La Gran Guerra del Siglo XXI está próxima, chicos. Se huele en el aire. Se siente en cada página de
propaganda antirrusa de cada pasquín corporativo occidental. Se acuerdan del
New York Times? Pensar que el NYT era el diario “progre” del Imperio… Leemos la
siguiente nota de Paul Mansfield en el sitio web
Signs of the Times (www.sott.net):
Título: The New
York Times has totally lost the plot on Russia
Texto: An
editorial in the New York Times on 19th May illustrates clearly that this US
propaganda bullhorn of choice has totally lost the plot with its anti-Russian
hysteria.
The article in
question is a litany of misinformation, distortion and...dare I say it, lies.
Virtually every sentence is beyond the pale in misrepresenting the actions of
Russia under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, the unmitigated bias serving to
present the USA as a bastion of goodness and benign intention.
It is difficult
to know where to start and end with this piece of full spectrum Orwellianism,
but there are four paragraphs which deserve special mention, presented below:
A year after
invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea in 2014, Russia signed an agreement in
Minsk that was supposed to end the fighting. It is now violating that
agreement; violence between Ukrainian and Russian-backed separatist forces has
reached its highest level since a 2015 cease-fire.
Russia is also
engaging in aggressive and dangerous behavior in the air and on the high seas.
Last week, British fighter jets intercepted three Russian military transport
aircraft approaching the Baltic States. On April 29, a Russian warplane came
within 100 feet of an American fighter jet over the Baltic Sea and did a barrel
roll over the jet, which could have been catastrophic. Two weeks earlier, two
Russian warplanes flew 11 simulated attack passes near an American destroyer in
the Baltic.
All this risks
direct confrontation with the United States. American military forces have gone
out of their way to exercise restraint, but decisions on whether oncoming
planes are a threat are made in an instant, and restraint cannot be assumed.
Anxieties about
Russia among NATO members in Eastern Europe had forced the alliance to make
plans to deploy four combat battalions of roughly 1,000 troops each in Poland,
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Two battalions will be American, one German and
one British. They aren't enough to repulse a Russian invasion, but NATO hopes
they will deter Moscow from crossing alliance borders. NATO is also proceeding
with a European missile defense system intended to protect against Iranian
missiles. Last week, a base in Romania became operational and ground was broken
for a base in Poland. More and bigger military exercises are also on the
agenda.
To dare to say
that Russia invaded Ukraine, when in reality the US engineered an illegal coup
against the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, then stood and
applauded as the Maidan neo-Nazis went on the rampage in the south east is
contemptible. In truth people in the Donbass cried out for direct Russian
intervention as they hid from the bombs of Petro Poroshenko, a man who, echoing
the genocidal rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu, called fellow Ukrainians
terrorists and vowed to get "rid of the parasites."
The US, through
its misinformation centrepiece, the State Department, repeatedly claimed the
Kiev regime was acting to restore law and order and to protect citizens against
the "pro-Russian separatists." No amount of evidence of bombing
civilian areas, killing thousands, hitting schools, hospitals and workplaces,
would sway the US from its dogmatic line, adopted in pursuit of using Ukraine
as a pawn to weaken Russia and bring NATO right to its borders.
The facts are
that there were mass border crossings, but they were Ukrainians fleeing to
Russia after being ethnically cleansed from their homes. Russia for its part
did venture into Ukraine, bringing life-saving humanitarian aid to a desperate,
suffering people being blockaded by Kiev. The Kiev regime cut pensions, food
and medication to the Donbass, making Russian humanitarian assistance
imperative.
As for the
"annexing of Crimea," let the facts speak for themselves. Crimea was
handed over to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954 by Nikita
Khrushchev, an historical error, destined to be reversed in time in accordance
with the will of Crimeans.
In 1991, as the
Soviet Union was breaking up, 93.2% of Crimean's voted to reunify with Russia.
After the upheaval of the Soviet break-up, Russia was hardly in a position to
welcome Crimea back to the motherland.
Crimeans looked
on in shock and horror at the events in Maidan Square. Their fear escalated
even further with the Korsun massacre when Right Sector neo-Nazis murdered
peaceful anti-Maidan protestors returning to their homes.
Crimeans had to
stand their ground at the parliament as Banderites literally tried to overrun
and occupy it. Russian forces stationed at the Sevastopol naval base, along
with local self-defence forces, protected the populace and skilfully negotiated
a bloodless vacation of military bases by Ukrainian forces. This was in stark
contrast to neo-Nazis deliberately sniping to death police and protestors at
Maidan. US and EU political figures tried to pin the blame on Yanukovych, but
when the evidence pointed to the neo-Nazis they went strangely quiet.
Russia will never
let the vital naval base at Sevastapol be lost. Troops were stationed there as
part of the Ukraine/Russia Black Sea Fleet agreement of 1997, allowing up to
25,000 based there. So the idea that these forces invaded is a fallacy; they
invaded nothing.
As the coup was
being planned, Crimea was viewed as the cherry on top, a tremendous
geo-strategic achievement in the encirclement of Russia, complete with routing
it from its strategic naval base. Russia could not allow Ukraine to be
swallowed up by NATO. Unable to stop the Kiev junta taking power, it had to
compromise, protecting a grateful Crimean people, fervent in their desire to
rejoin Russia.
The attitude of
Crimeans was soon expressed in a fair, democratic referendum, exercising their
right to self-determination in accordance with the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. 96.7% voting to secede from Ukraine and rejoin
Russia. US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said the sanctions
imposed on Russia won't get lifted until it returns Crimea to Ukraine. In other
words, democracy means nothing to the USA, and the sanctions will remain
indefinitely.
As for violating
Minsk 2, the NYT is slipping deeper into the mire of its own BS. Under Minsk 2
the Ukraine government is to adopt constitutional reforms allowing for special
status for the Donbass region, with elections to follow. This has not happened.
Ukraine is stalling for time, clearly with no intention of complying with an
agreement 17 months old and counting.
The violent
neo-Nazi proxies trained and unleashed at Maidan have come to haunt the
government of Poroshenko, with Andrey Biletsky, the founder of the nationalist
Azov battalion, vowing that "in case of treacherous elections (in
Donbass), we will oust the parliament and the presidential administration, and
find new deputies." Poroshenko, a deeply unpopular president, has a
powerful incentive to walk away from Minsk, or he may find himself walking, or
rather running, from the likes of Right Sector, Azov, et al.
EU countries,
particularly Germany and France, are becoming increasingly frustrated. Ukraine
continues to be mired in corruption, promised reforms unfulfilled and with an
economy bleeding from huge unemployment, plummeting growth and a staggering
inflation rate.
The NYT is
correct in saying violence has escalated across the contact line and there are
ongoing breaches of the cease fire. In the last week this escalation has taken
the form of daily violations of the cease fire by Ukrainian forces using heavy
weaponry, as reported by Dontesk in their daily defense situation reports:
Over the past
week the Ukrainian military intensified its daily shelling the Donetsk People's
Republic. Overall, Kiev forces shelled the territory of the Republic two
thousand eighty-six times, including a thousand forty-forty times with heavy
weapons.
In additional
violation of the Minsk agreements, Ukraine has concentrated forbidden arms
along the line of contact, including 120mm, 122mm and 152mm mortar shells. It
has deployed 152 mm howitzers, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and Grad
rocket launcher units. Aidar, Azov and Right Sector, responsible for so much
ultra-nationalist violence, maintain their threatening presence.
The people of the
Donbass are tired of the blockade. They live in constant fear of massed
Ukrainian military forces and genocidal neo-Nazi militias waiting for the
opportunity to cause mass deaths.
The European
Union and the US need to pressure Kiev to fulfill its obligations to enable the
holding of local elections as stipulated under Minsk 2. The head of the Donetsk
People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, said if Ukraine fails to implement
the Minsk Agreements until this autumn, the country will hold a plebiscite,
stating, "In any case, I have already said many times that we need the
local elections for ourselves, to finish the state building. This means that we
will not tolerate this situation forever. If the European Union and the United
States do not force Kiev to fulfill its obligations in an acceptable and
reasonable period of time, we will hold the elections ourselves, by our own
laws."
This is in
opposition to the view of Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary for European
and Eurasian Affairs, who said, "we will not recognize the results or will
anybody else in the international community of any elections held in Donbass
outside of the Minsk framework."
By
"international community," Nuland means, of course, the US and anyone
else it can bully, bribe and cajole into its lawless camp. Worrying times lie
ahead, but I am sure we can rely on "objective" NYT reporting.
The
"American destroyer in the Baltic" was the USS Donald Cook, armed
with the Aegis combat system, a missile system capable of attacking Russian
nuclear, as well as non-nuclear, missile batteries on land, sea, and in the
air.
The destroyer was
only 70 kilometers from the Kaliningrad naval base. What sane nation interested
in its own preservation would not respond to such dangerous provocation? But
no, this is "aggressive and dangerous behaviour" by Russia in the
mystifying world of the NYT.
The newly opened
US Aegis Ashore missile system in Romania and the one in Poland due for completion
by 2018 are designed to counter the "Iranian threat" according to
Washington and Brussels. Only in Washington's groupthinkistan can such claims
be treated with anything other than disdain.
Iran will attack
whom exactly? Poland? France? Estonia perhaps? Iran has not been at war since
the war with Iraq in the 1980's. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
has ensured it will not have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons for many
years to come. Iran has always maintained it does not intend to produce nuclear
weapons and there has never been evidence to the contrary.
The Aegis system
is offensive in nature, capable of launching cruise missiles at Russia, the
real target. If the US is able to intercept Russian ballistic missiles, it can adopt
a first strike doctrine, confident in the knowledge it can neutralize Russian
retaliation.
While the US
anti-ballistic missile system is currently far too small to counter Russia's
nuclear arsenal, expansion of the system poses a real threat. When George W.
Bush withdrew the US from the ABM Treaty in 2002, it left the door open for
just such an expansion.
An ABM system
which potentially carries cruise missiles, sitting on Russia's borders with a
flying time of a matter of minutes, threatens the annihilation of the Russian
state and has tilted the balance of power in an extraordinarily dangerous
provocation.
Vladimir Putin,
normally calm and conciliatory in his remarks, was understandably frank in his
reaction, saying, "Those people taking such decisions must know that until
now they have lived calm, fairly well-off and in safety. Now, as these elements
of ballistic missile defense are deployed, we are forced to think how to
neutralize the emerging threats to the Russian Federation."
NATO is steadily
encircling Russia with no signs of slowing down. It has announced the
deployment of the biggest build-up of troops since the end of the cold war;
continually conducts drills on Russia's borders, and sea and air operations in
the Baltic and Black Seas, which is why Russian aircraft intercept US
destroyers and fighter jets; because they are provocative and aggressive to
Russia.
Russia is no
threat to the US. The real motivation behind the Aegis system is the profits of
the military/industrial complex. The military/industrial complex needs wars and
"existential" threats to justify billions of dollars in defence
spending. It controls US military policy and will continue to do so. Barack
Obama and Ash Carter function as lobbyists for the complex, with Carter hyping
up the Russian "threat" conveniently when announcing a four-fold
increase in defence spending in Eastern Europe.
Robert Parry, in
a recent article said:
Does any
intelligent person look at a New York Times article about Russia or Vladimir
Putin these days and expect to read an objective, balanced account?
How true Mr.
Parry, how true.
Se lo conoce cómo "samizdat"
ResponderEliminarpero si acaban de decir que van a luchar codo a codo contra daesh...
ResponderEliminar