Media Misinformation About Russia and Ukraine

“While the US succeeded in goading the Russian government to take the first shot, it is clear that the war in Ukraine is the first stage of a much broader conflict. Having provoked the Russian government into a desperate and disastrous invasion of Ukraine, the United States is using the war to reassert its global hegemony, building a war coalition for what the United States has termed “great power conflict” targeting not only Russia, but China as well.” Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site

“What is important to our managerial and foreign policy elites, is, above all, the major effort and push for a globalist “Great Reset” using the Ukrainian conflict to finally accomplish their objective of bringing the entire world in accord with their plans for a New World Order. And to do that, Russia, which now stands athwart their designs, must be diminished and brought into line.” Boyd D. Cathey, The Unz Review

Why is NATO sending more lethal weaponry to Ukraine? Didn’t Putin say that poring arms into Ukraine would increase the likelihood of war?

Yes, he did, but the US and NATO continue send more shipments anyway. Why?

And why does Ukraine need more weapons?

Could it be that Ukraine’s 600,000-strong military is collapsing like a trailer park in a hurricane? Is that it? Is that why NATO had an emergency confab in Brussels on Thursday to restate their support for a NATO-trained army that has not successfully launched even one major counteroffensive against the Russian military?

The media insists that the Russian offensive “has stalled”. Is that what you call it when your opponent captures an area the size of the UK in less than 3 weeks or when all your air and naval assets have been obliterated or when your Command-and-Control centers have gone up in smoke or when most of your combat troops are either encircled by Russian forces or fleeing to locations west of the Dnieper River? Is that what “stalled” looks like?

Do you get the impression that the media is not being entirely straightforward in their coverage of the war in Ukraine? Do you think that maybe their WEF-linked owners might have a dog in this fight? Here’s how Archbishop Vigano summed it up recently in an article linking “Covid tyranny” to the war in Ukraine:

“The ideological continuity between the pandemic farce and the Russian-Ukrainian crisis continues to emerge, beyond the evidence of the events and statements of the subjects involved, in the fact that the ultimate perpetrators of both are the same, all attributable to the globalist cabal of the World Economic Forum.” (“Exclusive: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò”, Gateway Pundit)

Truer words were never spoken. It’s all manipulation by globalist “stakeholders” pursuing their own narrow interests. As for the war, check out this analysis from a post at Larry Johnson’s new blog A Son of the New American Revolution. I can’t vouch for the author, but he sounds a lot more credible than CNN:

“Official claims of a major Ukrainian counteroffensive near Kiev are completely fake; it’s totally made-up, it never happened—they simply don’t have a coherent military force in the Kiev area that’s capable of conducting an organized counteroffensive. All they have in and around Kiev is various bits and pieces including police and army special forces, civilian militia, regular police, some air defense, and a few artillery batteries. It’s not an offensive force—it’s a crazy quilt. …

What’s left of the Ukrainian army east of the Dniepr river is running out of diesel, and should be out of tube and rocket artillery munitions (and in fact, artillery) by the first week of April. Outside of the Donbass, it’s a war of attrition, with Russia wearing away the Ukraine’s ability to fight, using stand-off weapons (air and missiles) first and foremost. On Sunday, Russia hit a cache of munitions that was being hidden—Hamas-style—at a “vacant” retail and sports complex in downtown Kiev. Russia is finding tons and tons of Ukrainian army materiel, and methodically destroying them….

Russian and Donetsk/Lugansk forces have picked up so many U.S. and British antitank weapons, it’s visually documented they’re now using them on the battlefield. ..

And, the Stinger missile project has failed totally—Uncle Sam & Co. have moved and continue to move hundreds of Stingers into the Ukraine, but it’s only been documented to have brought down about seven manned aircraft since the invasion, and none in the last ten days or so. Some of those hundreds will get out and be sold and… perhaps you shouldn’t fly internationally anymore…

I’m not looking to sugarcoat it for Russia—those Ukrainian military units that did not simply melt away and disappear in the first days, are putting up a fight. But at some point, very likely in the first half of April, they will simply run out of everything, and they will crumble and then the Russian and Donetsk/Lugansk forces will take all or most of “Left Bank” (east of the Dnieper) Ukraine. (“Dreizin Report–Poland prepares to intervene, Ukraine slides into dictatorship”, Jacob Dreizin, The Son of a New American Revolution)

Yes, but can the author be trusted?

I don’t know but– let’s face it– when the media lies relentlessly for 4 years about “Russian collusion” followed by another 2 years of “Everyone’s going to die from the flu”; any critical thinking person is going to look for other sources of information, right? It’s a credibility issue, and, regrettably, “credibility” is a term that is never applied to the mainstream media.

So, where do we go from here?

Good question; and you can see from NATO’s statement that leaders in Washington and across Europe are determined to throw more gas on the fire. That’s the message they’re sending to the world; ‘We are united in our determination to defeat Russia whether we blow up the planet or not.’ Got it? Here’s a clip from their declaration on Thursday:

“Since 2014, we have provided extensive support to Ukraine’s ability to exercise that right. We have trained Ukraine’s armed forces, strengthening their military capabilities and capacities and enhancing their resilience. NATO Allies have stepped up their support and will continue to provide further political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself. …..We remain determined to maintain coordinated international pressure on Russia. We will continue to coordinate closely with relevant stakeholders and other international organizations, including the European Union.

Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine represents a fundamental challenge to the values and norms that have brought security and prosperity to all on the European continent” (“Statement by NATO Heads of State and Government”, NATO)

Are you surprised that NATO would openly boast about arming and training thousands of Ukrainian combatants since 2014? What if an enemy of the United States did the same thing in Mexico or Canada. How would the US react? Here’s how Noam Chomsky put it:

“… for Ukraine to join NATO would be rather like Mexico joining a China-run military alliance, hosting joint maneuvers with the Chinese army and maintaining weapons aimed at Washington. To insist on Mexico’s sovereign right to do so would surpass idiocy. Washington’s insistence on Ukraine’s sovereign right to join NATO is even worse, since it sets up an insurmountable barrier to a peaceful resolution of a crisis that is already a shocking crime and will soon become much worse unless resolved — by the negotiations that Washington refuses to join.” (Truthout)

It looks to me like Chomsky thinks arming Ukraine was a deliberate provocation. Which it was. NATO stuffed the country full of weapons, trained its combat troops and paramilitaries, conducted military operations with NATO, ordered their army to the east so they could terrorize the ethnic Russian population, and then– to top it off– threatened to develop nuclear weapons. In short, they put a gun to Putin’s head and threatened to blow his brains out. If that’s not a provocation, then what is? Here’s more from an article at the WSWS:

(NATO chief) Stoltenberg’s historical reference point was not the Russian invasion of Ukraine last month but the 2014 fascist-led coup that turned Ukraine into a proxy for NATO. “Since 2014, [NATO] Allies have trained Ukraine’s armed forces and significantly strengthened their capabilities. They are putting that training into practice now, on the front lines, with great bravery.”

Stoltenberg made no effort to conceal NATO’s massive military buildup of Ukrainian forces over the past eight years. NATO, he said, has been “providing anti-tank and air defense systems, drones, fuel and ammunition. As well as financial aid.”

He went on, “I would like to commend the courage and the professionalism of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I have met them in Ukraine, and we are all aware that compared to where they were back in 2014, this is a totally different force than eight years ago. The Ukrainian Armed Forces today is much bigger, much better equipped, much better trained, much better commanded. They have much better logistics than they had back in 2014.” (“NATO meets to plot next stage in Ukraine proxy war”, World Socialist Web Site)

Stoltenberg can hardly conceal his elation over the ‘courage and the professionalism” of his NWO army that is acting as cannon fodder in a US proxy-war with Russia. But do the brave Ukrainians that are fighting in this fiasco, know what they’re fighting for?

No, they don’t. They think they’re risking their lives for their country, but, actually, they’re fighting to preserve US global hegemony by annihilating Russia, encircling China and establishing America’s dominance over the world’s most populous and prosperous region of the next century. That’s what they’re fighting for, Washington’s “pivot to Asia”. As the author of the WSWS article admits:

“It is clear that what is involved is not only a war in Ukraine, but a campaign by the US and NATO imperialist powers for war against Russia and a redivision of the world.”

Yes, that’s right, and Biden doesn’t even try to hide it. Here’s what he said just two days ago:

“Now is a time when things are shifting. … There’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it.” (Biden Talks NWO, You Tube)

“New World Order”? You mean, this isn’t about “Ukraine’s borders”, after all?

Nope. That’s all patriotic claptrap dolled-up for the serfs. Here’s how Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov summed it up on Tuesday:

“This is not about Ukraine, this is about a world order in which the United States wants to be the sole sovereign and dominate… This all is about removing the obstacle in the form of Russia on the way to building a unipolar world.”

Indeed, that is the objective, and the US is not going to be timid in pursuing its interests. China and Russia are under the illusion that the emergence of various “power centers” will inevitably bring about change in the global order. But the world doesn’t work that way. The world leader will not willingly concede defeat or graciously abdicate the throne. He must be knocked from his pedestal much like the schoolyard bully must be subdued through force. Regrettably, Ukraine is shaping up to be the battleground where these matters are going to be resolved through force of arms.

In any event, we should try to go beyond the media’s propaganda and see if we can identify the real causes of the current conflict. Why, for example, is the US targeting Russia? In what way is Russia an “obstacle” that is blocking Washington’s strategic ambitions?

The former Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, answers that question in one short paragraph written more than two decades ago. It is as relevant today as it was then:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

In short, Washington sees Russia as a “hostile power” because it sits atop an ocean of oil and gas reserves and because it “defiantly” conducts its own independent foreign policy. For these reasons, Russia is Uncle Sam’s mortal enemy.

Second, Russia’s has been gradually strengthening ties with Europe posing a serious challenge to US economic dominance. The building of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline– which would have greatly increased Europe’s dependency on Russian gas– meant that Washington’s influence would steadily erode while Europe and Asia would move closer to a common economic area in which neither the US Dollar nor NATO security would be necessary. This is why Washington went to such great lengths to provoke Russia to invade Ukraine. They needed to force the severing of economic ties to prevent further integration with EU markets.

The third reason why Russia has become Washington’s Enemy Number 1, is because the US is currently “rebalancing” assets and resources to the Asia-Pacific to take advantage of the anticipated growth-surge in the region. Hillary Clinton famously referred to this as “the pivot to Asia”, a term that was coined in a speech she delivered in 2011. Here’s what she said:

“Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action…” (“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

Those are the geopolitical imperatives driving the conflict:

  1. “To prevent the re-emergence of a new rival on the territory of the former Soviet Union that can dominate their own resources and, thus, challenge US power.
  2. The threat of further economic integration that would unavoidably lead to a massive free trade zone spanning Europe and Asia.
  3. The “pivot” plan to dominate the world’s most populous and prosperous region of the next century.

These are the three strategic policies that are fueling the war. They only relate to Ukraine inasmuch as Ukraine is the unfortunate staging-ground for the “Great Power Conflict” which is steadily gaining momentum. Tuesday’s recommendation, by Polish political leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynsk, that he would recommend that peacekeepers be sent to Ukraine shows that NATO is planning a major escalation of the conflict in the very near future. According to Reuters, Kaczynsk, will propose that:

“An international peacekeeping mission should be sent to Ukraine and be given the means to defend itself….

“I think that it is necessary to have a peace mission – NATO, possibly some wider international structure – but a mission that will be able to defend itself, which will operate on Ukrainian territory,” Kaczynski told a news conference.”

“It will be a mission that will strive for peace, to give humanitarian aid, but at the same time it will also be protected by appropriate forces, armed forces,” said Kaczynski, who is seen as the main decision-maker in Poland.” (“Top Polish politician calls for peacekeeping mission in Ukraine”, Reuters)

Think about that for a minute. Think about what it would mean. The peacekeeping mission:

  1. “will operate on Ukrainian territory (where Russia is carrying out its military operation)
  2. will be able to defend itself. (which means they will be armed.)
  3. will be (protected by) “some wider international structure” (NATO)

Does anyone think this sounds like a good idea? Won’t this will force Russia to treat the NATO personnel as enemy belligerents that are interfering with their military operation?

Of course, it will. So, what are they trying to achieve; WW3? Is that the point? And what does this tell us about Washington’s strategy for Ukraine?

It also tells us that NATO is preparing to engage Russia militarily within Ukraine. That’s what it tells us. Until today, most people had assumed that NATO would not engage Russia militarily because they believed that would greatly increase the prospects of a nuclear exchange. But that is not how the foreign policy establishment sees things. After dealing with Putin for over 20 years, they see Putin as a rational actor who will not escalate unless Russia faces an imminent existence-threat. (A nuclear attack) In other words, the foreign policy mandarins have made the calculation that they can engage Putin in a bloody and protracted ground-war– that will drain Russia’s resources and destroy its economy– without Putin using his nuclear arsenal. It is a risky strategy but not entirely unreasonable given Putin’s behavior in the past. Putin has always been extremely cautious and never impulsive. The foreign policy wonks think they can use that against him. Like we said, it is a high-risk strategy.

Naturally, Russia is appalled by the ‘peacekeeper idea’ as it makes a clash between the two nuclear-armed superpowers almost unavoidable. Here’s what Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in response to the news:

“Our Polish colleagues have already stated that there will be a NATO summit now, and peacekeepers should be deployed. I hope they understand what is at stake. This will be a direct clash between the Russian and NATO armed forces, which everyone not only wanted to avoid but said that it should never take place in principle.”

Is Lavrov is being overly courteous?

Yes, he is. If the United States had issued the warning, they would have said something much more ominous, like this:

“Any armed formations will be treated as legitimate enemy targets and destroyed. Full stop.”

That’s how you deliver a warning. You don’t try to ingratiate yourself with the person who wants to kill your soldiers and erase your country from the map. That doesn’t make any sense at all. If there was ever a time for straight talk, this is it. Lives are at stake.

The “peacekeeper” incident suggests something I’ve suspected for quite a while; that Washington is itching for a land-war in Ukraine, and to some extent, it makes sense. It further polarizes and weakens Russia, it unites the allies around a common cause, and it reinforces NATO’s role as guarantor of regional security. The downside, of course, is that the conflict could quickly escalate leading to a full-blown nuclear war. I believe the neocons at the State Department do not see that as a plausible scenario, so they are pushing as hard as they can to intensify the fighting. Here’s a short clip from the piece by veteran Jacob Dreizin who appears to see things the same way:

“I am confident that, out of impotent rage if nothing else, NATO forces will move into western Ukraine from Poland by mid-April at the latest, if the war is still on by then. The heavy equipment is already there near the border; bringing in the personnel to link up with it is the easy part. With the recent Russian bombing of the U.S./UK “Ho Chi Minh trail” hub at the Yavorov base near the Polish border, they will get in on the ground … to make a statement like, “Not again, because we’re here openly now.”

No, Brandon doesn’t want to do it, but the hawks in Congress and the MSM are running the show now. There will be escalation. It is baked into the cake. In fact, I predicted before the invasion that Poland would take advantage of the war to create a protectorate in western Ukraine, and I stand by my prediction…” (“Dreizin Report–Poland prepares to intervene, Ukraine slides into dictatorship”, Jacob Dreizin, The Son of a New American Revolution)

I think Dreizin is onto something here. Brandon is not on board with the planned escalation, but it might not matter, because the State Department is a hotbed of neocons that are doing whatever they can to grease the skids for a scorched earth, no-holds-barred cage-match with their most-reviled rival, Vladimir Putin. It’s the State Department, the Intel agencies, the Congress and the media that are steering the ship of state now, not Biden. Perhaps, you wondered why the NY Times suddenly decided to ‘come clean’ on the Hunter Biden laptop story? You probably know that it’s not because the Times editors had a change-of-heart and wanted to inform the public or “speak truth to power”. Of course, not. The Times trotted out the laptop dossier to let Biden know that they “got him by the shorthairs” and if he doesn’t play ball, he’s toast.

Blackmail? Would the neocons really blackmail the President of the United States in order to escalate in Ukraine?

You bet, they would.

The neocons have their heart-set on a land-war war in Europe, and from the looks of things, they might just get one.

1 Like

On the ground reporting vs. The Chronicle.

Artillery Strike Hits Center Donetsk. Russia - Ukraine War

Report by Patrick Lancaster
US Navy veteran and independent crowd-funded journalist.
Over the 8 years of the Ukraine War I made more video reports in anti-Ukraine Government (Donetsk People's Republic) controlled territory than any other western journalist.

If this video is blocked in your location access it via a VPN e.g. https://www.torproject.org/

28th March 2022

By David Hughes, PA Political Editor

Vladimir Putin’s forces are abducting Ukrainian politicians, activists and journalists as Russia fails to meet its military objectives, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said.

She condemned the “abhorrent tactic” following work by Ukrainian human rights group ZMINA, which claimed to have identified dozens of individuals who had been abducted, with thousands more deported to Russia.

Ms Truss said Mr Putin was resorting to “desperate measures” as British military analysts said Russia’s invasion had suffered from a lack of momentum, poor logistics and low morale.

The Foreign Secretary said: “Putin continues to use abhorrent tactics against the Ukrainian people, including abducting innocent civilians.

“He is not achieving his objectives and is resorting to desperate measures.

“Putin must fail in Ukraine.”

Ms Truss, in a statement to the House of Commons, later told MPs: “We know that Putin is not serious about talks, he is still wantonly bombing innocent citizens across Ukraine and that is why we need to do more to ensure that he loses and we force him to think again.

“We must not just stop Putin in Ukraine but we must also look to the long term. We need to ensure that any future talks don’t end up selling Ukraine out or repeating the mistakes of the past.”

ZMINA’s chief Tetiana Pechonchyk said: “Russia is detaining and disappearing civilians in an attempt to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people.

“Today we are publishing our first list of those who have been taken so the Kremlin knows the world is watching and will not allow them to come to harm.

“In total we have so far documented 39 cases of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions in the Ukrainian territories newly occupied by Russia.”

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky has signalled he is prepared to offer a series of concessions to Russia to end the fighting.

Ukraine could declare neutrality and offer guarantees about its non-nuclear status as part of a peace deal, Mr Zelensky suggested, but he stressed the desire to ensure the country’s “territorial integrity” – stopping the Kremlin from carving it up.

Downing Street said the UK would support Ukraine’s negotiating position but Boris Johnson firmly believes that Mr Putin “must fail”.

Mr Johnson and Mr Zelensky “shared information about the peace talks” in a phone call on Monday.

The two leaders also “discussed strengthening sanctions against Russia” and defence co-operation between the UK and Ukraine, Mr Zelensky said.

The Government distanced itself from US President Joe Biden’s suggestion that Mr Putin “cannot remain in power” – an unscripted comment the White House was forced to row back on, insisting he was not calling for regime change in the Kremlin.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said Mr Johnson “believes that Putin must fail in Ukraine and the sovereignty of Ukraine must be restored” ahead of the latest round of scheduled talks between the two sides’ negotiators on Tuesday.

“Obviously it would be for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian government to decide on the right approach to negotiations. We will support them in that,” the spokesman said.

“But it is not for the UK or any other country to seek to impose its will on the Ukrainian government as to what it should accept in those negotiations.”

In response to Mr Biden’s comments, the spokesman said: “It is up to the Russian people who should be governing them.”

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer told LBC that Mr Biden’s comments were “not helpful”.

Cabinet minister Nadhim Zahawi, joking about the role of “education tsars” in his own department during a visit to a London school, said: “There’s one tsar I would like to get rid of now – but that’s up to the Russian people.”

In other developments:

– Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich was among a group of three people involved in Russia-Ukraine peace talks on March 3-4 who experienced symptoms of chemical weapons poisoning, investigative website Bellingcat reported.

– The Home Office has now granted 21,600 visas to Ukrainians with family links in the UK.

– Leading war crimes lawyer Sir Howard Morrison QC will act as an independent adviser to Ukrainian prosecutor general Iryna Venediktova.

– The Cabinet Office issued guidance to public sector bodies urging them to check if they have contracts with Russian or Belarusian companies and cancel them if possible.

– The UK and Australia announced joint plans to supply humanitarian aid to refugees fleeing the fighting.
British defence intelligence analysts said on Monday that Russia has gained most ground in southern Ukraine, in the vicinity of Mariupol where heavy fighting continued as Mr Putin’s forces attempts to capture the strategically important port.

But the Ministry of Defence said logistical shortages, a lack of momentum and low morale were hitting the Russian invaders, combined with “aggressive fighting by the Ukrainians”.
.......

2 Likes
3 Likes

‘If Putin is a criminal, then we are 10 times worse’ – Italian reporter after visiting Donbass

Why would the US and Europe want a war? Listen to Putin on their debt:

One reason - the cancellation of their Russia Debt as victors (but the US and Europe will not win)

1 Like

Just heard about a survey that says about 75% of the population doesn't trust MSM. Their lies will catch up to them. And remember how politicians and the media pushed the same false narratives about other leaders (to get public backing for what the elites wanted)?

29 March 2011 - World leaders say Gaddafi must go

Gaddafi wanted a gold-backed currency. He was stopped (Banksters).

March 2003 - At 1:22, George W. Bush says Saddam must leave Iraq in 48 hours

Saddam was going to sell the oil in Euros. Stopped (Oil Barrens).

2013 - Obama and Erdogan: Syria's Assad Must Go

Assad wouldn't let them build a pipeline through Syria.
Now, under Russia's protection.
Chemical attacks were false flags.

Biden chimes in with the same rhetoric.

March 2022 Biden tells crowd Putin 'cannot remain in power'

But the White House walks back - White House forced to walk back Biden's comments on Putin - YouTube

And back again - Biden Reaffirms his Call for Putin’s Overthrow

Yeah, Russia is a super-power!

Afghanistan also wouldn't let The West build a pipeline either - They were targeted.

If their efforts fail, they'll do another false flag as a reason to go in with the military.

Get the pattern now?

The West is doing everything it can to try to "have reason" to initiate something with Russia (because poking the bear hasn't worked yet).

Listen to what Putin said in 2018. They would use nuclear weapons if a potential aggressor launched an attack on Russia or its territory, only afterwards they'd respond with a second strike. It's a retaliation. This means global catastrophe, and there will be victims. But the retaliation will destroy the aggressor. Russia would be martyrs and the aggressors would drop dead. They won't have time to repent.

Maybe Putin knows about Prophecy – God has prepared Russia to take down the Evil West.

https://www.rt.com/russia/552943-biden-russia-regime-change/
By Scott Ritter

Regime change has been the US goal in Russia for years

For all the damage control that followed Biden’s ‘Putin cannot remain in power’ remark, that’s exactly what Washington wishes for

It was the culminating event of a four-day trip planned at the last minute for the purpose of rallying Europe to the cause of standing up to Russia’s military incursion into Ukraine. Speaking before a large and enthusiastic crowd in the Polish capital of Warsaw, US President Joe Biden concluded his remarks by going off-script. After condemning what he called his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin’s “brutality” in Ukraine, Biden uttered nine words that, in a blink of an eye, made moot whatever else had been accomplished on this trip: “For God’s sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power.”

Biden departed the venue and headed straight for Air Force One, which was standing by to fly him back to the US. Before his plane could get off the ground, the White House was scrambling to contain the damage done by Biden’s most recent gaffe. “The President’s point,” an unnamed White House official explained to the press, “was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.”

When Biden arrived back in the US, he was asked if he was, in fact, calling for regime change in Moscow. Biden offered a terse one-word answer: “No.”

But the off-the-cuff statement continued to haunt Biden, who was compelled to later offer a more detailed explanation for his outburst, telling the press “I was expressing the moral outrage I felt…[at] the actions of this man [i.e., Putin],” Biden said. “I wasn't then, nor am I now, articulating a policy change.”

Biden later added that “Nobody believes I was talking about taking down Putin. Nobody believes that.”

Apparently enough people were concerned about that very issue to prompt diplomats in the US and Europe to go into overdrive to explain otherwise. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that the US had “repeatedly” stated that “we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia–or anywhere else. For us, it’s not about regime change,” he explained. “The Russian people have to decide who they want to lead them.”

Josep Borrell, the EU’s chief diplomat, also stepped up to explain away Biden’s remarks. “[In the EU] we are not after a regime change, that is something for the Russian citizens to decide, if they of course could decide that.”

Unfortunately for both Blinken and Borrell, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. According to British journalist Niall Ferguson, a senior Biden administration official was quoted as saying, prior to Biden’s slip of the tongue, that in the aftermath of the Russian military incursion into Ukraine, “The only end game now is the end of Putin regime. Until then, all the time Putin stays, [Russia] will be a pariah state that will never be welcomed back into the community of nations.”

Neither the sentiment (i.e., Putin has to go) nor the mechanism of regime change (that the Russian people will force him out) represent new thinking in terms of the West’s approach to the current Russian government. In fact, both are well known to Russia. According to Michael McFaul, the US Ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that the US works hard to foster regime changes around the world, including in Russia, through the vehicle of so-called “color revolutions” or mass civil uprisings.

Back in 2005, McFaul himself wrote an entire paper on US efforts at regime change in the former USSR. This was one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s decision to send him to Moscow proved so unpopular with the Russian side.

The Kremlin accused the US of engaging in such action in Russia following the December 2011 Russian Duma election, narrowly won by then-Prime Minister Putin’s party. At a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the 2011 Duma election, expressed her “serious concern about the conduct of the elections,” and called for a “full investigation of all reports of fraud and intimidation,” adding “The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted. And that means they deserve free, fair, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.”

Putin in turn accused Clinton of giving “the signal” to opposition leaders to undertake mass unrest to undermine the Russian elections. “[Opposition leaders] heard the signal and with the support of the US state department began active work,” Putin said after Clinton’s comments. “We are all grownups here. We all understand the organizers are acting according to a well-known scenario and in their own mercenary political interests.”

McFaul underscored the concern on the part of Putin when it came to Clinton’s remarks. “He was genuinely worried about this mobilization against him,” McFaul said later, “and that’s when he pivoted hard against us. For Putin, this was confirming his theory of US foreign policy.”

McFaul would know, given the fact that he was the architect of the so-called “Russia reset” policy undertaken by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2009. The real purpose of this reset policy, however, was regime change–to facilitate the empowerment of President Dmitry Medvedev, the former Prime Minister who had swapped places with Putin in 2008 due to the Russian Constitution limiting Putin to two consecutive terms in office (the Constitution has since been amended), to permanently replace Putin as President.

Under McFaul’s influence, the White House limited contact with Putin, placing all its attention on Medvedev. This full-court press for preventing Putin’s return to the Kremlin as President extended to Joe Biden, who at the time was Obama’s Vice President.

During a trip to Moscow in March 2011, Biden allegedly urged Putin not to seek reelection, telling a group of Russian opposition leaders that it would be better for Russia if Putin did not run for re-election next year. “At the end of the meeting,” Boris Nemtsov, a leading opposition figure who was murdered in Moscow on February 27, 2015, noted in his blog, “Biden said that in Putin’s place he would not stand for president in 2012 because this would be bad for the country and for himself.”

Putin, of course, ignored Biden’s “advice”, and went on to re-take the presidency in the March 2012 election.

The Russian government has long held that Western intelligence services had been using “democracy promotion” as a front to organize political opposition to Putin with the goal of removing him from office–i.e., regime change. One of the most public aspects of this effort was the discovery by Russia of a so-called “spy rock” used by the British intelligence agency, MI6, to communicate with its agents in Moscow. At the same time this object (in reality, a covert electronic device used to facilitate communications) was in operation, the Russian intelligence services were accusing the British of secretly funding Russian political opposition groups.

Incidents such as the ‘spy rock’ led the Russian government to crack down on foreign-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs), first passing laws which compelled groups that receive foreign funding and are deemed to engage in political activities to register as “foreign agents,” before barring NGOs altogether if they were deemed to pose a threat to Russia’s constitutional order, defense or security. The list of banned organizations included USAID, prompting the Obama administration to withdraw from the Civil Society Working Group of the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Thomas Melia, the group’s American co-chair, observed that the “recent steps taken by the Russian government to impose restrictions on civil society…called into serious question whether maintaining that mechanism was either useful or appropriate.” His sentiments were echoed by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who told the press that “the working group was not advancing the cause of civil society in Russia.”

Left unspoken was the reality that what the US called “advancing the cause of civil society in Russia” was seen by Russia as little more than thinly disguised efforts at regime change through foreign-funded “color revolution.”

While the overt and covert efforts of the US and its western allies to undermine and overthrow the Putin government by facilitating internal political opposition inside Russia took a hiatus during the four years of the Trump administration, the election of Joe Biden in 2020, and the advent of the current Ukraine crisis, has led to the re-engagement by the Biden administration to attempt to weaken Putin’s hold on power and, ultimately, to remove the long-serving Russian President from office.

The Biden administration has taken to the artifice of speaking to the people of Russia directly to foment internal unrest inside Russia. “We know many of you want no part of this war,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said, addressing the people of Russia. “You–like Ukrainians, like Americans, like people everywhere–want the same basic things: good jobs, clean air and water, the chance to raise your kids in safe neighborhoods, to send them to good schools, to give them better lives than you had. How in the world does President Putin’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine help you achieve any of these things?”

Left unsaid was what Blinken expected the Russian people to do about it.

Blinken’s comments followed those made by Joe Biden in the days leading up to the Russian military incursion into Ukraine when, on February 15, the US President addressed the Russian people directly: “To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy,” Biden said. “And I do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against Ukraine–a country and a people with whom you share such deep ties of family, history, and culture.”

The State Department has taken to sending out tweets in the Russian language encouraging public demonstrations against the war. “The open protest of Russians against President Putin and his war is a very courageous act,” one such tweet declares. “As President Biden said, the people of Russia are not our enemy. We blame this war on President Putin, not them.”

The Biden administration has gone out of its way to make sure that its program of communicating directly to the Russian people to promote domestic discontent inside Russia is part and parcel of an overall strategy to remove Putin from office. Biden himself underscored in his February 15 remarks that “We do not seek to destabilize Russia.”

But some in the US elite are, in fact, calling for the removal of Putin from power. “Is there a Brutus in Russia?” Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican (from South Carolina) known for his anti-Putin sentiment, wrote in a March 3 tweet. “Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military? The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country–and the world–a great service.”

When called out for his tweet, Graham doubled down. “He [Putin] needs to be dealt with by the Russian people,” Graham said. “I’m not asking to invade Russia to take him out. I’m not asking to send American ground forces into Ukraine to fight the Russian army. I am asking the Russian people to rise up and end this reign of terror.”

The Biden White House was quick to push back against Graham’s March 3 tweet. “No, we are not advocating for killing the leader of a foreign country or a regime change,” White House spokesperson Jen Psaki noted. “That is not the position of the United States government and certainly not a statement you’d hear come from the mouth of anybody working in this administration.”

Then Joe Biden, the President of the United States, gave voice to that very same sentiment during his Warsaw address: “For God’s sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power.”

There simply is no other way to spin that statement. Whether spoken or unspoken, it is clear to all that the official policy of the United States is, and has been since 2009, regime change in Moscow, using the forces of so-called “democratic reform” (i.e., mass unrest) to oust President Putin.

Unfortunately for Biden, Blinken, Graham and their fellow regime-change travelers, an opinion poll from Levada (recognized as a foreign agent in Russia) showed that the Russian leader’s approval rating was over 71%. The chances of their regime-change fantasy coming true at this stage in the game are exactly zero.

1 Like

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/the-bucha-provocation.html

The Bucha Provocation

The Bucha 'Russian' atrocities propaganda onslaught may have worked well in the 'west' but it lacks evidence that Russia had anything to do with it.

The former Indian ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar calls it an outright fake:

An indignant Moscow has angrily demanded a United Nations Security Council meeting on Monday over the allegations of atrocities by Russian troops in areas around Kiev through the past month. Prima facie, this allegation is fake news but it can mould misperceptions by the time it gets exposed as disinformation.

A Tass report says: “The Russian Defense Ministry said on Sunday that the Russian Armed Forces had left Bucha, located in the Kiev region, on March 30, while “the evidence of crimes” emerged only four days later, after Ukrainian Security Service officers had arrived in the town. The ministry stressed that on March 31, the town’s Mayor Anatoly Fedoruk had confirmed in a video address that there were no Russian troops in Bucha. However, he did not say a word about civilians shot dead on the street with their hands tied behind their backs.”

Even more surprising is that within minutes of the “breaking news”, western leaders — heads of state, foreign ministers, former politicians — popped up with statements duly kept ready and only based on the videos, seconds-long videos and a clutch of photos, ready to pour accusations. No expert opinion was sought, no forensic work was done, no opportunity given to the accused to be heard.

I had yesterday, at 15:09 UTC, posted a timeline of the events in Bucha on Twitter. Here is an expanded version.

Cont. reading: The Bucha Provocation

1 Like

Appracaite you posting this video.

LLTK

1 Like

Removed

:exclamation:According to confirmed information, in Moschun, 23 kilometres north-west of Kiev, on the evening of April 5, servicemen of the 72nd Ukrainian main centre for psychological operations carried out another staged shooting of civilians allegedly killed by violent actions of the Russian Armed Forces for further distribution through the Western media.

:white_small_square:Similar events have now been organized by the Ukrainian special services in Sumy, Konotop and other cities.

Source : Russia MoD Telegram

You're welcome.

That looks like a waterdrop or speck of dirt moving on the windshield. Others can be seen moving in the video also.

Here's what I believe is the original (and clearer) version of the video

Yeah that's a much clearer copy.

It's so clear that you can see the object move even above ("detatched") the body which is one fact that makes it clear that it is a waterdrop and not a hand.

Agreed

1 Like

Think it was this one. Gonzalo removed it due to YT policies. Had uploaded this earlier