|Home » Rants
60 Minutes to 16 March
An executive summary.
It wasn't two weeks ago when our cleaner came in, looked at the television set showing an afternoon soap, and blurted out:
'So what's with the Ukraine?'
We were startled. We didn't know. We had NFC. Yet 60 minutes later we had a fair idea. The following article is the result of those 60 minutes (and then some). See it as an executive summary; pursue the matter afterward on your own. The truth will out.
Sometime back in the end of last year a protest swelled in Kiev. The country's leader was corrupt; everybody knew that. The previous leader had also been corrupt, but beloved. She was in prison, put there by the current leader.
Things were peaceful as protests go, but then something happened. Neo-Nazi groups - and the Ukraine is ripe with them - began infiltrating the protests, and they got backing from forces in the west - from the EU and from the US.
The final goal seems to have been to engineer a coup in Kiev and then take control of Crimea. Crimea is a sensitive point in Russian defence strategy, as it contains one of Russia's three fleets and is Russia's only direct access to the Mediterranean. Perhaps a comparison to Pearl Harbour would be in order.
Grandmaster Vladimir Putin had been challenged by the US on two previous occasions in the year gone by. The US were poised to invade Syria, when John Cohen-Kerry let fly a blooper at a press conference. Putin jumped on it immediately and averted US plans for war.
Putin also secured the temporary sanctuary of Edward Snowden.
Score? Russia 2, US zip.
The coup in Kiev went much as planned. We know how it was planned because the conversation between the undersecretary of state and the US ambassador was leaked. This conversation was recorded most likely because supporters of the deposed Kiev leader had been clever enough to bug offices and phones all over the place before they were forced out of town.
The conversation detailed exactly how the coup was to take place and who was to assume power.
A further conversation was later leaked, showing that the infamous 'sniper fire' was actually perpetrated by neo-Nazis in the putsch on their own people, all in an effort to further stir the pot and make the putsch inevitable. The spectre of an unusually brutal and evil constellation began to emerge.
Western media spoke in one voice, the voice of the White House. There was speculation that Obama was overrun by neocons who still ran things, but Obama is the POTUS and not much of a leader if he lets them run the country. Cohen-Kerry continued to put foot in mouth and make things even more embarrassing. The western media began attacking RT who in turn countered with factual deconstructs of their clumsy lies and omissions.
Two RT presenters got in the line of fire. Abby Martin blurted something about never condoning military intervention - this in supposed reference to Russia and the Crimea - and added that she admitted she didn't know much about the situation.
Such as the fact that there was no intervention, that Russia's had a presence in the Crimea for hundreds of years, and that Putin's 'leg stretching' or perhaps 'gunboat diplomacy' broke no rules. This of course was totally obfuscated by the western media who continued to set out the idea that Russian troops had in fact crossed a national border. They hadn't.
Then Liz Wahl up and quit on air. Liz was based in the US for RT America. Her family came to the US after Budapest 1956. Liz claimed RT management had altered (skewed) the content of her interview with Ron Paul; Paul himself came forward to debunk her claim, as nothing had been altered, and he'd seen the transmitted show. The mystery remained, and speculation began as to what type of parachute agreement Liz had reached, and with whom.
Several - but not all - RT presenters and reporters came forward on their own to speak out against the propaganda, even Abby Martin herself. They were in no way in any type of compromising situation with their management.
One of the high points of this phase came when the RT news manager received a weird questionnaire from BuzzFeed. She published her answers online, as she regarded the whole thing as ridiculous.
Crimea go to the polls this Sunday 16 March. They're to vote on whether they want to leave the Ukraine. They've only been part of the Ukraine since 1954, and most of them are Russian anyway. The referendum results are a foregone conclusion; their parliament have already voted in favour of such a move; and all through the Crimea and eastern Ukraine there have been peaceful but massive demonstrations against the US coup.
The overall US idea seems to have been to wedge the Ukraine between organised crime, the IMF, the EU, and NATO, with the ultimate goal being to get the country into NATO. Look at a map. Find the Ukraine. Then look for the north Atlantic.
It was a bold move, but it was also an amateurish, clumsy move, typical of the US of today. There's no way such a plan would have worked or stood over time.
Putin continues to play an excellent game of chess, and the US counter with the only two games they know: poker and their special brand of football. In other words: bluffing and brute force.
A final word on the western MSM. We've who've been inside the storm of Assange in Sweden from the beginning have seen how they work. They're sloppy, they don't do the job, and they skew to please. Where others try their best to get the facts out, they counter with polemic, notoriously short on actual information. In a word: they are propaganda channels. Not the type under the formal auspices of a Dr Goebbels, which would be bad enough, but in an informal cozy symbiosis with the very powers they're supposed to hold in check.
The same thing has happened in the current Crimean crisis. Don't trust the media in the west, especially the media in the US, who will only rarely approach something remotely resemblant of the truth, the whole picture. Practice scientific journalism yourselves. That's the WikiLeaks way, and it works.
Try RT for a change. 99% of the time they're spot on, and we've yet to catch them doing anything but getting the truth out. Try them.
Remember when the attack dogs of the Guardian came out against Julian Assange's television show? How they tried to disparage not only the WikiLeaks leader but RT as well? Remember how that turned out? It was all propaganda. There was no truth to it at all.
Why should grandmaster Putin lie anyway? He has the truth on his side. Someone's even nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He certainly qualifies: three times this past year he's successfully thwarted attempts by the US to start new wars. And that's exactly the type of thing Alfred Nobel wanted to reward.