not going to take "no" for an answer. He can't say "no." The Kennedys are arrogant as hell with these Secret Service. He says, "Fine," and (Newbrand) should pick the detail, too.

Toward the end of this conversation, Nixon exclaims that Newbrand’s spying “(is) going to be fun,” and Haldeman responds: “Newbrand will just love it.”

Nixon also had a surveillance tip for Haldeman for his spy-to-be: “I want you to tell Newbrand if you will that (unclear) because he's a Catholic, sort of play it, he was for Jack Kennedy all the time. Play up to Kennedy, that "I'm a great admirer of Jack Kennedy." He's a member of the Holy Name Society. He wears a St. Christopher (unclear).” Haldeman laughs heartily at the President’s curious advice.

Despite the enthusiasm of Nixon and Haldeman, Newbrand apparently never produced anything of great value. When this particular round of Nixon’s spying on Kennedy was uncovered in 1997, The Washington Post quoted Butterfield as saying periodic reports on Kennedy's activities were delivered to Haldeman, but that Butterfield did not think any potentially damaging information was ever dug up.

SOURCE:

http://surftofind.com/tedkennedy

Why does that matter? The Warren Commission, and the nation's mass media, never heard about the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro until the Church Committee in 1975. You'd think that would be a matter of concern to all Americans, especially considering how then-vice president Nixon was head of the "White House Action Team" that contacted the Mafia for murder.

This is the sort of information citizens of a democracy shouldn't have to search the Internet to learn. It should be taught in school, or at the least, discussed in the nation's mass media.

[NuclearDem]

65. Terrific.

And this is relevant to Robert Parry...how, exactly?

Because I just see you trying to change the subject again.

[Octafish]

70. Like Robert Parry, Don Fulsom is a top journalist covering crimes of the State.

Just because you don't see the connection, NuclearDem, doesn't mean it's not there.

[NuclearDem]

73. Ah, well you'll excuse me not making the connection immediately.

It being buried beneath Warren Commission/CIA and other assorted tinfoil buzzwords and whatnot.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

75. Also like Parry, Fulsom had two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth.....

....and frequently partook of sustenance commonly known as "food."

It's unclear, however, whether or not Fulsom ever sullied his reputation by acting as the waterboy for an imperialistic government all for the desperate purposes of increasing traffic to his two-bit media outfit by attracting conspiracy minded individuals.

[sabrina 1]

36. He got it right on Bush/Cheney too. He has made enemies for his reporting on that criminal

administration. But he is a great journalist and ignores the naysayers, just keeps on doing his job, which is to find the facts and report them to the American people.

[840high]

86. Definitely.

[leftstreet]

17. DURec

[malaise]

22. K & R

for truth but remember Parry is now the enemy

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. Parry being Parry.

We're somehow supposed to believe that Putin's military invasion of Crimea and subsequent annexation of that territory--in blatant violation of prior treaties and international law--had absolutely nothing whatsoever to with the current situation in Ukraine and was merely a byproduct of events completely outside of Moscow's control.

But we're also supposed to believe that a supposed US backed coup that exists merely because Robert Parry said so without any type of corroborating evidence is completely the reason for Ukraine's troubles.

I will say this about Robert Parry--no one begs the question better than he does.

You read his pieces and you get the sense even he doesn't believe the shit he's spewing. He reminds me of those videos you find online about those multi-level marketing schemes where the person pushing the pyramid draws you in by all the accusations that the product is all a scam, and desperately attempts to convince you that it isn't actually a scam. But it never really comes off convincing enough. In the end, it's just snake oil.

[JEB]

37. Like the snake oil we bought the last time

neocons wanted a little shock and awe and all that money from the treasury.

[stevenleser]

44. Depending how you mean that, it's a good assessment. The neocons are the Putinistas

here and they are determined to justify Russia's unprovoked war of aggression.

[JEB]

47. Unprovoked war of aggression?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101699991

Regarding U.S. assurances that NATO would not be expanded, former Ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock took copious notes at the summit between U.S. President George H. W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in Malta just three weeks after the Berlin Wall fell. Matlock was there again two months later (early February 1990) in Moscow when promises were made during the visit of then-Secretary of State James Baker, who told Gorbachev that if Russia would acquiesce to the peaceful reunification of Germany, NATO would not move “one inch” eastward. See “U.S. Welched on Promise NATO Would Not ‘Leapfrog’ Over Germany.”


I think the neocons are pushing us eastward via NATO and induced coups, drones and outright warfare whether in Ukraine, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan. Pax Americana is our own American Caliphate.

[stevenleser]

48. Yes an unprovoked war of aggression. That term has a specific meaning in terms of international law

The attempts to spin a Russian invasion and unprovoked war of aggression don't lack for originality and variation, I'll give you guys that.

According to international law, there are not very many ways to legally justify war.

When you yourself are not attacked, that eliminates many of them. When you then annex territory when you are not under imminent threat of attack, it makes it pretty clear.

You really need to re-evaluate your thinking on this if you are trying to justify it.

[JEB]

49. I cannot justify our war of aggression.

[stevenleser]

50. We didn't engage in one in the Ukraine situation. You are justifying GWb's invasion of Iraq if

you attempt to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Non-military political issues do not justify war.

[JEB]

53. Now that is some fancy dancing.

We are in no position to condemn war of aggression when we ourselves are not held to account for a much clearer abuse of International Law. You appear to be dancing to the neocon's drumbeats for another war. Let the German Bankers go fight this one if they must.

[stevenleser]

54. No dancing. You are apologizing for an unprovoked war of aggression, just like in Iraq. nt

[JEB]

57. Oh, it's the old "if you arn't with us, you're againsy us" trick.

What, no mushroom clouds?

[stevenleser]

76. Nope, you are engaging in apologia for an unprovoked war of aggression. Simple as that. nt

[JEB]

87. Nope, you are engaging in fear mongering and jingoism. Easy peasy, works like a charm.

[stevenleser]

93. Nope. You're projecting. nt

[sabrina 1]

38. This is why you lose credibility on this subject. No one invaded Crimea. It is an insult to the

people there to dismiss what they themselves did, took control of their own lives. Fortunately for them, even the West doesn't question their right to make that decision, too evidence to try to do that. At least they have not been attacked and killed by their own government so it appears they made a very good decision.

Too bad the others didn't do the same thing, they would not be running away from their homes or being killed and terrorized by their own government.

[zappaman]

40. Um...he's not the one with no credibility.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/putin-admits-invading-ukrainian-crimea-denies-similar-invasion-of-southeast-ukraine/

http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/03/03/putin-invades-crimea-obama-hardest-hit/

Maybe you should tell Putin he didn't invade Crimea.
Do some reading before you accuse others of losing credibility.

[mythology]

94. Awkward

I don't understand why people think that Putin's the good guy, or that he's not elbow deep in the muck that has become eastern Ukraine.

The world, and most likely Russia, will be a much better place in the future when Putin is gone.

[NuclearDem]

41. "No one invaded Crimea."

You might actually top the 50 quadbajillion households watching RT...

[zappaman]

42. It's like another reality, ain't it?

[FSogol]

45. Seriously.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

43. No one invaded Crimea? Really?

Hell, even Putin disagrees with you:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/russia-putin-crimea-idUKL6N0N921H20140417

Putin admits Russian forces were deployed to Crimea

MOSCOW, April 17 Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:51am BST

(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said Russian forces had been active in Crimea in order to support local defence forces, the first time he has admitted deployment of Russian troops on the Black Sea peninsula.

"We had to take unavoidable steps so that events did not develop as they are currently developing in southeast Ukraine," Putin said in a televised call-in with the nation. "Of course our troops stood behind Crimea's self-defence forces."

And no, the fact that there were pre-existing Russian troops on the naval bases as allowed by the Budapest Memorandum does not mean there wasn't an invasion. Troops left the bases and occupied civilian areas throughout the peninsula.

[sabrina 1]

60. That is a link to part of the Western MSM which is hardly a reliable source. Russia always had

troops in Crimea, were NOT aware of that? What Putin stated was that this was true. Why would he or anyone else deny what is a known fact??

[Tommy_Carcetti]

64. You're hopeless. I don't even know where to start.

Are you denying Putin said that and it's some sort of "Western MSM" fabrication? Or what?

Russia was allowed to have its troops only on its naval bases in Crimea. That's it. Those were a very small part of the overall peninsula. In late February and early March, Russian troops entered the Crimean mainland, i.e. beyond those naval bases, and occupied civilian areas and Ukrainian military installations. Do you see the difference?

[sabrina 1]

82. There's that condescension again. I am saying one thing, the Western Media is not reliable any more

than any other media. You appear, and since I'm not certain of this so this is my impression from your comments, to totally trust the Western Media. From your comments, most of your information appears to come from the MSM. The US Corporate Media is the least trusted media among those who recall their deadly lies, and I say 'deadly' because, their collaboration with the criminal liars who led this country to war directly helped kill untold numbers of innocent people.

That makes them nothing more than an arm of the warmongers who seem to have a grip on the US government. So ANYTHING they say about Foreign Policy issues is not just suspect now, it is simply not credible.

You may totally trust them if you wish, just don't except DUers, or 'useful idiots' as you called us, to be as trusting as you seem to be. Reuters, who owns that 'news' organization now?

I prefer to seek out other sources that have yet to prove to me that they have lied any nation into a deadly and forever war. As soon as that happens, they will also go on my 'not credible' list.

[Duckhunter935]

101. Did Putini say that or not?

Were the Russian troops outside the areas agreed to by the Budapest memorandum signed by both sides?

[NuclearDem]

66. But RT is totally reliable.

Russia had troops on its military bases in the peninsula. Those bases were Russian territory. The rest of Crimea was Ukranian territory, and Russian troops had no right to be there.

[sabrina 1]

69. No media is totally reliable, and especially after they have been caught lying over and over again.

Which is why the MSM here has such low ratings, they are not trusted.

But if you think RT is totally reliable, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. A lot of people think the MSM is totally reliable also. I don't think any of them are, which is why I read every possible resource that is available.

To each their own.

[NuclearDem]

72. Well, of course RT is totally reliable.

I have it on good authority, in fact, that it's watched by 50 bajillion households.

Argumentum ad populum!

[Duckhunter935]

102. that may be why most of us use multible sourcing

You seem to only use RT

[sabrina 1]

110. Do I know you?

'you seem to only use RT'?? I don't believe we have met and that statement certainly proves me right.

You seem to only use the totally discredited Corporate Media btw. I say that because I have found over the years that people who rely on the US Corporate controlled 'media' tend to make assumptions, such as you just did, rather than seek out facts. Assumptions demonstrate a lack of interest in facts and tend to be wrong most of the time.

Eg, a person who seeks out the FACTS would have said to me here 'What are YOUR sources' rather than 'I have super secret powers which makes it possible for me to watch you through my computer screen to see what you are reading'.

Now I know a whole lot about your sources, not because I have super secret powers, I don't believe in magic, but you just told me a whole lot about your sources right there.

Thanks for the comment. I am very interested in political dialogue on the internet. You'd be amazed when you actually study it, how you can actually see patterns among those who are interested in fact based dialogue and those who have been influenced by think tank manipulation of the dialogue. It's a very interesting study which might even become degree worthy in the not too distant future.

My guess about your sources may or may not be correct and because I am very interested ONLY in facts, I would like to test my theories, so:

What ARE the sources you use? What sources to you, are credible?

[reorg]

109. No, and here is what Putin actually said

in·va·sion
noun \in-ˈvā-zhən\
Definition of INVASION
1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

Invasion

An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.

The armed men in military uniform without insignia, dubbed “the little green men” or “the polite people,” who were present in Crimea before and during the referendum there, were Russian troops, Vladimir Putin acknowledged speaking at a Q&A session with on Thursday. The president said he never concealed the fact from his foreign counterparts, and explained to them that it was the only way to ensure the referendum on the region’s status would be carried out peacefully.

“Crimean self-defense forces were of course backed by Russian servicemen,” Putin said. “They acted very appropriately, but as I’ve already said decisively and professionally.” ...

"It was impossible in any other way to ensure the open, honest and decent way for people to express their opinion," the president said.

He explained that measures taken by Russia in Crimea prevented the situation there from developing the way it does now in the south and east of Ukraine.

We had to do it, the president said, so that “there would be no tanks, no nationalist military units and heavily armed people with radical views.”

http://rt.com/news/crimea-defense-russian-soldiers-108/

[Tommy_Carcetti]

112. So Putin didn't invade Crimea in February/March because Odessa in May?

Follow again?

[reorg]

113. as to what Putin actually said

you may refer to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5487166

“Crimean self-defense forces were of course backed by Russian servicemen,” Putin said. “They acted very appropriately, but as I’ve already said decisively and professionally.” ...

"It was impossible in any other way to ensure the open, honest and decent way for people to express their opinion," the president said.

The video clips in this post show the situation where Russian servicemen unfortunately did not happen to be present and, as a consequence, predictable violence on behalf of "nationalist military units and heavily armed people with radical views" occurred.

I could post similar images of the violence during the coup in Kiev but I believe you have seen them already.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

118. Clearly you have no idea as to the events of the mob riots in Odessa...

....or you choose to be willfully blind to them.

Odessa has become to the pro-Russian crowd what Benghazi has become to the US right wingers. A tragic event that unfortunately has become so propagandized and distorted that the reality of what actually happened was lost to them long ago.

Now regarding Crimea.....

Putin moved into Crimea not even a week after Yanukovych left Kiev. There was barely any time for Crimea to even react to that event for Putin to claim that a grave crisis existed requiring a Russian invasion.

His rationalizations were completely farcical. You have to admit that. And you have to admit that by moving his troops into Crimea proper that he was in violation of a treaty that Russia itself was a signatory to.

I can't believe that you would actually justify Putin's invasion of Crimea, but there you have it. I guess I shouldn't be so surprised given your insistence that that was a "coup" in Ukraine.

[BillZBubb]

55. People like you are so uninformed it is frightening and dangerous.

Russian didn't have to "invade" Crimea since by treaty they have large military bases there. The Russian attacked from within and seized the country.

[sabrina 1]

59. Exactly, thank you, at least YOU know why they didn't invade Crimea. Was that comment intended

for the other three responses to my comment, because I KNEW these facts which apprently the others did not.

And persoally attacking DUers here is against the rules, just FYI.

[NuclearDem]

67. Ridiculous.

So by your logic, if US forces at Guantanamo moved into and annexed parts of Cuba, that wouldn't constitute an invasion.

[Duckhunter935]

103. What utter bull

they left the bases agreed to by both governments, Sunk a ship blocking the Ukrainian navy in port. you do know blockades are against international laws right. By the way after blockading those ships, the Russians stormed them and took them over. That is an invasion.

[joshcryer]

104. By law the troops there could not leave without permission.

They invaded by leaving the base without permission. Common damn sense.

Your argument could be used to invade Cuba via Guantanamo.

[stevenleser]

32. LMFAO! EU is to blame for Russia's war of aggression BC they proposed an association with Ukraine!

Anyone who takes him seriously at all after this steaming pile should be ashamed of themselves.

[sabrina 1]

39. Yeah, they said that about him when he was writing about the Cheney/Bush criminal administration

also. His work on Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Condi et al was mocked and attacked by the Right, but as it turned out, he was totally accurate in his reporting. The mockers have gone pretty silent since then.

I assume you were among those who didn't 'take him seriously' then too?

Btw, do you take the 'reporting' of the MSM seriously on this topic?

[MattSh]

80. Hundreds of hours of video and thousands of photo from the war zone daily...

And yet Kiev still can't prove Russian aggression. If there really has been an invasion, this advice by Dmitry Polikanov seems appropriate;

Why all this crying wolf? If Ukraine truly believes in the involvement of Russian troops, it should be persistent and declare war rather than announcing an invasion via a Twitter hashtag. It may sound old-fashioned in the age of undeclared wars, but any charges of that kind between states imply this act of last resort. All Ukrainian complaints to the international community otherwise look strange – accusations should be supported with strong evidence and real action. However, Russia and Ukraine continue to maintain diplomatic relations, discuss border and gas issues, all simultaneously with the statements about the intervention on the very same day.

[stevenleser]

81. Your entire post is debunked by the Russians themselves admitting their troops are there.

How you and other Putinistas are able to post this stuff without your conscience and higher reasoning centers nagging at you for the deception (self and otherwise) continues to amaze me.

[MattSh]

97. Link?

Put up or shut up. And please, not MSM propagandists interpretation of what they think some minor Russian functionary might have said. Put that up, if you can...

On edit: And please no quote saying individual Russians have volunteered. Well DUH! So far there's been confirmed participation, on both sides of the fight, of French, Spanish, Afghan, Chechnya, Polish, Canadians, British, Italian, German, Swedish, and an American (not counting the hundred of hired guns from Blackstone/Xe/Academi, of which there are hundreds). And those are only the ones I've head about.

[stevenleser]

98. Has been all over media for the last week. Read it and weep

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Russia+admits+troops+crossed+into+Ukraine+after+captured+with+video/10151714/story.html?__federated=1

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4189557.ece

https://mobile.twitter.com/CanadaNATO/status/504651534198927361

[MattSh]

100. Ooooh, ten soldiers...

Sounds like the war will be over in a couple of days now...



Besides, all three of them qualify as MSM sources. You'll never understand what's going on that way.

PLUS: My original thesis still holds. I said "And yet Kiev still can't prove Russian aggression." What you linked to proves a small number of troops were captured; it does not proof aggression.

[stevenleser]

114. Reading is fundamental. Ten soldiers were CAPTURED. Surely you understand the difference, right? nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

120. Oh, silly Steven. They were just "vacationing."

To Donetsk. In their military uniforms.

I mean, who wouldn't want to vacation to a war zone wearing your military uniform?

[stevenleser]

127. LMAO, the lies and sad justifications from Putin and his apologists are pathetic and

getting more so by the moment.

[polly7]

46. Good read, Karmadillo. nt.

[stevenleser]

51. I suppose, if you like fiction. nt

[polly7]

52. I don't mind yours so much when I read it.

(some of it, anyway)

This, however, is not fiction and I enjoy reading the truth.

[stevenleser]

77. I don't post fiction. I have citations that prove the facts underlying my positions. nt

[polly7]

91. Excuse me, but.....

[nationalize the fed]

56. Victoria Nuland

The various twisting of these words would be funny if not so sad


"Fuck the EU"- Foul Mouth Assistant Sec of State Nuland

Nuland’s husband is historian Robert Kagan, Council on Foreign Relations member, and co-founder of the think-tank "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland

The Kosovo war was a PNAC war. What a Coincidence! Lots of them. It's Coincidence Theory!
http://web.archive.org/web/20040214052139/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt together toured the opposition camp in Kiev in December

An apparently bugged phone conversation in which a senior US diplomat disparages the EU over the Ukraine crisis has been posted online. The alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, appeared on YouTube on Thursday. It is not clearly when the alleged conversation took place...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[stevenleser]

84. If one accepts all that at face value, it does not justify an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia

There is a lot more too it than the Russian narrative of Nuland's actions. But again, even if we accept the Russian version at face value, it does not justify Russia's unprovoked war of aggression.

[Octafish]

96. PNAC in Ukraine

Thank you for putting it into words and the links, nationalize the fed. These people want war. Some DUers pretend not to get it.

[BillZBubb]

58. Both sides are telling big lies and Parry's article is misleading.

The battle for Ukraine has been going on for some time. The Russians used their local dominance to swing Ukraine into their sphere, the West used economic incentives and propaganda to swing it their way, and back and forth. This is the pretty normal historically for buffer states between great powers. Both sides lie about their motivations and actions. Neither side is pure and honest.

The fact that a bunch of neocon clowns are involved doesn't discredit the desire of Europe to have Ukraine as an ally and trading partner. Nor does it discredit the aspirations of a great many Ukrainians for that to be the case.

The fact remains that Putin illegally seized a large chunk of another nation's land. The West didn't do that. Putin did that. If people cannot understand the huge difference that makes in this situation, they are purposefully ignorant.

[MattSh]

83. Sort of like this you mean?

I see the benefit for the farmer, but how does the cow benefit?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

63. After reading Parry's piece again, I'm even more astonished how idiotic it is.

So Maidan happens. We all see it on television. It's massively huge, clearly far more than just a few western agent provocateurs out there. And we know they have a legitimate gripe about Yanukovych's corruption. And we also know that many of them are not to pleased about Yanukovych cuddling up to a man who's gone on record as claiming that Ukraine doesn't exist as a country. So there's real--not imaginary--anger there.

Protesters get beaten. Protests don't stop. Protesters get shot. Protests don't stop.

Finally, Yanukovych realizes he's not a very popular man, but he's still a very wealthy man, and he can still live a very comfortable life somewhere else (such as Russia). So he sends moving trucks to his house, gathers up all the antique vases and oil paintings he can possibly fit, and choppers out of Ukraine in his fleet of helicopters and into Russia.

Yankovych out, interim government in, elections scheduled for May. Boom. Regime change.

At this point, Putin's still been pretty much a side player throughout it all. Nothing more than a few phone calls with Yanukovych, probably just offering him the sanctuary in Russia that he ultimately accepted.

Putin's got a choice to make. He could recognize that Ukraine is its own country, that Ukraine is not part of Russia, that he cannot control what happens in Ukraine, and no matter how much he wants Ukraine to be part of a Russian trade partnership, the Ukrainians just don't want that to happen.

He could:

A: Dust off his hands and walk away at this point. In that case, Ukrainian elections are held in May. The entire country gets to vote. There's probably some residual grumbling between east and west, but the country likely slowly begins to heal and try and get back to normal. Maybe it joins the EU. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe Crimea holds a real legitimate vote as had been scheduled and decides it wants to be independent. Maybe it wants to remain part of Ukraine. And that's pretty much it.

OR.....

B: Putin can realize how weak the Ukrainian government is just having gone through a revolution, how weak the Ukrainian military is after decades of waste and corruption, and then size up Ukraine and all the parts of it he's long seen as being "historically Russian." Starting with Crimea. Which already has Russian troops stationed at the naval bases there, meaning it's an easy in against token opposition.

Guess what choice Putin makes?

Yup. Choice B. He sends his men into Crimea sans insignia, hastily schedules a sham plebiscite asking Crimeans to be annexed into Russia, announces a laughably unbelievable yes result, and takes in Russia. And then announces retroactively that he's invaded Crimea.

But wait, there's more.

He then sends in FSB guys like Girkin and Borodai into Luhansk and Donetsk, where they meet up with local nutcases like Gubarev and Pushilin. Government buildings in various towns are seized by armed force, checkpoints are erected around the cities, there's all sorts of kidnapping and murdering and mayhem. "Volunteers" come across the Russian border. Weaponry--lots and lots and lots of it--comes across the Russian border. An even more laughably sham plebecite with an even more laughably unbelievable yes result is undertaken. Meanwhile, these separatists prevent any citizens under their control from voting in the May presidential elections.

The Ukrainian government waits about a month to see if these separatists will simply walk away. Of course, they don't. The government launches an operation to uproot them. It's not the prettiest or most well-thought out of operations. Still, by July the Ukrainians have gained the upper hand. Then MH17 is shot out of the sky, all logical signs point to the separatists as the culprits, and whatever remaining public support for the separatists that had remains all but vanishes. So it looks like Ukraine may finally be on the way to stability and some semblance of normality might be around the corner.

But wait, there's more.

In about a two week time period, the situation in Eastern Ukraine does a near 180. Towns and areas retaken by the Ukrainian government fall back into separatist hands. All of this so coincidentally happens when there's a huge spike in reports of border crossings by the Russian military. And you now have reports of the Ukrainian army facing off against Crimea-ish insignia-less troops, extremely well armed and extremely well-trained, far more than what they had seen before. All the while, Putin's talking about how Ukrainians and Russians are the same people, about statehood for "Novorossiya", about how he could take Kyiv in two weeks if he wanted, really inflammatory stuff.

All of this--I mean, all of this--is Putin's handiwork. All of this rests on Putin's shoulders. Whatever talk there was about Nuland's cookies or her phone calls is so far removed from the current situation, and so incredibly insignificant to the situation that we are faced with today. To argue anything else would be to insult the intelligence of thinking people everywhere.

But that is just what Parry has chosen to do here.

[Octafish]

74. ''All of this--I mean, all of this--is Putin's handiwork.'' -- Tommy_Carcetti

vs.

"Fuck the EU." -- State Department official to US Ambassador to Ukraine regarding Europe's early efforts to defuse the crisis between protesters seeking to oust and those seeking to preserve the democratically elected government.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/06/state-dept-official-caught-on-tape-fuck-the-eu.html

"I think we're in play." -- US Ambassador in reply.

I'll go with Robert Parry.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

79. You show me the evidence as to how the US actually executed the forcible removal of Yanukovych....

.....from power, and I will gladly admit I was wrong.

To date, I've never seen anything of the sort.

Putting all that aside, even if one were to assume strictly arguendo that the US was somehow responsible for the removal of Yanukovych from power, how on earth is that supposed to condone Putin going into Crimea almost immediately and claiming it for himself? Because that's when the territorial integrity of Ukraine's borders began being called into question.

[stevenleser]

85. The irony is, even if the US completely put the uprising up to it, it does not justify Russia's

unprovoked war of aggression. Putinistas cannot get there because according to international law, justifying war where one is not physically attacked is a very heavy lift.

Without that, you are engaging in a war crime. This is the same justification for what Bush did in Iraq being a war crime.

[Octafish]

90. If word out of the mouths of US State Department officials won't do it, perhaps you need new media.

It takes a fish out of water.

“One thing about which fish know exactly nothing is water, since they have no anti-environment which would enable them to perceive the element they live in.” ― Marshall McLuhan, War and Peace in the Global Village



"My main theme is the extension of the nervous system in the electric age, and thus, the complete break with five thousand years of mechanical technology. This I state over and over again. I do not say whether it is a good or bad thing. To do so would be meaningless and arrogant." ― Marshall McLuhan, letter to Robert Fulford, 1964. Letters of Marshall McLuhan (1987), p. 300

"The mother tongue is propaganda."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024270441

[Tommy_Carcetti]

92. Someone in the State Department confessed to forcibly removing Yanukovych from power?

Cite, please.

[zappaman]

99. It was the BFEE.

No confession needed.

[Octafish]

107. Funny how you never find anything wrong with the BFEE, zappaman.

Bartcop coined the term "Bush Family Evil Empire" to denote the 60-year pre-eminence of one family in the formation of the political philosophy in the United States, that of the War Party. And, yes, personally, I have tried to chronicle their influence on the ascension of the national security state. At least three generations have held high national office, while also making big money off war and looting the public Treasury. The last president of the United States, a man who wasn't elected fair and square by any stretch of the imagination, actually said: "Money trumps peace" at a press conference. For some reason, not a single "journalist" had the guts to ask him what he meant by that.

While these warmongers' impact on the world may be funny to you, they aren't funny to me.

[stevenleser]

117. You mean like the Iraq war that every DUer disagreed with including zappaman? nt

[Octafish]

122. Got a link for that?

It didn't show up on DU/GOOGLE.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

123. Pretty lazy, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4086156

Given that this shows up on the first page of zappa's journal.

[Octafish]

125. Tag Team, huh?

BTW, your link talks about Bugliosi's book, written when?

[zappaman]

158. Doesn't take a tag team to show you are making things up again.

Par for the course.

[Octafish]

161. Like where you posted all the negative stuff about the BFEE?

Except you didn't post negative stuff about the BFEE.

[stevenleser]

139. Check out Octafish's responses throughout the thread from #107 down. Its deliberate.

He's not discussing, he's attempting to obfuscate.

[stevenleser]

126. Link for what? nt

[Octafish]

128. Where zappaman posted in opposition to the Iraq invasion.

You know, an OP where zappaman posted in opposition to the Iraq invasion.

[stevenleser]

129. You are accusing some DUers of being in favor of the Iraq war? You need proof otherwise?

But you let Putin get away with the lies he has told to justify his unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine?

You really need to reevaluate how you think about things.

I just checked and someone apparently found the information you wanted about Zappaman quite easily and posted it for you.

[Octafish]

131. No need to write what I didn't.

Just look at the posts yourself. As for the information found, no, it doesn't show that.

[stevenleser]

132. You accused Zappaman of not being against anything the BFEE does. Iraq was one of those things.

You wanted proof of him being against the Iraq war.

In other words, I characterized what you said exactly right.

[Octafish]

133. No. That's what you said.

In another post, to which you now refer, he made light of the BFEE. I answered by pointing out why the BFEE is nothing to joke about.

[stevenleser]

134. Your post #107 is only a few above this. Its not like its from another OP.

You are embarrassing yourself.

[Octafish]

135. I write about the BFEE and that's embarrassing?

What did you write that adds to what we know about the BFEE, stevenleser?

[stevenleser]

138. You suggested Zappaman didnt object to anything about the BFEE. Which he did and obviously so.

So yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

[Octafish]

140. Right. So he had nothing to say. Seems you don't either.

Does that make sense?

[stevenleser]

142. We both object to what the BFEE did with Iraq. As I have already told you and was proven.

How many times will I need to repeat the same things to you or are you hoping I get tired of it if you keep going around in circles?

[Octafish]

143. It may satisfy your mind, stevenleser.

It does not show up on DU/GOOGLE.

[stevenleser]

146. Its in post #123 above. Once again, how many times do we have to post something before it sinks in

for you?

[Octafish]

149. Except it doesn't show what you said it does.

Going from your responses, I'm really not sure if you understand the issue anyway.

[stevenleser]

150. OK, lets try this very slowly.

#1 - You claim Zappaman doesnt object to anything the BFEE does

#2 - The Iraq war was a BFEE enterprise

#3 - The very first page of Zappaman's journal shows he objects to the Iraq war.

And just in case you were wondering about me. Here is my blog post from around two weeks prior to the Iraq war.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/142834/message/1047272702/Reasons+for+attacking+Iraq+exposed+as+lies,+lies+and+damned+lies

Here is a hint. You have lost this argument. Your position was nothing more than ridiculous demagoguery and apologia anyway and now even that has been thoroughly debunked. Give it a rest already.

[Octafish]

166. Don't need to go slow.

Where you're at comes through loud and clear.

[zappaman]

163. Sorry dude.

I've always been against that bullshit war. It's how I found DU!
But sadly, just more smears from you, eh Brad?
Seems like you are flailing and failing again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4086156
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3923484

[Octafish]

167. Brad? Is that an attempt to smear me as Bradblog?

If so, I'd rather stand with Bradblog than with you and sduderstadt, zappaman.

How many times did you meet Frank Zappa? Two? Three? Never?

[zappaman]

168. Don't act like we aren't buds, Brad.

Don't know what BradBlog is.

I met Zappa slightly more times than you met an astronaut.
Which has nothing to do with your post. just as your response has nothing to do with the fact that you once again have smeared me and tried to weasel out of it.
This makes me sad, dude.
Why do you feel it necessary to smear DUers?

[Octafish]

169. So who is Brad you refer to?

BTW: I've no need to smear you, zappaman. Your own posts show who you are just fine.

[zappaman]

170. Why do you smear DUers, dude?

I don't know ANY DUers who were for the Iraq invasion or who have nice things to say about Bush or Cheney.
Do you?
Any links for your smears?


BTW, can you make it this Sunday for opening week football?
Having a BBQ and beers and would love to see ya!

[Octafish]

173. Except it's not a smear to point out you defending the BFEE.

As in your reply 99 above.

[zappaman]

174. Why do you smear DUers, Brad?

Show me how that posts "defends the BFEE".

Take your time...

[Octafish]

175. It's part of a pattern.

[zappaman]

176. Yes, your smears and dodging of your own words is certainly a pattern.

See you Sunday!
Good luck to the Lions!

[Octafish]

178. Seems like you're on to me.

Look forward to meeting you.

[zappaman]

184. We all are, dude.

Go Lions!

[Octafish]

108. You mean, apart from where DUers up and down this thread have shown you?

[font size="6"]"I think we're in play."[/font size]

-- Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/06/state-dept-official-caught-on-tape-fuck-the-eu.html

Failing to see what is in front of you doesn't reflect well on your abilities as an analyst, Tommy_Carcetti.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

111. All I've ever seen is references to a phone call. One that happened weeks before Yanukovych left.

A phone call where Nuland and Pratt discuss their preferences as to who they would like see leading Ukraine.

Discussing a preference of who you'd like to see in charge is far, far different from actually putting them in power.

If it's your claim that the US actually did something to remove Yanukovych from power, it's your burden to show evidence that they did something other than just expound on a phone call.

In the very early morning on February 22, 2014, Victor Yanukovych's entourage is seen flying away from his Kyiv estate. Arguably, that is the moment of regime change.

So how did the US force him to get on the helicopter and out of the country? And if are claiming he was supposedly being forced to run for his life, how can you explain that he took three whole days to pack up all his belongings, including various valuable knick knacks?

How did it supposedly happen?

[Octafish]

116. Preferences? LOL.

That's what was said. You don't like it, that's your problem.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

119. *How* did the "coup" happen?

How was Yanukovych forcibly removed?

You go ahead and tell me. Or admit you don't have any evidence. Your choice.

[Octafish]

124. America's Coup Machine: Destroying Democracy Since 1953

U.S. efforts to overthrow foreign governments leave the world less peaceful, less just and less hopeful.

By Nicolas J.S. Davies
AlterNet / April 8, 2014

EXCERPT...

Ukraine's former security chief, Aleksandr Yakimenko, has reported that the coup-plotters who overthrew the elected government in Ukraine, "basically lived in the (U.S.) Embassy [3]. They were there every day." We also know from a leaked Russian intercept [4] that they were in close contact with Ambassador Pyatt and the senior U.S. official in charge of the coup, former Dick Cheney aide Victoria Nuland, officially the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. And we can assume that many of their days in the Embassy were spent in strategy and training sessions with their individual CIA case officers.

To place the coup in Ukraine in historical context, this is at least the 80th time the United States has organized a coup or a failed coup [5] in a foreign country since 1953. That was when President Eisenhower discovered in Iran that the CIA could overthrow elected governments who refused to sacrifice the future of their people to Western commercial and geopolitical interests. Most U.S. coups have led to severe repression, disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, corruption, extreme poverty and inequality, and prolonged setbacks for the democratic aspirations of people in the countries affected. The plutocratic and ultra-conservative nature of the forces the U.S. has brought to power in Ukraine make it unlikely to be an exception.

Noam Chomsky calls William Blum's classic, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, [6] "Far and away the best book on the topic." If you're looking for historical context for what you are reading or watching on TV about the coup in Ukraine, Killing Hope will provide it. The title has never been more apt as we watch the hopes of people from all regions of Ukraine being sacrificed on the same altar as those of people in Iran (1953); Guatemala(1954); Thailand (1957); Laos (1958-60); the Congo (1960); Turkey (1960, 1971 & 1980); Ecuador (1961 & 1963); South Vietnam (1963); Brazil (1964); the Dominican Republic (1963); Argentina (1963); Honduras (1963 & 2009); Iraq (1963 & 2003); Bolivia (1964, 1971 & 1980); Indonesia (1965); Ghana (1966); Greece (1967); Panama (1968 & 1989); Cambodia (1970); Chile (1973); Bangladesh (1975); Pakistan (1977); Grenada (1983); Mauritania (1984); Guinea (1984); Burkina Faso (1987); Paraguay (1989); Haiti (1991 & 2004); Russia (1993); Uganda (1996);and Libya (2011). This list does not include a roughly equal number of failed coups, nor coups in Africa and elsewhere in which a U.S. role is suspected but unproven.

The disquieting reality of the world we live in is that American efforts to destroy democracy, even as it pretends to champion it, have left the world less peaceful, less just and less hopeful. When Harold Pinter won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, at the height of the genocidal American war on Iraq, he devoted much of his acceptance speech [7] to an analysis of this dichotomy. He said of the U.S., "It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis… Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be, but it is also very clever."

The basic framework of U.S. coups has hardly evolved since 1953. The main variables between coups in different places and times have been the scale and openness of the U.S. role and the level of violence used. There is a strong correlation between the extent of U.S. involvement and the level of violence. At one extreme, the U.S. war on Iraq was a form of regime change that involved hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and killed hundreds of thousands of people. On the other hand, the U.S. role in General Suharto's coup in Indonesia in 1965 remained covert even as he killed almost as many people. Only long after the fact didU.S. officials take credit for their role [8] in Suharto's campaign of mass murder, and it will be some time before they brag publicly about their roles in Ukraine.

But as Harold Pinter explained, the U.S. has always preferred "low-intensity conflict" to full-scale invasions and occupations. The CIA and U.S. special forces use proxies and covert operations to overthrow governments and suppress movements that challenge America's insatiable quest for global power. A coup is the climax of such operations, and it is usually only when these "low-intensity" methods fail that a country becomes a target for direct U.S. military aggression. Iraq only became a target for U.S. invasion and occupation after a failed CIA coup in June 1996. [9] The U.S. attacked Panama in 1989 only after five CIA coup attempts [10] failed to remove General Noriega from power. After long careers as CIA agents, both Hussein and Noriega had exceptional knowledge of U.S. operations and methods that enabled them to resist regime change by anything less than overwhelming U.S. military force.

But most U.S. coups follow a model that has hardly changed between 1953 and the latest coup in Ukraine in 2014. This model has three stages:

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/world/americas-coup-machine-destroying-democracy-1953

There's that, which documents what happened in Ukraine. You want the receipts for all the actions, too?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

136. Okay.

Your proof of a coup was a sloppily written AlterNet piece that relies mainly on affirming the consequent, i.e., because the US has been involved in regime changes in foreign countries in the past, it automatically means the US was involved in Ukraine's regime change.

Unfortunately, as it relates to Ukraine specifically, Davies subtly alters the timeline of actual events and omits key facts in order to prove his theory.

For example, Davies claims that there was a vote to remove Yanukovych in the Rada, and after the vote, Yanukovych fled Kiev and called it a coup.

In fact, Yanukovych's helicopters left Kiev in the very early morning of February 22nd. The vote to remove Yanukovych actually didn't take place until the afternoon of February 22nd, which was after Yanukovych had left and after the police had ceased obeying Yanukovych's orders. So Davies completely reverses the cause and effect.

The piece also completely ignores the evidence (demonstrated in surveillance video of Yanukovych's residence) that shows that Yanukovych had been planning to leave for at least three days prior to his ultimate departure. Moving trucks arrived on February 19th. This means that Yanukovych was already planning on leaving before a) the sniper shootings of protesters on the Maidan (February 20) and b) the brokered deal that would have left Yanukovych in power for the time being but would have sped up elections (February 21). So clearly, this was not the actions of a man feeling that he had no choice but to flee for his life.

At least on a subliminal level, Davies himself seems to acknowledge he has a flimsy argument, as evidenced here:

The main thing that distinguishes the U.S. coup in Ukraine from the majority of previous U.S. coups was the minimal role played by the Ukrainian military. Since 1953, most U.S. coups have involved using local senior military officers to deliver the final blow to remove the elected or ruling leader. The officers have then been rewarded with presidencies, dictatorships or other senior positions in new U.S.-backed regimes. The U.S. military cultivates military-to-military relationships to identify and groom future coup leaders, and President Obama's expansion of U.S. special forces operations to 134 countries around the world suggests that this process is ongoing and expanding, not contracting.

So the fact that the situation in Ukraine does not meet the M.O. of US backed coups should immediately raise some red flags as to this theory's validity. In an attempt to save face, Davies hastily argues that the US chose to use the ultranationalist groups Svoboda and Right Sector in place of the military as its coup agent. However, several practicalities make this a illogical leap. First of all, ultranationalists are not ones to cooperate with foreign powers in anything; they are by their inherent nature distrustful of outsiders. Secondly, it presupposes that the only individuals involved in the Maidan protests were Svoboda and Right Sector, when in fact the reality shows it was a wide spectrum of ideologies and people represented in the mass protests. Davies subtly hints earlier in his piece about instances past where protesters have been paid off or are actors, but when you have the movement the size of Maidan, such an argument is simply absurd.

A decent try on your part, I suppose, but some mere elementary research pokes large gaping and fatal holes in Davies' theory.

[Octafish]

141. Nothing you wrote is sourced.

Why?

[stevenleser]

144. When we source something, you ignore it and claim several posts later it wasnt sourced.

That is your MO.

[Octafish]

148. Really? Like Tag Team?

One sideshow or diversion or non-sequitur after another, except with multiple players?

[stevenleser]

151. Really? Like... does a source become invalid if more than one person cites it?

Are these really the kinds of debate and arguments you think do you any credit?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

145. Are you disputing the timeline?

The videos of Yanukovych packing up and leaving over the three day period can all be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/12/what-did-yanukovych-take-with-him-as-he-fled-his-mansion-paintings-guns-and-a-small-dog-according-to-new-video/

The vote to remove Yanukovych took place the day of February 22nd, after Yaukovych had left Kiev:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/02/how-ukraine-s-parliament-brought-down-yanukovych.html


Getting to the truth is pretty simple in this case, don't you agree?

[Octafish]

147. No, that's not it.

You were making out that the CIA had nothing to do with it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

152. It's your theory to prove.

I mean, if you want to argue that a CIA agent was somewhere in those videos holding a gun forcing Yanukovych to pack up and move out, fine, but you gotta prove it.

There's been no credible evidence put forward showing the CIA forcibly removed Yanukovych from power. All you've shown is a single recorded phone call between two State Department officials weeks before Yanukovych left discussing the situation and their personal preferences on the situation. That's not a whole lot, and regardless, the US State Department isn't the CIA.

[Octafish]

153. I've posited no theory.

In fact, I reported what experts have observed. And I sourced what I posted.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

154. So how did the CIA remove Yanukovych?

You say you've posted it, but I don't see it at all.

[Octafish]

156. Through covert means.

Right there, in Reply 124.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

159. Okay, let's look back at the Davies piece, if we must.

If you are claiming that as your "source."

And there's a lot of irrelevant gibberish to wade through.

The piece only makes two scant references to the CIA and Ukraine.

The first is when it cites an RT interview with the former chief of Security under Yanukovych, Oleksandr Yakimenko--hardly an impartial source, given his arguable complicity in the events in Maidan--who claims there was some shadowy mercenary group who were the sniper shooters at Maidan. From this dubious tidbit, Davies himself hypothesizes:

And we can assume that many of their days in the Embassy were spent in strategy and training sessions with their individual CIA case officers.

"We can assume...."

First, we have no idea exactly who these supposed "coup plotters" actually were, but according to Yakimenko and the Davies piece, they were living at the US embassy. And then Davies asks us to assume without any evidence whatsoever that these "coup plotters" were meeting with the CIA. Believe it or not, that's not even Yakimenko's claims. That's all Davies.

Gotcha. That's rock solid evidence right there. A RT interview of a disgraced Yanukovych official and Davies' own assumptions.

The other reference to the CIA and Ukraine is a quick reference to the favorite pro-Russian bogeyman Right Sector, who Davies claims (without evidence) "took charge" of the Maidan protests. Davies states:

(Right Sector) is partly funded by Ukrainian exiles in the U.S. and Europe, and may be a creation of the CIA.

"May be a creation of the CIA." No cite to this claim. This is Davies' completely talking out of his ass. (The only cite Davies provides at all regarding Right Sector is its general Wikipedia page, which I thought you said was a bad source).

And those two tidbits aside, they simply cannot debunk what I'm sure you saw on video: That over a course of three days (while the news on Maidan was at its most fast and furious), Viktor Yanukovych casually and without any alarm packed up truckloads of his belongs at his estate, got into his own helicopter under his own free will, and flew away.

That. Is. Not. A. Coup.

[Octafish]

160. That provides 'Plausible Deniability.'

Who do you think will benefit more from the coup?

The Ukrainian people.

Goldman Sachs.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

165. What provides plausible deniability? The video of Yanukovych packing up and leaving?

You're not making any sense now.

How would the video be plausible deniability of anything? Are you saying it was fake, like people say the moon landing was fake? Are we into moon-landing denial territory now?

This brings to mind the old saying, "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

[Tommy_Carcetti]

177. Got nothing? nt

[Octafish]

179. The CIA’S Mop-Up Man: LA Times Reporter Cleared Stories with Agency before Publication

BY KEN SILVERSTEIN

A prominent national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times routinely submitted drafts and detailed summaries of his stories to CIA press handlers prior to publication, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.

Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.

“I’m working on a story about congressional oversight of drone strikes that can present a good opportunity for you guys,” Dilanian wrote in one email to a CIA press officer, explaining that what he intended to report would be “reassuring to the public” about CIA drone strikes. In another, after a series of back-and-forth emails about a pending story on CIA operations in Yemen, he sent a full draft of an unpublished report along with the subject line, “does this look better?” In another, he directly asks the flack: “You wouldn’t put out disinformation on this, would you?”



Dilanian’s emails were included in hundreds of pages of documents that the CIA turned over in response to two FOIA requests seeking records on the agency’s interactions with reporters. They include email exchanges with reporters for the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other outlets. In addition to Dilanian’s deferential relationship with the CIA’s press handlers, the documents show that the agency regularly invites journalists to its McLean, Va., headquarters for briefings and other events. Reporters who have addressed the CIA include the Washington Post‘s David Ignatius, the former ombudsmen for the New York Times, NPR, and Washington Post, and Fox News’ Brett Baier, Juan Williams, and Catherine Herridge.

CONTINUED w/links...

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/

BTW: You responded to yourself.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

182. And this is proof the CIA faked the videos of Yanukovych how? nt

[Octafish]

183. Documents CIA manipulation of the media.

That's a problem for democracy.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

186. We're talking about a very specific case here.

Namely, the video of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych purported having his belongings packed up over the course of February 19-22, 2014 and then flying away.

Do you have any evidence that this specific video was faked or significantly altered?

[zappaman]

187. I think I can speak for Octafish.

What he is trying to tell you is that has zero, none, zilch, nada, NO evidence whatsoever that this video was faked or altered.
But the BFEE can do anything so...

Hope that clears things up for you.

[zappaman]

164. It is a coup.

If you look at the world and everything that happens in it thru the special BFEE lens!!!

[Octafish]

180. I've learned this much from zappaman...

[zappaman]

185. You're welcome!

[joshcryer]

105. Basically anyone with any remote ties to US media is a liar.

That's the meme. Even though 99% of the actual reporters on the ground in Ukraine are independent journalists who went through school, did training, had reporter credentials, and reported what they saw themselves.

It's absurd and not even worth considering. It's basically like saying meteorologists know more than climatologists when it comes to climate change. This argument is often, very often, used to deny that climate change is happening. And the same argument style happens with regards to anything that props up Russia's imperialist objectively fascist state with an unelected autocrat in charge (Putin, of course, having never won an election).

[truth2power]

88. I read that article on another site, today. Parry nails it....

Those who put their fingers in their ears and go, "Na na na na na" doesn't change the facts.

ETA: They're terrified, aren't they. Yep....working overtime.

[truth2power]

89. Der Spiegel... 9/01/2014

Analyse der militärischen Lage: Nato sieht Ukraine bereits als Verlierer des Konflikts

Von Benjamin Bidder und Matthias Gebauer




Prorussische Kämpfer haben den Flughafen Luhansk erobert, für Kiews Militär reiht sich Niederlage an Niederlage. Die Nato hält den Krieg in der Ostukraine schon jetzt für entschieden: Putins Einheiten sind zu überlegen.



Analysis of the military situation: NATO sees Ukraine as already loser



Pro-Russian fighters have captured the Luhansk airport, for Kiev military defeat is lined up to defeat. NATO holds war in eastern Ukraine already decided for: Putin's units are superior.


per Google Translate

I've probably screwed up this translation. Here's the link to Der Speigel: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-nato-haelt-niederlage-fuer-kiew-fuer-sicher-a-989308.html

[mythology]

95. Yes poor innocent little Putin

He's never done a thing to anybody and he just keeps being picked on.

Sure he invades other countries like Ukraine and Georgia and there's been that little issue in Chechnya and his support for bigoted laws against gays and the fact that more than 20% of the cases at the EU Court of Human Rights relate to Russia.

But that apparently won't stop Parry and others from relentlessly clinging to the utter fantasy that Putin isn't a war-mongering piece of trash.

[davidpdx]

106. I keep losing track of the reasons for the invasion of Crimea and Ukraine

The "protection" of ethnic Russians, no it was the "fascist overthrow" of Ukraine, no it's the NATO bases surrounding Russia, no it's the greedy EU, no it's the evil empire the US, wait no it's the corporate media.

That's almost as many reasons as Bush gave for invading Iraq in 2003. It is a shame some on DU support Russia's invasion of the Ukraine.

[stevenleser]

115. And that shows you exactly what's going on here. An unprovoked war of aggression by Russia they

keep throwing lies against the wall to justify to see if any of them will stick.

[KoKo]

137. Recommend....Good Read

[flamingdem]

155. Has anyone pointed out that the USA has a firm hand on its own backyard?

No? Figured.

[stevenleser]

171. Nothing about the US will justify an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. nt

[flamingdem]

172. I'm not trying to justify anything

just pointing out that the USA has had a clamp on its own backyard for centuries leading to puppet governments and proxy wars.

Pot n kettle stuff here. Of course we keep the veneer of democracy but don't mind overthrowing or not preventing the overthrow of democratically elected governments. Honduras and Venezuela come to mind as recent examples.

[jwirr]

157. Are we going to try to fix our economy by going back to the cold war era? I don't think it is going

to work. Back then we were not overstretched, we produced much of what we used at home in the USA, and we had not already given most of the wealth to the 1%.

[polly7]

162. aaaaaand ........... one more kick! nt.

[kelliekat44]

181. He thinks less of our media than I do. nt