Stanyon
WWMRD?
Once again the U.S. involved itself in a violent coup undermining democracy and supporting unsavoury characters as usual all the while the general western media/ supporting propagandists pretended the good guys wear white cowboy hats and the bad guys wear black Ushankas. Unfortunate and troubling as many here in the states seem to have little idea what actually happened and what the U.S. was actually supporting. The most interesting thing about all this is the claims in the western media before and after 2016 that Russians were attempting to energize the far right in Europe and the U.S, the very same thing the U.S. was doing in the Ukraine. I imagine the reason that Hillary was the favoured candidate in the U.S. is because she would have signed off on just about anything and everything the C.I.A. wanted to do worldwide and the short sighted useful idiots played along.
First a bit on Syria then to the Ukraine as they have similarities:
"It’s easy to forget that just two years ago, President Obama was determined to bomb Syria and remove the Assad regime, and U.S. establishment institutions were working to lay the groundwork for that campaign. NPR began dutifully publishing reports from anonymous U.S. officials that Syria had stockpiled large amounts of chemical weapons; the NYT was reporting that Obama was “increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down” Assad; Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced that forced removal of Assad was “a matter of national security” and “a matter of the credibility of the United States of America.”
Those opposed to the anti-Assad “regime change” bombing campaign argued that while some of the rebellion was composed of ordinary Syrians, the “rebels” the U.S. would arm and empower (i.e., the only effective anti-Assad fighters) were actually violent extremists and even terrorists aligned with Al Qaeda and worse. The people arguing that were invariably smeared as Assad apologists because this happened to be the same argument Assad was making: that the most effective fighters against him were jihadis and terrorists."
"A similar dynamic is at play in Russia and Ukraine. Yesterday, Obama’s top national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, told a Senate Committee “that he supports arming Ukrainian forces against Russian-backed separatists,” as the Washington Post put it. The U.S. has already provided “non-lethal” aid to Ukrainian forces, and Obama has said he is now considering arming them. Who, exactly, would that empower?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has long said that the Ukrainian coup of last year, and the subsequent regime in Kiev, is driven by ultra-nationalists, fascists, and even neo-Nazi factions. The Russian TV outlet RT also frequently refers to “the active role far-right groups have played on the pro-government side in Ukraine since the violent coup of the last year.”
Source:Clapper Calls for Arming Ukrainian Forces: Who Would That Actually Empower?
"Any doubts about the Obama administration’s real intentions in Ukraine should have been dispelled by the taped conversation between a top State Department official, Victoria Nuland (wife of leading neocon Robert Kagan), and the US ambassador in Kiev. The media predictably focused on the source of the “leak” and on Nuland’s verbal “gaffe”—“F**k the EU.” But the essential revelation was that high-level US officials were plotting to “midwife” a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its democratically elected president—that is, a coup. ( Read "Distorting Russia - How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine" by Stephen Cohen on The Nation website ).
The discussion between the two US officials included a detailed review of which right-wing opposition figures Washington is working to install in office, and how it is using the United Nations to rubber-stamp the operation. While Germany and other European powers have worked closely with the Obama administration in promoting the violent protests against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the leaked phone call reveals tensions between the imperial powers.
The utter criminality of Washington’s drive to install a pliant regime in Kiev sharply emerges in Nuland and Pyatt’s discussion of Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the neo-fascist All-Ukrainian Union (Svoboda) party. Nuland describes Tyahnybok as one of the “big three” within the opposition leadership.
These remarks confirm that there is no confusion whatsoever within the Obama administration that it is working in partnership with fascist movements in Ukraine.
Progressive media provides cover for US intentions in Ukraine
As expected, Russia-bashing in the build up to the Sochi Olympic games was the dominant narrative in centrist and 'liberal' media -- from CNN, MSNBC, PBS and NPR to Comedy Central and HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher.
But even left-leaning Democracy Now! has jumped on the anti-Russia bandwagon by quickly bad-mouthing Putin without realizing it is providing cover for the Obama administrations' intentions in Ukraine. By excessively running negative stories about Russia without context of the bigger picture, the likes of Amy Goodman pave the way for progressives to believe that the Russian-backed leader of Ukraine is the bad guy, thus little attention is given to Washington's role in the upheaval in the former Soviet republic.
Moscow believes that the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West’s ongoing, US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia. The U.S. is deftly using Russia's regressive anti-gay posture, mistreatment of ***** Riot and Sochi Olympic games difficulties to distract people in a classic bait and switch as it quietly foments a violent uprising in Ukraine."
Source:
Why is the U.S. supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine
First a bit on Syria then to the Ukraine as they have similarities:
"It’s easy to forget that just two years ago, President Obama was determined to bomb Syria and remove the Assad regime, and U.S. establishment institutions were working to lay the groundwork for that campaign. NPR began dutifully publishing reports from anonymous U.S. officials that Syria had stockpiled large amounts of chemical weapons; the NYT was reporting that Obama was “increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down” Assad; Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced that forced removal of Assad was “a matter of national security” and “a matter of the credibility of the United States of America.”
Those opposed to the anti-Assad “regime change” bombing campaign argued that while some of the rebellion was composed of ordinary Syrians, the “rebels” the U.S. would arm and empower (i.e., the only effective anti-Assad fighters) were actually violent extremists and even terrorists aligned with Al Qaeda and worse. The people arguing that were invariably smeared as Assad apologists because this happened to be the same argument Assad was making: that the most effective fighters against him were jihadis and terrorists."
"A similar dynamic is at play in Russia and Ukraine. Yesterday, Obama’s top national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, told a Senate Committee “that he supports arming Ukrainian forces against Russian-backed separatists,” as the Washington Post put it. The U.S. has already provided “non-lethal” aid to Ukrainian forces, and Obama has said he is now considering arming them. Who, exactly, would that empower?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has long said that the Ukrainian coup of last year, and the subsequent regime in Kiev, is driven by ultra-nationalists, fascists, and even neo-Nazi factions. The Russian TV outlet RT also frequently refers to “the active role far-right groups have played on the pro-government side in Ukraine since the violent coup of the last year.”
Source:Clapper Calls for Arming Ukrainian Forces: Who Would That Actually Empower?
"Any doubts about the Obama administration’s real intentions in Ukraine should have been dispelled by the taped conversation between a top State Department official, Victoria Nuland (wife of leading neocon Robert Kagan), and the US ambassador in Kiev. The media predictably focused on the source of the “leak” and on Nuland’s verbal “gaffe”—“F**k the EU.” But the essential revelation was that high-level US officials were plotting to “midwife” a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its democratically elected president—that is, a coup. ( Read "Distorting Russia - How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine" by Stephen Cohen on The Nation website ).
The discussion between the two US officials included a detailed review of which right-wing opposition figures Washington is working to install in office, and how it is using the United Nations to rubber-stamp the operation. While Germany and other European powers have worked closely with the Obama administration in promoting the violent protests against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the leaked phone call reveals tensions between the imperial powers.
The utter criminality of Washington’s drive to install a pliant regime in Kiev sharply emerges in Nuland and Pyatt’s discussion of Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the neo-fascist All-Ukrainian Union (Svoboda) party. Nuland describes Tyahnybok as one of the “big three” within the opposition leadership.
These remarks confirm that there is no confusion whatsoever within the Obama administration that it is working in partnership with fascist movements in Ukraine.
Progressive media provides cover for US intentions in Ukraine
As expected, Russia-bashing in the build up to the Sochi Olympic games was the dominant narrative in centrist and 'liberal' media -- from CNN, MSNBC, PBS and NPR to Comedy Central and HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher.
But even left-leaning Democracy Now! has jumped on the anti-Russia bandwagon by quickly bad-mouthing Putin without realizing it is providing cover for the Obama administrations' intentions in Ukraine. By excessively running negative stories about Russia without context of the bigger picture, the likes of Amy Goodman pave the way for progressives to believe that the Russian-backed leader of Ukraine is the bad guy, thus little attention is given to Washington's role in the upheaval in the former Soviet republic.
Moscow believes that the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West’s ongoing, US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia. The U.S. is deftly using Russia's regressive anti-gay posture, mistreatment of ***** Riot and Sochi Olympic games difficulties to distract people in a classic bait and switch as it quietly foments a violent uprising in Ukraine."
Source:
Why is the U.S. supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine
